heybruce

Of course I know that. That's why, after you posted about nukes falling on Europe, I posted:

I think that if these are delivered in sufficient quantities: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10697657/Britain-send-anti-ship-missiles-armoured-vehicles-Ukraine-Putins-offensive-ramps-up.html they will be far more useful to Ukraine than tanks.

Thailand won't have legal recreational marijuana until some well connected hi-so families can dominate the industry. Just like with alcohol.

Exactly. In places where it is legal, recreational marijuana has THC levels of 10% and higher, usually much higher. You'd have to smoke your body weight of 0.2% stuff to get a buzz. Or so I'm told. ????

You posted: "I'm sure none of us want to see Europe destroyed in a nuclear war. " That would be a regional war.

I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as a small or regional nuclear war. Our over-populated world is critically dependent upon a technological infrastructure that will be destroyed by a few above ground nuclear explosions. Panic, hunger, anarchy, collapse.

Is Russia saying that Ukraine is committing major atrocities against it's own citizens in order to make Russia look bad? And doing it without any Ukrainians witnessing and reporting on it? Does Putin think anyone outside of Russia will believe this? Does anyone inside Russia believe it?

Hopefully the Russian people are smart enough to understand that losing to Ukraine won't destroy, or significantly damage Russia. It would probably destroy Putin, but that would be good for Russia.

But Putin is clearly trying to profit from nuclear blackmail. Unfortunately things can get out of hand when that kind of game is being played.

Actually it would be easy to tell. Why not a peace treaty that allows all the citizens of that lived in the occupied regions to vote on being part of Ukraine or Russia? These would have to be fair, internationally monitored election with no opportunities to rig the results. Crimea might elect to become part of Russia. I doubt that Donbas would. Of course there is no way that Russia would agree to these elections. It is conducting a smash and grab of Ukrainian territory and won't let elections get in its way. Your ignorant and arrogant assumption that you are better informed than me is noted. I get my news from the BBC app (not television), The Economist, The Washington Post, and other credible print sources. If you consider these propaganda there is little point in debating a mind as closed as yours.

On what do you base your assumption that the majority of citizens in Crimea and Donbas didn't/don't want to be part of Ukraine? Were they ever allowed to express their preference in a fair, independently monitored election? I've read reports that suggest that the warlords supporting Russia in Donbas are gangsters who expect to come out well ahead in the corruption stick by doing so.. I can't prove it, but you can't prove your speculation either. After all, Russia is more corrupt than Ukraine Yes, Russia has been brewing this mess for decades. It has been working to keep Ukraine a profitable part of the Russian kleptocracy since Putin came to power.

"nuclear threats by crazy Vlad" We already have them. "Russia's deconstruction" I can't see a Ukrainian victory causing that, but it might (fingers crossed) leading to crazy Vlad being removed from office. "serious global instability" Again, we already have that. Do you think that letting Russia get away with invading neighboring countries will somehow lead to global stability? Most westerners realize that the consequences of letting Putin win are much worse than the consequences of him losing.

The rouble has recovered significantly from a few weeks ago, but is still down more than 10% from its value at the start of the invasion. https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=RUB&view=1Y

From what I've read about the Russian military it is believable that the enlisted, including the NCO's, weren't told anything. I wonder how the ranks will react if they learn that their officers knew they were sending them into a contaminated area.

Laying down of arms in Mariupol would have given Russia a quick and easy land bridge from Crimea to the eastern regions held by Russian backed rebels/criminals. Once the land bridge was established Russia could (and still may) attempt to encircle the Ukrainian forces fighting in the east. If successful, this would leave the Ukrainian military severely depleted and Russia in charge of a large portion of the country. Whether such a capitulation to the Russian invaders would lead to more or less civilian casualties is debatable. However it would leave Russia in a much stronger position. I'm sure Putin appreciates your support for his cause.

Unfortunately Putin may decide that saving face requires leaving all major cities in Ukraine as flattened ruins. Maybe if Putin fears widespread mutinies and the collapse of the Russian military he will withdraw from Ukraine. However I've been disappointed in the past when I assumed Putin would be rational and not do anything stupid.

The most likely meaning: Russia will focus on securing the east of Ukraine and a land corridor to Crimea, then resume attacks on the rest of the country.

And the novichok murders in Salisbury?

Russia could see the US destroying itself and the alliances that kept Russia in check while Trump was President. Why would Russia do anything to distract Trump from this?

The conglomerate no longer exists. Laws describing procedures for leaving the conglomerate became void when all elements of the conglomerate agreed to the dissolution. It doesn't matter if Russia changed its mind about the dissolution 30 years after the fact. It's too late. There is no longer a USSR. This is obviously a war of conquest and empire building. I think you are ok with that. Stop inventing specious legal arguments. Vlad's court is a joke.

Wrong. Many western leaders are being pushed by their citizens to be more supportive of Ukraine. "Roughly a third of Americans (32%) say that the United States is providing about the right amount of support to Ukraine as it fights to hold off the Russian invasion. A larger share – 42% – say the U.S. should be providing more support to Ukraine, while just 7% say it is providing too much support." https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/15/public-expresses-mixed-views-of-u-s-response-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1576742/uk-support-raised-100m-ukraine-russian-invasion https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-support-grows-for-russia-oil-ban-for-ukraine-war-11647883376

Hitler had a lot of support for a while. Does that mean his actions were ok?

His force is a farce.

Along with Rome claiming most of Europe and all of the Mediterranean coast. I wonder if Macedonia will claim to be the successor to the conquests of Alexander the Great and try to control lands as far east as India?

I'm sure the tank was worth easily 100 times to price asked. This suggests an interesting tactic: What if Ukraine offered to buy the Russian weapons and offered long-term visas to Russian soldiers that wanted to desert? The weapons could be bought (using NATO money) for a tiny fraction of their value, and the invading armies hollowed out even more. It would also be a further humiliation for Putin.