rabas

Sure they do. Stunning Images Reveal How Lightning Rods Work Image captured with high-speed camera shows several lightning rods trying to connect to the downward discharge.

How bad? Listen to real Russians! The Russian government just made it illegal (with jail time) to discuss information about Russian refinery production rates of gasoline and diesel fuel. That bad. click to hear report.

Correct. They'll publish anything left or right but often distort it into clickbait, like youtube. Like they twisted Orban's pre-election 'peace march' to be a broad EU anti-war movement. Anything to get your attention. We are rapidly moving from the soundbite into clickbait era. No info required.

You have no proof that's true for people alive today. Me, I will be converted to AI and put in a lead-lined carbon-steel thumb drive.

Whoa, like I said can't fool me. That's the same protest in Hungary that I referenced in my post. It's a protest in Hungary staged by Orban for election with a misleading headline by Times of India. Did you watch?

Can't fool me. Do you mean: Thousands demanding change in Hungary Feb 17 Thousands Protest Against Hungary's Orban March 26 Tens of thousands march in Budapest against Orban April 6 Thousands protest Hungary’s Orban in government stronghold May 6 Orban Challenger holds mass demonstration on eve of EU election June 5 or Orbán stages ‘peace march’ before European election June 1

I'll add that the Orange revolution was a result of the poisoning (and assassination attempt) of Viktor Yushchenko, then pro Western (and NATO) candidate in Ukrainian's 2004 presidential election, and subsequent massive election corruption that led to pro Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych's temporary election, which was later nullified. Yushchenko was poisoned by dioxin, a horrific poison that left his face scared. Dioxin is in the same genre as other Putin toxins like radioactive polonium and banned nerve gasses.

The leaked cable is indeed very interesting. Mostly a detailed summary of Russian views from various sources. But again note there is no mention (that I could see) of any Western promise to not expanding NATO. You would think the Russians would have at least mentioned it if there were.

Yes, that's why I put the link to more details in the post, it is controversial. In fact, the title of the link page is “Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of Eastward NATO expansion”. It's a good summary. If you read the link, “not one more inch” comes from discussions on Germany reunification, at which time the Warsaw Pact was still intact and would not collapse for more than a year. Can you imagine the West promising Russia that they would not move one more inch into Warsaw Pact countries until their unforeseen collapse? So not one inch was about Germany reunification. The other point, there are no recorded notes, not even on a paper napkin, no mention of the issue in the agreement itself, and no statements about its absence in the agreement after signing. I don't know, not sure anyone does but as Julia said Putin's statement that it was guaranteed seems to hold little water. It was a Putinism. But note Julia seems to suggest Putin believed it. She has made similar points before about what is in Putin's mind versus reality. That is something that needs consideration.

But you forget to mention the Russian and Ukraine conditions of recruitment are completely different.

Watch (2 min) Russian born Russia/Putin expert Julia Ioffe discuss NATO guarantees. This is a short clip from her longer talk Putin and the Presidents. Also see The Putin Files. Here are a lot of details.

He is famous and is in Wikipedia. He is Russian, works in Russia, writes in Russian so he appears in Russian Wiki. (Wiki is author language based, not English). Click image for his Wiki page in Google English. He has numerous accolades. He is a founder of Russia's Higher School of Economics. He is author of many publications in the economic press and the first textbook in Russia on market economics for HS students, published in large quantities. "Today he is one of the most authoritative specialists in the field of marketing and pricing in Russia" and "among the 12 best teachers of Russian business education", etc. He was recently exiled with many other experts after being deemed a foreign agent. Why? His book contents "do not contribute to love for the Motherland." (Putin) He is now in Lithuania and is quoted in Western media: Business Insider, Business Insider, Reuters. Economists inside Russia can't speak freely out of fear, those outside tell a very different story. Western media often confuses the two streams of real and fake info out of Russia. One should not believe anything coming from Putin's Russia. I skip the rest of your post as it starts on a false premise. I did give you a little red heart to show your negative feedback is not mine. 🙂

Igor Lipsits is a famous Russian economist, now in exile as are many qualified Russians. He often discusses how Putin's war is destroying the fabric of Russia. He writes for The Insider RU. Here is a full article by him: How the war will bankrupt the Russian economy His message is identical to that of another exiled Russian in this video from INSIDER RUSSIA posted by jvs on the previous page. Everything in the video is exactly what my Russian friends have told me over the last 30+ years. I can't recommend this video enough. If you want to know the real truth about Putin's Russia, look for qualified Russians who love their country, are outside and safe from assassination, and who want to tell the story. Garry Kasparov and Julia Ioffe are two excellent examples.

