RayC

So better to risk the destruction of mankind rather than risk the sovereignty of Russia? Yep, that makes sense.

Not that my individual experience proves anything one way or the other, but I have crossed that border twice (once in each direction). If I remember correctly, it was in 2011, and it was about as complicated as crossing the border between Belgium and France i.e. it was pretty much seamless. I wonder if that is still - and will remain - the case? Yes, ultimately it will be the UK government's decision whether to relinquish ownership of Gibraltar. I was pointing out that 1) Spain is more likely to raise questions about Gibraltar's sovereignty now that the UK is outside of the EU and 2) imo adopting a cordial, co-operative attitude with the EU is likely to prove more productive than the hostile, confrontational attitude employed by Johnson. You might disagree but good luck in trying to find any evidence to support the idea that Johnston's approach proved beneficial to the UK.

MAD, that's the theory isn't it? Therefore, neither side will be willing to use nuclear weapons. You're not suggesting that the Blessed Vlad would be mad enough to initiate a first strike nuclear attack are you?

I wonder what approach is best for the UK and more likely to be successful? Starmer's attempts to forge a peaceful, friendly, constructive relationship with the EU, or Johnson's hostile, confrontational, isolationist stance? Hummmm .... There was never a problem crossing between Gibraltar and Spain whilst the UK was a member of the EU. Moreover, any discussions about Gibraltar's sovereignty were effectively off the table while we were an EU member. The Commission remained impartial on the matter and no other EU member state was going to take sides. Now, who knows? As I said, another Brexit "benefit".

So the MSM such as the BBC, CNN, etc with all its' resources is unable to verify and validate its' articles, and is thus unable to produce "the truth", while the alternative media e.g. the one man behind "Buster's blog", has immediate access to verifiable and validity data and is therefore able to publish unquestionable facts. Quite the conundrum.

It's an interesting article but the study relates to hospitals in Belgium and says nothing about the UK.

Another Brexit "benefit".

I'll cut this branch short, as we are now going over the same ground for the umpteenth time which imo is pointless. We have opposing opinions and l strongly suspect that whatever is said by one of us, we are not going to change the other's mind.

It is an insult to all those who fell or suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Their nationality is irrelevant. As usual, you completely ignore pertinent facts. The UK and Commonwealth forces stood alone (as nations) against Nazi Germany in 1940/41. If the UK had been defeated during this period, things may well have turned out a lot differently for Russia. Not that I expect you to acknowledge that possibility.

Absolutely and utter nonsense and an insult to many brave men and women. Unlike you, I won't downplay the contribution by any of those brave individuals who fought against Nazism irrespective of their nationality, I'll merely ask where was the Russian army in 1939 - 41? Rhetorical question: Answer is they were in cahoots with the Wehrmacht and were busy carving up Poland. Russia's role in the fight against Nazism from mid-1941 onwards should not be under-estimated or forgotten, but then neither should her previous collusion with the Nazis.

Not sure if this helps? If you have made voluntary contributions in the past, then you should be able to by-pass the initial phrase by making a payment(s) using the same reference as before. Your 'new' contributions will then be credited to your account a couple of months later. I've made 3 sets of payments like this over the past 5 or so years.

The inference being that no one but Russia opposed Nazi Germany? If so, that is an insult to all those non-Russians who fought for the allies during WW2. And no, I am not trying to downplay the contribution and sacrifice made by the Russian people in WW2; I'll willingly acknowledge that. I am pointing out the indisputable fact that others played their full part as well.

How many times do I have to repeat this? 97 women being raped is 97 too many: I don't know how to make this any clearer. Argo .... A series of words arranged in an apparent random order, unsurprisingly, results in gibberish. I suggest that you act on my previous advice and seek help.

If you are being sarcastic then have a 😂. If you are being serious, I suggest that you seek help from a psychiatrist or psychologist asap.

Point out where I implied/ inferred anything of the sort: A deliberate misrepresentation of what I have written. Still, naïve of me to expect any better of you. You'll try anything in an attempt to justify your bigotry.

