Summerinsiam

Its not real. Why dont you get it!

Although it can never be ruled out, it is highly unlikely there will be another coup. There is simply no need currently as all the dirty work is done by the bent extra-judicial agencies: election commision, constitutional court etc. It won't be long before the MPP is disbanded. what will detetmine things is the strength of the backlash. Somethings gotta change and eventually it will.

Prayut is nothing but a hapless stooge, who was installed to maintain the corrupt status quo and protect the interests of the elite. His 'advice' echoes that of his backers, who are desperate to maintain the feudal apparatus that allows them to thrive at the expense of progress for the people. He broke the highest law of the land and according to all objective observers has not one achievement to his name. His duplicity and failure to keep promises led to him being christened Pinocchio. He has been a disaster for the overwhelming majority of Thais and should be behind bars not laughing and joking. But of course, sadly this is Thailand.

As the de facto leader of his party it is inevitable that he will still wield influence behind the scenes. But he won't be standing in an election again. It remains to be seen if he can maintain his popularity after breaking pre-election promises and leaving the MFP out in the cold.

Its obvious that he has struck a backroom deal and consequently will not serve any time. He wouldn't come back otherwise. I expect he will get a royal pardon. He alays had a close relationship with the man who bestows these. While the details are unknown, it is likely the price was allowing the 'military parties' into the coalition, in order to get a slice of the pie, and promising to stay out of politics. The new faultline in Thailand is now between the conservative and reformist camps. The red versus yellow conflict is old news, and clearly Thaksin is now seen as the lesser of two evils. Pheu Thai will suffer for their betrayal but it has always been Thaksin's party, and their primary focus, even when in government, has always been to bring him home.

He is the 'caretaker' Prime minister and as such should be keeping a low profile. The country voted overwhelmingly to get rid of this incompetent stooge. The sooner that wish is fulfilled the better.

I am surprised it doesn't happen more often. In my estimation, the vast majority of these so called live-streamers and thai-bloggers have a lot to answer for and are a complete waste of space.

Its patently nonsense. The Republican obsession with Hunter Biden is laughable, especially when you take into account the documented behaviour of their hero. Truly pathetic.

They won't need that many because the Senate expires next May.

Judging by their comments yesterday, it seems that both Ben Wallace and Jake Sullivan are in agreement that Zelenskey should tone down his act. As I said, he should understand that there are limits to NATO support, and that countries face domestic pressure. They answer to their electorates and not him. Being treated as an 'Amazon warehouse', has unsurprisingly rankled them. I, for one, are glad that they are sensibly trying to err on the side of 'strategic caution', despite Zelenskey and his drmands.

Sadly, many countries are at war, but looking at the headlines you wouldn't know it. Sovereignty and democracy seem to grow in importance when they are aligned and coincide with US and western interests. Ukraine was not a formal ally before the war and the allies have already gone further than many predicted. Zelenskey should understand that there are limits to what support can be offered, without triggering World War 3. At least Biden and the germans seem to grasp this.

Good that they have fudged the decision and not given in to Zelenskey's incessant, never- ending demands. After all, it was the expansion of NATO eastwards that helped create this mess.

Although it went a bit too far it sounds like this guy was asking for it. I have never had a problem in 'the village'. On the contrary. The only problems I have had, when drunk, have been in tourist areas and when I was most likely at fault myself.

Personally, I find a lot of so called thai youtubers to be idiots. What is the point of most of these losers?

Just another sympton of a sick world. Is he still a polygmous bible basher?

I thought I had addressed the issue of substantiation. You are obviously blinded by your allegiance to Ukraine. Are you Ukrainian or are you like Boris Johnson; cynically making the mistake of being more Ukrainian than Ukrainians are themselves? I agree that its pointless to debate with somebody who has such tunnel vision. Yes, end of discussion. Tellingly, you focus on finding fault with somebody's position, but are unable to offer anything constructive. You are clearly at a loss to provide an answer to my central question, which to me speaks volumes.

I meant that he should have said that before the invasion, not when it was too late. There are many sources that say the opposite, but I am not going to start referencing them. This is an informal forum and not an academic dissertation. The Ukrainians denied it too, especially after Biden and Johnson cynically jumped on the Ukrainian bandwagon. The first prority of any government is to safeguard their citizens, and with their current approach they are in danger of failing in this. I guess that you won't answer my question because you don't have an answer. You think, like Zelensky, that western support should be unconditional and that we should allow the world to be pushed to the brink of oblivion.

