Cameroni

Their own fearful minds. If they had bothered to look for one second at the size of Russia's economy, which is smaller than Texas' economy, they would quickly have realised that the notion that Putin would attack Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Finland, Sweden etc is about as realistic as Thailand conquering Asia. Maybe they fell for their own Atlantic Council propaganda, they twist Putin's words on their website to imply Putin wants to revive Imperial Russia. It's ludicrous frankly. Russia can barely defeat Ukraine, which is one tenth of the size economically of Russia. Much less all of Euope. It's really preposterous.

That's nonsense because Putin already lives under the threat of assassination every day, uses body doubles and this has not deterred him in any way. Besides, if the US were to assasinate Putin his successors could see this as an act of war and retaliate in kind, or even unleash nuclear war. America would gain nothing by assassinating Putin AFTER a nuclear bomb is used, except put its own country at risk of nuclear war. Again, Americans want to live. They will not risk a direct war with Russia, as you can see by the very careful avoidance by Biden to put American troops on the ground. Because a war with Russia would risk putting the US into a nuclear conflict with Russa, which could wipe out the entire USA and the planet. So Americans would have to be mad to assassinate Putin or use nuclear devices against Russia. And Putin knows that the US cannot retaliate if Russia uses a nuclear device in Ukraine. This is why Putin used his threat repeatedly. It is a credible threat and very much on the table. If Russia's territorial integrity and survival as a nation are threatened long term it is quite possible Russia will use a nuclear device. Even at the risk of India and China imposing sanctions, because survival and territorial integrity trump economic concerns in Russia

Lol, of course NATO members join of their own volition, who claimed otherwise? However, whether those members who want to join become members or not is up to NATO and above all the United States. Because NATO decides who becomes a member You cannot spin history this way and claim NATO did not expand, of course NATO did expand. Considerably. And that is the reason why Russia had to deal with this problem by force, because attempts to negotiate on this issue, and to get the US to respect Russia's interests failed and were met with lies and deception. So now Russia had no other option but to deal with the problem with the use of force. Just like the US did with Panama. As for Sweden and Finland, scared little boys but irrelevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

Ukraine's attack on Nordstream was an atack on a NATO member. Not only does the pipeline pass throug German territory, but Nordstream AG is partly owned by German, Dutch and French companies with their respective states as shareholder. In addition the attack compromised Germany's energy supply and therefore national security. German officials at the time protested that Ukraine's sabotage was sufficient to trigger article 5 of NATO. "Disgruntled German officials involved in the investigation declared the sabotage operation had put Berlin in a difficult position. 'An attack of this scale is a sufficient reason to trigger the collective defence clause of NATO,' one official told WSJ in alarming comments. 'But our critical infrastructure was blown up by a country that we support with massive weapons shipments and billions in cash.' You can read the whole story, just uncovered by the Wall Street Journal, here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13745985/Senior-Ukrainian-military-officers-came-idea-blowing-Nord-Stream-pipeline-night-heavy-boozing-ignored-Zelenskys-pleas-not-ahead-carried-plot-technically-qualifies-attack-NATO-bombshell-report-claims.html https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report That's ludicrous of course, because NATO has been expanding into Eastern Europe since 1999. NATO has been negotiating and promising new membership to a whole raft of countries, including Ukraine, in the last few years. Russia has long given up listening to Western promises regarding NATO expansion. When those promises were exposed as lies, obviously unfettered NATO expansion was just a reality Russia had to deal with. And it is doing so now. At least you tried, ChicagoExpat, well done. But sadly, you failed miserably.

True, we cannot look into Putin's head, however, the fact that Russia was completely misled and lied to about NATO expansion is incredibly well documented, you can find it all here: "The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 😎 shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; and Yeltsin responding, “this is genius!” Christopher later claimed in his memoir that Yeltsin misunderstood – perhaps from being drunk – the real message that the Partnership for Peace would in fact “lead to gradual expansion of NATO”;[1] but the actual American-written cable reporting the conversation supports subsequent Russian complaints about being misled." https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard Not only did Warren Chrstophe lie to Russia's president, he lied to history and tried to distort the record. As did James Baker, George Bush etc... Now, if Russia cannot trust the word of America's leaders, why would it be able to trust a piece of paper those leaders signed? America's leaders are liars. Contracts would have been completely pointless. If they don't keep their word why would they keep a contract? After all Russia signed the ABM treaty with the US and the US simply withdrew from it. Again, pointless

You will not refute it, because it is impossible for you, because it is the truth. Unlike others on here, I don't deal in dishonesty, all my informtaion is 100% accurate. That is why you will not refute it. Even if you tried, you could not.