Dumber is believing that Putin's Russia has a right to control Ukraine, which Russia already agreed was an sovereign nation. Below that is believing the US navel blockade on the high seas stopping Russian ships with Russian nukes is somehow equivalent to Russia invading and slaughtering the population of Ukraine. But that's what soundbites do to people.

DW: Chair of the Defense Committee of the German Bundestag Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann was asked "What happens if a Russian fighter jet is shot down by a Western weapon in Russian airspace?" Answer: " Russia will have one less plane..." Her full answer here (video). One smart woman, maybe she should be the next EU commissioner.

Time magazine June 4. interview with Biden: 1) Full transcript [reference] 2) Time fact check of Biden's comments [reference] It's a long interview, the first 40% is on Ukraine. Asked if NATO is on a slippery slope to war, Biden: "No, we're on a slippery slope for war if we don't do something about Ukraine." Biden's comment on NATO and Ukraine: Biden: Peace looks like making sure Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine. That's what peace looks like. And it doesn't mean NATO, they are part of NATO. It means we have a relationship with them like we do with other countries, where we supply weapons so they can defend themselves in the future. But it is not, if you notice, I was the one when—and you guys did report it at TIME—the one that I was saying that I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine.

Sigh. "Peace summit without inviting the main protagonist, in reality the only party that can materially affect the course of the war" Putin was "not invited" because he repeatedly and publicly refused to attend [reference- see section Russia]. It is now reported that he also demanded China not go. This was one of his 3 demands on his recent trip to Beijing. [reference]. So you mean Putin wishes never ending war?

Sigh. 27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article. Content in the public domain is limited to the same restrictions.

Excellent video. Prof John Mearsheimer argues that there were two camps from the 1990s in Clinton's time, one pro NATO expansion and one against NATO expansion that included Ukraine and Georgia. He was against and argued that attempts to include (independent) Ukraine in NATO would trigger Putin to react in the way that happened. In that he was right. The bedrock of his argument in the video (listen) is based on Putin, not Russia, not the Russian people, not the well being of the world, but Putin. Now read what he says in one of his books [wiki] "Mearsheimer's first book, Conventional Deterrence, addresses the issue of how the decision to start a war depends on the projected outcome of the war, i.e., how the decision makers' beliefs about the outcome of the war affect the success or failure of deterrence. Mearsheimer's basic argument is that deterrence is likely to work when the potential attacker believes that an attack will be costly and is unlikely to succeed." So the reason we are here is 1) despot Putin remains in power and 2) The West, starting at least with Obama, failed to deter him. NOT because there is anything good about Putin for the Russian people or the world. Anyone selling this video to mean Putin is good either lacks understanding or is pushing propaganda.

Unrelated to my post. Talking is a two way process where people focus on what each other is saying. Your 1.5 year old post is also not related to current events in Ukraine and violates forum cut and past rules.

Soundbite propaganda. No one wishes for never ending war. Most reasonable people wish that Russia (perhaps without despot Putin) could find better ways to work together with the rest of the world. Maybe not start the first war of territorial conquest since forever.

Putin's failed push into Kharkiv achieved one thing, broad Allied permission to use Western weapons inside Russia. Here is one Russian expert's impassioned plea on Putin state propaganda TV. "... but to go to the war of cities, to a conscious missile strike on many populated cities is a drunken irresponsibility!", he says using a well understood scale of evil, drunken irresponsibility. Medvedev, do you understand ?

As if anyone knows Putin’s ambitions lol. You have explained Putin's ambitions and intentions on Ukraine in detail several times. You mean you don't know? If not, which source would be more accurate and trustworthy: 10000s of highly skilled international experts in independent think tanks not controlled by any government, many from Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Balkan states. Russian state propaganda controlled by Putin. You.

You've now written three fictional essays based on the same false premise. NATO is not going to attack Russian territory. The rest is just LAW, long and wrong. Russia spending 2+ years slogging away at Ukraine should tell you Russia has little chance of taking on NATO's far superior numbers, which you misrepresent. NATO vs Russia numbers TBH, your essay style is what I might get asking my Thai wife to write about why Western food tastes better than Thai food, which she doesn't believe. As for Russia's superior tech, you mean Putin's claimed unstoppable hypersonjc missiles, impenetrable S-400 systems, and indestructible T-90 tanks (of which they've lost 125+)? Take Putin's vaunted $1+ billion S-400 system. Good specs but multiple Western systems have made short work of them, Russia has lost ~11 systems so far. Storm shadows go right past and more are being removed by the new ATCKMS. India wonders if they made a mistake buying S-400. VIDEO Putin explains Crimea is now safe because of S400 (NOT) S-400 fires 6 missiles at 3 incoming ATACMS hitting none.

I DID PROVIDE A LINK. <== emergency use of large font It was the sole purpose of my original post: It would be nice if you acknowledge your error.