I am not engaging in semantics. Why have you once again failed to address my question: if you discount any compromise and negotiation as you appear to do, what is the endgame in this war?

Both sides have subsequently denied that this ever happened. I ask again: If you reject any Ukrainian compromise or loss of territory, what is the endgame? It is easy to be critical while offering nothing constructive yourself. If you think Putin will accept a crushing military defeat with all its consequences for him, when he has a massive nuclear capability, then you are very naive.

It wasn't wrong. He failed to try to make it work. Russia, of course shares the blame for its failure. As to negotiations: it is acknowledged by analysts that there was the potential for a deal about a month after the invasion. Putin would probably accepted the Donbas and Luhansk, which he had de facto control of anyway. Crime was a fait accompli.As I said before, nerly all conflicts end through negotiation. If you eschew all efforts at diplomacy and compromise what is the endgame?

I stand by what I said: Zelensky could and should have done a lot more on the diplomatic front, to seek to avoid the catastrophe unfolding in his country today. Instead, he chose to poke the Russian bear. Explicitly stating that Ukraine woudn't join NATO and exploring third party security guarantees would have been a start. Serious backdoor diplomacy ended the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that is the only realistic way to end this dangerous conflict. Meanwhile, Zelensky is like a broken record with his incessant demands and constant refusal to contemplate any negotiations. He only has one speech, endlessly delivered to anyone who will listen. Any further serious escalation is flirting with disaster and in nobody's interests. Least of all his backers, whose populations' resolve wil be futher tested this winter. Expect the rapid onset of Ukraine fatigue. Hard decisions and compromises will eventually have to be made for the greater good. Until Zelensky and Putin get real this cannot happen. I am not sure he is the man to do this.

Ukraine was not peaceful prior to the illegal Russian invasion. It was also and still is deeply corrupt. Since 2014 there had been an ongoing conflict in the east with the Russians having de facto control over much of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Instead of embracing realpolitick and trying to reach a viable solution, Zelensky refused and expressed the desire to join NATO and the EU. He refused to implement correctly the Minsk agreements that had been tirelessly negotiated. As a consequence, he was a source of irritation for many in the western corridors of power. Of course, this is now conveniently forgotten. Although most of the blame lies with Putin he is not blameless. Nor is he the saint that is portrayed in much of the sycophantic western media. The targeting of civilian infrastruture is horrific, but in the climate of war, sadly it is a tried and tested tactic. Remember the 'shock and awe' campaign that the Americans launched at the onset of their illegal invasion of Iraq. Not to mention the inumerable number of citizens who died, and the regional instability that occurred as a direct consequence. Remember the firestorms in Dresden?

Pushing for a diplomatic compromise, to safeguard global security, does not equate to supporting Russia and their illegal invasion. Rightly so it has been condemned. However, everything is not black and white despite the propoganda. There must be conditions attached to the Ukrainian aid and Zelensky must tone down his maximalist language and get real. Many western leaders are tiring of it. Russia will never pay reparations for instance. Ukraine will never be allowed to join Nato. Before the invasion he was an unpopular comedian who to the west's consternation was failing to implement the Minsk agreement. Had he done so we might not be where we are today. Neither side can fulfill their stated objectives and should recognise so. The war must end with a political and diplomatic solution.

Of course it is important to Ukrainians, but to the wider world much less so. It is certainly not important enough to risk nuclear armageddon over. The vast majority of the world's citizenry would agree on that. Yes, he should have a say in peace talks but his should not be the sole voice as it is a global issue. He should be realistic about losing some territory. He should cede Crimea which historically was Russian anyway until Krushchev got drunk. There must be strings attached to the endless support.

Almost all wars are ended through negotiation and this one will be likely the same. What is the alternative? A nuclear armed Russia is unlikely to accept a conventional defeat. Even the top US general said recently that Ukraine cannot win. Of coure, Ukraine is in the right. But that does not mesn it is blameless either. Sadly, Zelensky is part of the problem. Citizens of many European countries are paying for his support and therefore his assertion that all decisions rest with Ukraine alone is patently false. He must embrace realpolitick or be pushed if necessary. Its high time for a realistic diplomatic solution to this dangerous and needless conflict. Is it really that important which flag flies in the Donbas?