heybruce

Maybe this has something to do with it: "Ruling party control of all Chinese media and intensive internet censorship make it hard to gauge public opinion. But what the party allows online and requires media to publish make clear what it wants the public to think." "Media outlets were told last week to post only pro-Russian content and to censor anti-Russian or pro-Western views, according to a copy of instructions posted on the social media account of the newspaper Beijing News." https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/chinese-divided-russias-invasion-ukraine-83248295

You assume the big brewers are smart and far-sighted enough to work that way. I assume the big brewers are making too much money with their overpriced crud to risk upsetting their privileged position.

I think you are very much locked into the Russian Empire state of mind. What was once the Soviet Union is now many countries. Russia is one of them. Putin obviously feels that Russia is the most important one, and that Russia has a right to rebuild the Russian Empire. The other countries disagree. Some of the countries that were once part of the Soviet Union are now in NATO. Others want to join, primarily because they don't want to be a part of a Russian Empire. Why should Russia's/Putin's preference on this matter override the rights and preferences of these countries?

I see. You skip the obvious explanation; that Russia is a domineering neighbor threatening bordering countries, in order to speculate without evidence about some kind of financial motive for joining NATO. If that is true, why has NATO been refusing to allow Ukraine and other countries into the alliance?

I've tried some Thai craft beers. The oligopolies are right to be afraid, there are young, entrepreneurial Thais who know how to brew good beer that would run the companies selling over-priced swill out of business.

You think Thailand's government is democratic? I think it is military rule pretending to be a democracy.

From your source: "Although no particular, non-expansion pledge was ever codified, US policymakers presented their Soviet counterparts with implicit and informal assurances in 1990 strongly suggesting that NATO would not expand in post–Cold War Europe if the Soviet Union consented to German reunification." "implicit and informal assurances in 1990 strongly suggesting" to a country that no longer exists and which had former parts of non-existent country request NATO membership. Any promises that some people want to think were made have been long since overcome by events. You continue to ignore the obvious question: Why do European countries bordering on Russia feel an urgent need to joint NATO? Russia needs to do a better job of getting along with its neighbors. Unfortunately it is going full tilt in the opposite direction.

Repeating a lie does not make it true: There was never a promise to not expand east. "Putin has repeatedly said that NATO's eastwards expansion was breaking a promise made by Western powers after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yet, even Mikhail Gorbachev, who partook in the talks as the last Soviet leader, has said that no such promise was ever made. Meanwhile, NATO’s declared open door policy included in its founding treaty will continue to make membership an option for sovereign nations – post-Soviet or not – despite the risky consequences." https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2022/01/19/how-nato-expanded-eastwards-infographic/?sh=61299e87218d "Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”" https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ "Though the topic may have been raised during the treaty's negotiations, there is no mention of NATO enlargement in the September–October 1990 agreements on German reunification" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO One question the Russia supporters never answer: Why do almost all European nations bordering on Russia feel the need to join NATO? The answer is obvious--Russia threatens, bullies, and undermines its neighbors whenever it finds it convenient to do so. Of course these countries want to join NATO.

Russia has invaded Ukraine and yet you claim that Ukraine had no need to join a defensive alliance to prevent such an invasion. That's not stretching reality, that's denying it.

None of the new NATO members were forced to join, or even actively recruited. Most (All?) actively lobbied to join. I wonder why Russia didn't do more to assure its neighbors they had no need to join NATO?

Unfortunately nobody consulted these buffer zone countries. With few exceptions they don't trust Russia and want to align themselves with the west. Russia's behavior is driving its neighbors to seek a defensive alliance for protection. Russia's reaction to their western tilt justifies their fears.

Ukraine's pursuit of NATO membership was provoked--like most of Russia's neighbors it doesn't trust Russia and feels the need to be in a defensive alliance. Russia has now justified the lack of trust and pursuit of a defensive alliance.

True, but when people use and re-use lies to defend the indefensible, it provokes a reaction. Lies repeated over and over without being challenged are accepted as the truth in many simple minds.

Provoked by Russia, obviously.

I'm concerned that Putin has lost his grip on reality and will double down on his colossal mistake of invading Ukraine by doing something even crazier. Russia is forcing itself on Ukraine, and has been doing so for many years. That is dangerous. Ukraine wants to join NATO, but NATO has been keeping Ukraine at arms length for many years. How is that dangerous?

Wow! Actually on-topic. Also quite correct. The rising energy prices may put the world into recession, with the countries most dependent on imported energy hit the hardest. It could also keep Thailand's tourist industry derailed, which will continue to hurt a lot of Thai people.

What is the "major challenge"? China rejects all outside criticism of its internal affairs and justifies working with contemptible regimes with the excuse/rationale that countries must not interfere with other countries internal affairs. Now China's buddy Russia has invaded another country with no defensible excuse. That's about as big an interference of another country's internal affairs as one can commit. Regarding the rest of your post; it is clearly an attempt to divert to discussion away from Russia's criminal actions.

"The Ukraine would be better off , to stay as a neutral state between east and west. " Obviously Putin won't allow that. "It is so clear, that Nato wants to extend terretory in the Ukraine". No, Ukraine wanted to join NATO because of Russia's aggression. "Nato was anounced in the 90s a stop of taking new members". NATO never made that promise. It told the USSR during negotiations over the reunion of Germany that it would only deploy German military units in the former East Germany, not NATO units from other countries. Gorbachev, the USSR President at the time, confirmed this. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ You shouldn't believe everything you hear on RT.

Trump undermined NATO. Putin didn't do anything then because he didn't have to.

Not too long after the most recent coup the RTP very publicly demonstrated that they can expose a great deal of dirt on high ranking military officers. Nothing is going to change under this guy.

If any of these countries want to leave NATO all they have to do is say so. Have any asked to leave?

It's kind of flattering that you think the US could pull off something like that. But only the most paranoid conspiracy freak would believe it.

Every country that joined NATO did so eagerly. None of these country's trust Russia and want to face it alone. Now if Russia would stop seizing territory from neighboring countries and interfering in their affairs...

I'm sure every country but one would be happy to have Russia out of Ukraine's politics, out of its borders, and no longer supporting rebel militias. Under these circumstances I'm sure every country but one would be happy to have a neutral Ukraine. You can see the one country that is a problem, can't you?

I'm sure Ukraine would be happily neutral if Russia had stayed out of its politics, hadn't seized Ukrainian territory and wasn't supporting rebel militias.