heybruce

Oh the irony!

No, it is not implied. Insisting that extreme positions that have not been stated are implied is simplistic. Russia is being thwarted with the current approach of supplying Ukraine with weapons and economic sanctions against Russia. If this approach is maintained or, better yet, strengthened Russia will be stopped without the involvement of NATO forces in Ukraine. Apparently you have not considered the possibility that some of the posters on this forum have well-informed, nuanced opinions on this matter that do not agree with your views.

Only simple minded people maintain that all those who disagree with them are ridiculous extremists. For example, there is one poster here who maintains that those who advocate support for Ukraine want NATO forces fighting in Ukraine. I don't recall anyone advocating that.

When has Ukraine ever threatened Russia? NATO is a defensive alliance. Its only threat is of a military response if a NATO member is attacked. With that in mind, the only reason Putin would not want Ukraine in NATO is because Putin wants to be able to attack Ukraine, as he has demonstrated.

To date only a small fraction of nations have tried to obtain nuclear weapons. Rewarding Russian nuclear blackmail by allowing it to annex Ukraine would not only incentivize Russia to do the same again (good bye Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and how many others?), it would also inspire far more countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

That is true if Putin is at least partially sane and responsible, but... At the end of the World War II when it was clear Germany would lose, reports state that Hitler wanted to take down the entire German nation and people because they had failed him. My greatest fear is that Putin is equally mad, and no sane person in Russia between him and the missiles would stop an order to launch. In spite of that I don't agree with giving in to nuclear blackmail. Rewarding blackmail results in more blackmail, and rewarding nuclear blackmail will result in autocrats all over the world striving to acquire nuclear weapons so they too can play the blackmail game. In short, rewarding nuclear blackmail doesn't make the world safer, it makes the world more dangerous.

I don't believe Ukraine would waste bombs on civilian targets in Russia. Now if they can identify and target legitimate Russian military targets that will be used against Ukraine--logistic centers, communication centers, military vehicles preparing to cross into Ukraine--then by all means they should go for it.

It was meant as dark sarcasm.

He had excellent reasons. A war of conquest to re-establish a Russian empire similar to, or bigger than, the Soviet Union would distract Russian citizens from the rampant corruption, stagnant living standards and absence of democracy.

That's a good point. The redshirt movement arose because of military coups against Thaksin and democracy. Had there been no coups there would have been no redshirts. Also, the appeal of the Shinawatras was waning by the end of 2013. Had the yellowshirts allowed the 2014 election it would have resulted in a democratic government in which the Shinawatra family would have had much less influence. However it would also have resulted in a democratic government with new electoral legitimacy. For reasons that can't be discussed here the military wouldn't allow that. But some people don't care about political institutions and the future of Thailand. So long as their little part of the world is quiet and predictable they don't care what damage is being done to the country.

Now you are grasping at straws. The true body count of the military's dealing in human trafficking and any other profitable kind of smuggling, "disappearing" of dissidents, violent crackdowns on people demonstrating for democracy, etc will never be known. But don't pretend it doesn't commit crimes.

For those with selective memories: "More than 80 civilians and six soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured by the time the military violently put down the protest on 19 May. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Thai_political_protests

If that is true, it is because of the military and the people who prefer military rule. It is not the fault of those protesting for democracy.

Keeping your head well buried in the sand, aren't you. When was a military government not corrupt? When democracy is allowed in a country that has had extended periods of military rule resulting in endemic corruption, the first order of business is establishing democracy as the norm instead of as an occasional break from military rule. Only when elected leaders are confident they can move against corruption without triggering another coup can the voters make eliminating corruption a priority when they vote. Thailand has never been allowed to reach this state. But clearly that's ok with you.

Right...making you happy is all that's important for Thailand. Were the redshirts and Thaksin engaged in human trafficking? The military was: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/rise-and-fall-of-general-manas-thailands-top-trafficker But I suppose since that didn't inconvenience you it was ok.

Maybe if you plan to short: "Vladimir Putin is said to be considering a gradual approach to rolling back the harsh capital controls that have propped up Russian markets since the invasion of Ukraine." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/putin-prepares-stop-propping-russian-202038651.html The capital controls reversed the declining ruble. If they are relaxed the ruble will probably resume its fall.

Russia should stop driving its neighbors to buy NATO arms and request NATO membership.

Two possibilities: The defense systems on the ship weren't as good as advertised. The people operating the defense systems were incompetent. Of course both could be correct.

Because the courts will find a way to rule that anyone that can change things, and rock the gravy boat for the military and elites, gets banned from running for office. That's how this military government works.

Instead of corrupt democracy with the chance of improvement, you choose corrupt military rule with no chance of improvement.

Russia is intentionally bombing civilian targets with no military value.

Give him time. "Eugene Finkel, an expert on genocide at Johns Hopkins University in Bologna, Italy, said the rhetoric isn’t just “a few crazy hard-liners” spouting off. It’s coming from prominent government officials, showing up in the press, being heard on state television — and is “clearly genocidal.”" "“They’re talking about destroying Ukrainians as a group, Ukraine as a state and as an identity community,” Finkel said. “The argument is we are going to destroy this national community as it exists and create something new that we like instead, no matter how many people we kill in the process.”" https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/13/russias-war-ukraine-founders-ominous-rhetoric-gains-ground/

When was a fair, independently monitored referendum ever proposed, conducted or refused? Step one of the Minsk treaty, the cessation of fighting, was never accomplished. Do you think Russia and its stooges in the break-away areas would agree to an internationally monitored referendum in which all residents prior to the 2014 split are allowed to vote? I don't.

https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/corruption-index The corruption index does not show a clear difference between elected and military rule. However it is worth noting that the index climbed (meaning less corruption) during Thaksin's final years and fell after the 2006 and 2014 coups. Even if you maintain there are no significant differences between corruption under military vs democratic rule, it speaks poorly of you that you clearly prefer military rule. Corruption is reduced under democratic rule when the voters decide they have had enough of it. Military rulers who benefit from corruption have no incentive to reduce it.

Show us the posts advocating western governments sending troops into combat in Ukraine.