Now that IS 'whataboutism'! How can recent Tory governments be absolved of accountability and responsibility for its' failure? Simples. We just label the failed policies 'left wing'. I'm downplaying nothing. Which part of "97 rapes is 97 too many" is unclear? I have stated nothing that could remotely be construed as suggesting that the unfortunate women in question were "lying (sic) for attention". And along comes the sly innuendo for good measure. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of immigrants (and native-born Muslims) are law abiding. At least, you now appear to have dropped your previous pretence that, "I'm not against immigration", and are now showing your true colours: Your most recent rants make no distinction between legal and illegal migrants when it comes to assigning blame.

Then perhaps you too could explain how Russia will finance the rebuilding of its' own infrastructure and - should it win the war - that of Crimea and the Donbass.

👍 Thanks. Cut and paste is so useful: "This was only to be expected when someone is unable to offer points to directly counter an argument." The author wasn't commenting on Russia's ability to built the physical structures but questioning how it will be financed. But then I suspect you know that and choose to defect rather than answer the question. You seem to know a lot about Dr. Foucart's conditions of employment. So there has been no physical damage to Russian infrastructure- or that in the Crimea and Donbass - as a result of this war? Nice rant. Lifted from RT or Rossiyskaya Gazeta?

Nice bit of cherry picking again with a dose of deflection and a falsehood thrown in for good measure. The average worldwide defence spend by nations is around 3.5% of their GDP, significantly - not minimally - below Russia's 10%. Saudi Arabia is not a war economy. Presumably, it spends a relatively large 7% of its' GDP on defence as it perceives a threat from Iran (and perhaps, Israel?). Its' economy is built on petroleum exports. It runs a budget surplus of +/-3% GDP: It can afford to finance its' defence spending in the medium/ long term. Russia can't. I know little about Algeria and, frankly, have neither the time nor interest to research it further. (Apologies to any Algerians reading. No insult is intended). However, I don't know what point you think Algeria's relative high defence spend proves? You have posted The Economist article so many times in so many different places that imo all that needs to be said about it has been said. By way of a change, perhaps you could offer a more detailed analysis of the attached article by "a beautician", and explain how Russia will be able to afford to rebuild its' own infrastructure (and that of the Crimea and Donbass should it gain control of those regions)? https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completely-driven-by-the-war-in-ukraine-it-cannot-afford-to-lose-but-nor-can-it-afford-to-win-221333

This was only to be expected when someone is unable to offer points to directly counter an argument. Rather than critique the pieces written by Dr. Foucart - who holds a PhD in Economics and lectures at the University of Lancaster - you adopt a patronising tone and dismiss him insultingly as "a beautician". Sad really. I thought that you were better than that. (Note to any beauticians reading: In no way am I insulting your profession. You have your skill set but I doubt that it extends to an economic analysis of a war-torn economy). I have read the Economist article. It is much more nuanced than you suggest with your cherry picking of sections. It can be summarised as stating that the Russian economy has been surprisingly resilient, but it questions whether this resilency can be sustained in the medium/long term. Incredible how some people can become so blinded by their own prejudice.

The real reason for Russia's "stellar economic performance" appears to be China. How long before Russia becomes Europe's Sri Lanka? https://theconversation.com/russia-has-become-so-economically-isolated-that-china-could-order-the-end-of-war-in-ukraine-232951

You conveniently forgot to post this extract from The Economist article: "How long can the party last? Much depends on the war. A continued slump in the rouble would raise inflation; more military recruitment would worsen labour shortages. At some point, people may get angry about the cost of living. And Mr Putin cannot run budget deficits for ever: at current rates, Russia’s reserves will be gone in five years or so. But the economy has also shown its resilience in recent years. So, for now, the party continues."

Hardly " .. a contributing factor of small magnitude". "Russia’s public spending is at unprecedented levels, and around 40% of the government budget is spent on the war. Total military spending is expected to reach more than 10% of GDP for the year 2023 (the UK figure is 2.3%)." (Source: https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completely-driven-by-the-war-in-ukraine-it-cannot-afford-to-lose-but-nor-can-it-afford-to-win-221333)

Marin is no longer PM in Finland. She hasn't been since June 2023.

We've been down this road before https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-ukraine-war-moscow-military-spending-inflation-worker-shortage-2024-2