placeholder

I've found links to sources that say 200000 Russians have fled Russia, but not that all or even most have gone to Finland. I'm not saying it's not so, but can you provide a link for that? I did find in aa Reuters article dated Oct 6, 2022,that about 56,000 have fled to Finland. But linking to Reuters articles is forbidden. It does seem unlikely that almost another 150,000 have arrived since then.

War is more than heck.

Well, I guess if you believe that sovereignty trumps the fact that Russia is waging a war against Ukraine, then the Finns are engaging in a sensible policy. If not, then they should be encouraging draftable Russian men to leave Russia.

Why wouldn't one want Russians to flee? Especially young men of military age? I don't understand why the Finns are against this.

I've got one that tops that: Crowd erupts in laughter at Russia's top diplomat after he claimed the Ukraine war 'was launched against us' A crowd laughed at Russia's top diplomat when he said the Ukraine war "was launched against us." An audience member at India's G20 summit shouted, "Come on!" at Sergey Lavrov during the event. He was answering a question about Russia's energy strategy moving forward. https://news.yahoo.com/crowd-erupts-laughter-russias-top-180331064.html

That certainly does look more formidable than a simple fence but as the US experience shows, not enough to deter desperate people if that's the only escape route available.

Well, since the fence hasn't been described in detail, at least so far as I know, maybe it will take more than a pair of wire or bolt cutters to deal with it. If not, I believe those technological marvels are available in Russia.

Turkey isn't much of a substitute for Europe. And there are already huge fields being developed off of Israel in addition to what's already being produced there.

What do you mean by "proto-humans"? Who are you quoting? The "proto" in this context would mean "primitive". Do you believe that?

You really think a simple fence is going to stop desperate people? Unless it's heavily patrolled where has that worked?

Perhaps Johnson could ask permission to be accused from attending the vote on the grounds that he would suffer a life-threatening bout of shame? But no one would believe it since he's notoriously shameless.

I hope these aren't cases of "off with their heads".

Well, in fact there are all sorts of limitations on speech. For some, criminal penalties apply. One such summed up example is, "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" Another limitation is fraudulent commercial claims. Here civil penalties apply. Or libel or slander. Members of Congress are protected from any sort of penalties in regards to their speech so long as they say it while actually physically present in the Senate or House. Outside of those precincts they operate under the same limitations as does any other citizen. There are other ways free speech is limited. For instance wealthy parties can stifle criticism or unpleasant revelations by bringing lawsuits against those with more limited financial means. I can think of one particularly prominent party who has a history of abusing the legal system by this method. Against those persons who persist anyway despite the attempt at discouragement, his lawsuits have a history of repeatedly failing.

There's specific evidence in this article that these so called "whistleblowers" are just purveyors of conspiracy theories. They were not privy to inside information. Yet you offer no evidence to contradict the claim that this is a fake investigation.

We have hard proof provided by Fox itself that its hosts lied about 2020 election fraud. And Fox News is the best? Are slogans and catchphrases all you've got?

First off, especially for people who drive only short distances daily, the battery will almost certainly outlast their ownership. In addition, as battery prices come down, and we're already seeing that with sodium based batteries, longevity should improve as we;;. And there's this: HOW LONG SHOULD AN ELECTRIC CAR’S BATTERY LAST? The bottom line here is that if it’s properly cared for, an electric car’s battery pack should last for well in excess of 100,000 miles before its range becomes restricted. Consumer Reports estimates the average EV battery pack’s lifespan to be at around 200,000 miles, which is nearly 17 years of use if driven 12,000 miles per year. https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/how-long-should-an-electric-cars-battery-last

As an organization NATO isn't involved. But individual nations that happen to be members of NATO are, as is their right. There's no rule saying that a member of NATO can't give aid to nations that aren't NATO members.

Why the "quotes"? Are you claiming that the documents showing that Fox News Hosts didn't believe the claims of voting fraud are counterfeit. Not even Fox News, which produced those documents, is claiming that. You seem to be operating on automatic pilot.

Because Russia is clearly a likely future threat to Nato members as well.

Another mind reader who knows Thunberg's motivation.

There may be more to this story but if you had bothered to read the story you would have your answer.

These so-called whistleblowers have only conspiracy theories to peddle. No first hand testimony to relate about alleged private information or classified information.

Utterly false. The Durham investigation was a criminal investigation. It was founded to look for a criminal conspiracy in the Justice Dept. against Donald Trump in the Russia investigation.. Both William Barr and John Durham explicitly stated that they weren't satisfied with Inspector General Horowitz conclusion that while there was certainly evidence of foul-ups in the Justice Dept. investigation of the Russia investigation, no criminal intent or activity was found to be at play. Barr authorized Durham to re-investigate. Durham utterly failed to come up with any evidence of criminal activity or intent at the Justice Dept. even though the pair of them even went to such extreme lengths as traveling to Europe to personally pressure foreign intelligence services into revealing criminal evidence they Durham and Barr contended they were concealing in the case. A criminal prosecutor is supposed to find evidence of crimes and prosecute according. . Was any member of the Hillary Clinton campaign convicted or even indicted by Durham's team in respect to conspiring with the Justice Dept. The only indictments of any sort that were brought against the Clinton team failed utterly. In fact, the cases were judged to be so weak, that members of Durham's team quit rather than continue. As for the Russia-Trump connection being invalid, this is not the case. Both a Republican's Senate Committee disagreed and the Mueller investigation never concluded this was the case. William Barr was actually castigated by a Federal judge for misrepresenting the findings of the Mueller investigation.

Of course, the lack of serious witnesses shouldn't be surprising at all. After all, William Barr lent John Durham an extraordinary level of support in his quest to unearth a deep state conspiracy in the Justice Dept against Donald Trump. His quest continued unimpeded under the Biden administration. His search for evidence to support that conspiracy theory ended in utter failure. Do Republican members of this committee truly believe that they can unearth facts not found by a professional prosecutor who had been given the funds and time to investigate this issue? As for Hunter Biden, the United States Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, who was appointed by Trump and is in charge of the investigation of Hunter Biden, was one of the few prosecutors retained by the Biden administration. What sort of cover-up can he rationally be accused of in this case? To deflect from their failure on these fronts, the Republicans have already made noises about demanding that the Justice Dept. share what evidence they have amassed in their investigation of Donald Trump. And, if it happens, the Justice Dept would certainly refuse. It would be strange if the courts were to side with the Republicans in this case since it would clearly encroach on the executive branches ability to conduct criminal investigations. But despite their probably failure in the courts, it would certainly generate lots of charges of a cover-up.

From the Iranian point of view, possessing nuclear weapons has a big benefit: warding off major attacks on its territory. I'm sure it hasn't been lost on them that Ukraine, by surrendering all its nuclear weapons, left itself vulnerable to a Russian invasion.