placeholder

It should also be noted that the Syrian government is recruiting from its own troops to fight for Russia in the Ukraine.

Well, Russia claims mercenaries are unlawful combatants and not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Your comparison of the government's position to that of a condo owner makes no sense at all. The government isn't just one of many equal tenants. If there's any validity in any real estate analogy then the government is more like the owner of a building of commercial rental units. And the rates are tied to the tenants income. As the tenants grow richer the government can borrow more money against projected income. Some of that borrowed money goes to improve building infrastructure and services which allows the tenants to earn even more money. Of course a government can borrow wastefully for projects that don't repay investments. And, as the following excerpt shows, there's a fair dose of obfuscation in your comment as well. "But there are many factors that go into determining whether those who PRODUCE the GDP........... can actually afford to pay what the government demands! " Vague much? Individuals may have financial problems but statistically in aggregate these factors balance out. Just as they do with banks lending money or insurance companies setting rates. What is a far more important factor when looking at government borrowing is what currency they're borrowing in. If it's their own currency, not much of a problem. Japan, for instance, has over a 200% ratio of debt to gdp. But it's all in yen. Some countries, like Argentina for one, borrowed in dollars. When its currency crashed, the debt ballooned and default followed. I don't know whether Thailand offers bonds in its own currency or in bonds tied to another currency like dollars.

You should publish your evidence in The Journal of I Know A Guy Who...

Not just thinly veiled but utterly false.

So you're not criticizing non-Ukrainians people for supporting sending the Ukrainians weapons? But you claimed (falsely) that such people were inconsistent? Confused much?

Thanks for clearing that up. And why shouldn't they be appalled?

You'd have a much better point if it wasn't for the fact that Ukrainian soldiers have repeatedly shown their willingness to stand up and fight the Russian invaders. Even in Mariupol, against hopeless odds, they refuse to surrender.

"Terrible that the Russian Army may overthrow an elected leader" Elected how? The last opponent to Putin is now in prison. Before that he was poisoned with novichak and only managed to survive because he made it to the West. The chief previous opponent was murdered. Journalists who dig too deep have been murdered and/or physically attacked.. Independent news outlets have been driven into submission or non-existence. Do you actually believe that under such conditions an election is meaningful?

Not sure what your point is. They were both members when Turkish forces partitioned Cyprus.

Not a chance. What's he going to do it with? Finland and Sweden actually have highly trained armed forces. Putin doesn't have the resources to strike at them now. Given what we've seen of how poorly the Russian armed forces are performing in Ukraine, I don't think Putin wants them to be exposed to any more ridicule.

Not quite. Actually, there's a huge movement on the right that sees Putin as a defender of traditional values including lots of American evangelical leaders. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/putin-trump-le-pen-hungary-france-populist-bannon/512303/ https://www.france24.com/en/20161115-why-west-right-wing-admires-putin-le-pen-farage-trump https://www.reuters.com/article/idUK108033924420141231 https://religiondispatches.org/a-twisted-love-story-how-american-evangelicals-helped-make-putins-russia-and-how-russia-became-the-darling-of-the-american-right/ https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-hate-putin-americans-suffer

Let me simplify it for you. According to you, strongly advocating for advanced and powerful weaponry for Ukraine, as heybruce does, means one is a left winger. Boris Johnson strongly advocates for advanced and powerful weaponry for Ukraine. Therefore, Boris Johnson is a left winger.

You accused heybruce, who has definitely not advocated sending troops to Ukraine, but has vociferously supported arming that nation, of being a left winger. In what way does his advocacy differ from Boris Johnson's? Not at all, as far as I can see. So, by your logic, Johnson must be a left-winger, too.

Does having the right to do whatever it pleases include invading another country?

So, apparently, nationality is how automobile companies are to be judged? MG brand autos are no different in quality from Stallion, GPX, or Legend because they're manufactured by Chinese companies? Tell that to the European nations where MG's business is booming.

You mean Russia declaring that it's going to put more weapons in the Baltics if Finland joins Nato is no more threatening than declaring that it's going to put, say, more samovars in the Baltics if Finland joins Nato? Really?

Why would it be taking out insurance now when it hasn't for the past 80 years? What makes your argument particularly clueless is that Russia is threatening Finland (and Sweden) if it does go ahead and join Nato. So clearly Finland thinks the fundamental threat newly posed by Russia is even greater than Russia's explicit threats.

This is as nutty as claiming that Putin backing down on his demand that Western buyers pay Russia in roubles really wasn't backing down because his demands changed. Unless you think that Finland, which has long been the anti-alarmist country when it comes to Russia and before that the Soviet Union, just bases a huge change in its posture towards its neighbor on a whim, your comment is ridiculous. You think Finland doesn't closely scrutinize the workings of the Russian State? You think it hasn't followed the rise of talk at the highest levels of reviving the Russian Empire? That the rise of absolute rule by an aggresssive despot isn't a ratonal cause for alarm?

So, what do you mean by a world war that would be caused by attacking Russia? A nuclear war? Because it's clear that Russia doesn't have the capacity to stage a serious conventional world war given that it hasn't even been able to subdue Ukraine after more than 50 days.

Like that left winger, Boris Johnson?

Nothing quite so empty as offering predictions about the future as some sort of argument or evidence. You've got nothing.

Putin can say whatever he likes. But it's what Putin does that counts. It's not only Ukraine that Russia has taken territory from. And that Finland, which has stayed non-aligned since WW2 is now seriously considering joining NATO tells us that Russia is not just a threat to nations with ethnic Russian populations that allegedly need protecting..

From Vladivostok to Portugal? Really? And Ukraine is hardly just the beginning. Just ask the governments of Moldova and Georgia. And Finland, which shares a long border with Russia and has been non-aligned since the end of the WW2, looks like it's going to join Nato. And Sweden, is contemplating joining too. So why do you believe that allegations about Russia's intentions are so suspect? Recently, Putin himself wrote approvingly of how Russia reacquired part of Poland in 1939. Somehow he managed not to mention how it was reacquired.

Here's what you claimed Maybe you didn't follow the discussion ? It was stated that Putin intents to keep on invading other Countries after Ukraine , which would trigger a World war and the only way to stop a world War would be to attack Russia now ........................which would cause a world war Stopping Putin doesn't necessarily mean attacking Russia. It does mean standing up to Russian invaders in Ukraine.