Completely untrue, Ukraine was clamoring to be a part of NATO already in 2002. "Ukraine established ties to the alliance with a NATO–Ukraine Action Plan in November 2002, joined NATO's Partnership for Peace in February 2005, then entered into the Intensified Dialogue program with NATO in April 2005." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO I will not call you a liar, Lacessit, as you just did, but clearly your beliefs are not founded on a well-read knowledge of world affairs. It has been public knowledge that Ukraine has desperately requested NATO membership for quite some time, since 2002.

Well, if you look at Russia's history, invasion by the Vikings, Mongols and many others did not abate even in the previous century, when Russia was invaded by Germany and lost 20 million lives. Sometimes there really is someone after you and your concerns are not paranoia but well founded. In fact, after Russia demonstrated its good will to the West beyond doubt, helping America's space programme, sharing rockets and space station, agreeing to allow Germany to unify, implementing Western economic reforms, etc, what hapened? Russia was promised there would be no NATO expansion, and in 2008 it was announced that even Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members. As NATO encircled Russia it could be forgiven for becoming paranoid. I do agree, there is much to like about Russian culture, which is why it is such a shame that western schools have closed Russian language departments in the West due to the Ukraine war. This will only create further misunderstandings and mistrust.

The US would not be able to retaliate with a nuclear bomb against Russia, because America herself would then be in a nuclear conflict with Russia and Americans want to live. They know Russia can wipe out all their major cites in short order. Neither the US nor any other country could reply with a nuclear bomb if Russia uses a nuclear device in Ukraine. Unless they would be mad enough to risk their own nuclear annihiliation, which nobody would be. There would be retaliation, more sanctions, China and India may end relations. But if Russia uses a nuclear bomb, then only because they think their territorial integrity and survival a nation are threatened long term. In that case economic concerns would take a back seat. In fact Russia has already shown it is immune to santions. The Economist has just published an article to show how Russia's economy is flourishing. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring I think you're off touch, Steven.

The truth about the Nordstream incident has just been published. Apparently some drunk Ukrainian militaries came up with the plan during a night of drinking. It was the Ukrainians who bombed Germany's Nordstream pipeline. This attack was an attack on a NATO member and could have triggered article 5 of NATO. But not only did Germany not trigger Article 5, they kept quiet, even though they've known the truth for quite some time and like good little boys they kept paying Ukraine the billions the US demanded. Why is that? Because Germany, like all of Western Europe, is a vassal state of the USA. In other words, they do as they are told. They are not able to pursue their own interests. it is to avoid this fate that Russia has attacked Ukraine.

China may well end relations in that scenario, but if Russia uses a nuke its concern would be territorial integrity and survival as a nation. In that scenario economic concerns would be trumped by other matters. Russia has aready shown that they are immune to sanctions. Russia has been sanctioned by the West to a ludicrous degree, however, as The Economist revealed a few days ago, the Russian economy is flourishing. In fact the sanctions have insulated the Russian economy from the economic malaise affecting Europe, China and North Ameica: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring

A Lenovo Thinkbook laptop would look to suit your needs. It is configurable and relatively inexpensive. I would opt for 16 GB RAM as a minimum but 8 GB RAM may suffice for you. Just remember to use an external drive for your personal files and to back it up regularly.

You are glad to prolong a war and needless suffering, that is very regrettable. Russia has not lost this war. Russia is very much winning this war, as the desperate Kursk gamble shows. Very reminiscent of the Wehrmacht's desperate Kursk gamble and just as certain to fail. If Putin used a nuke it would be the end of Ukraine, but not of Putin or Russia. Russia does not want to use it, but if Russia's territorial integrity and survival are at risk long term there is a strong possibility Russia will use a nuclear weapon. Putin, btw does not want Ukraine "under his thumb", he just wants a pro-Russian Ukraine for security reasons. A Ukraine that's a cheer leader for America and wants nuclear weapons is obviously not acceptable to Russia.

To the extent Russian forces have negligently caused deaths to civilians in Ukraine it is completely unacceptable and to be condemned in the strongest terms, as always when military forces do not ensure the safety of civilians. However, we will need to wait after the war to see if there was a real directive and plan in Russa to wage war on Ukraine's civilians, along the lines of the UK Area Bombing Directive (General Directive No.5 (S.46368/111. D.C.A.S) of 14 February 1942, which specifically directed the military to target the civilian population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive#:~:text=D.C.A.S) was a 14 February,bomb factories in occupied France. To date, I believe, nobody has seen such a document, so it would be premature to state Putin has a specific plan to target civilians. If such a document were to emerge, it would lead to Russia being writ infamous in the annals of war, much like the RAF. In terms of soldiers the suffering of both sides is regrettable, particularly since this war was so unnecessary.

That is certainly what it looks like. Not cricket at all. Well done for bring this to all our attention.

It's not an empty threat. You can be sure Russia has included the possibility of using nukes in their plans of action. Should the masses of materiel Ukraine receives turn the tide, no sign of that but hypothetically speaking, and Russia sees its territorial integrity and survival at stake long term, then you better believe Russia will use nukes. And the Ukrainian NATO issue would be settled once and for all.

Not this time. Putin can unleash a nuclear device against Ukraine and end the war in short period of time if he so wishes. The US could never retaliate because they would risk being in a nuclear war with Russia. Putin has nuclear insurance. America knows this. They only pour in billions to prolong the war as long as possible in order to weaken Russia as much as possible. When they both come to a negotiated settlement Putin will keep the Crimea and the Donbass. Putin will win this war, no matter what.

Not so. The US pouring billions into this war between Ukraine and Russia shows a cynical willingness to facilitate violence, to keep the war going for as long as possible. Because the US' vital interest is to weaken Russia. So it pours billions into Ukraine to keep the war going even though it knows full well there is no chance whatsoever of Ukraine winning this war, simply because weakening Russia is in America's interest. If Putin used a nuclear device in Ukraine tomorrow he could defeat Ukraine within a short period and America could never respond because it would then risk being in a nuclear war with Russia herself. Both America and Russia know this. They know Ukraine can never win this war. Ultimately Putin has the insurance of nuclear weapons. America only wants to keep the war going as long as possible to weaken Russia. All this talk of independence, freedom, democracy etc is just for the naive in the audience. After all, America can't admit "we know Ukraine can never win this war, but we are pouring in billions to prolong the war in order to weaken Russia for decades". But that is what is happening.

Yes, I defend the restaurants Patong, and I dismiss your claim that they are to blame for the shrinking of the restaurant industry. Simply, because it is self evident that our politicians did not keep "their nation up and running". "In 2020, Covid restrictions ground the nation’s bustling restaurant industry to a halt." "But there are fewer US restaurants today than in 2019. It’s not clear when —if ever — they’re coming back. Last year, there were about 631,000 restaurants in the United States, according to data from Technomic, a restaurant research firm. That’s roughly 72,000 fewer than in 2019, when there were 703,000 restaurants in the country. That number could fall even further this year, to about 630,000 locations, according to Technomic, which doesn’t foresee the number of restaurants in the US returning to pre-Covid levels even by 2026. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/25/business/restaurant-closures/index.html You see, Patong, politicians around the world locked people up at home and prevented them from going out. Imposed financial fines on them if the did go out. So, if a restaurant did not have customers and had to close, and as you can see above, tens of thousands did, the fault is not the restaurant's. It is the fault of the politicians who locked people up. Needlessly, as Sweden showed. If our countries are now up and running, it is because of the blood, sweat and tears of small businesses and their employees. Not because of politicians. Despite politicians. I understand restaurant failure rates, and I appreciate that running a restaurant is hard at the best of times, but if your government locks people up and you do not have customers, then, this has somewhat of an effect on business. But it is not just restaurants. Far from it. The same with e-commerce people. The Covid restrictions led to ten-fold increase in container prices, shipping goods became possible only for the very largest businesses. And it goes on and on and on, Patong. Indeed, the very inflation you mentioned, was caused by the supply chain shocks and disruptions which our politicians caused with their covid restrictions. Not rising wages. Of course I never said our economies were destroyed entirely. But sizeable segments of our economies were destroyed. Millions of small businesses around the world lost eveything because of the covid restrictions. And they are lost forever. According to the World bank " Studies based on precrisis data suggest, for example, that more than 50 percent of households in emerging and advanced economies were not able to sustain basic consumption for more than three months in the event of income losses. Similarly, the average business could cover fewer than 55 days of expenses with cash reserves." https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2022/brief/chapter-1-introduction-the-economic-impacts-of-the-covid-19-crisis During 2020, the world's collective gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 3.4 percent. To put this number in perspective, global GDP reached 84.9 trillion U.S. dollars in 2020 – meaning that a 3.4 percent drop in economic growth results in over two trillion U.S. dollars of lost economic output. https://www.statista.com/topics/6139/covid-19-impact-on-the-global-economy/#topicOverview Those are not statistics only, Patong, those are people. The people of the world lost 2 trillion US dollars because of covid restrictions. And it was the poorest and smallest businesses that were the worst affected. People lost everything. 2 trillion US Dollars. And this was not a typical "cycle" recession, it was not a recession at all. It was a man made wholesale economic destruction which was completely unnecessary. This was not a "market cycle". The politicians made sure that no market was allowed during Covid. You can't just relabel it as a normal economic cycle, a "market cycle". It was not. If you want historical context, why don't you look at this; "Human beings have lived with epidemic disease from the beginning of time. Covid-19 is a relatively serious epidemic, but historically it is well within the range of health risks which are inseparable from ordinary existence, risks which human beings have always had to live with. In Europe, bubonic plague, smallpox, cholera and tuberculosis were all worse in their time. Worldwide, the list of comparable or worse epidemics is substantially longer, even if they did not happen to strike Europe or North America." https://www.robertmenziesinstitute.org.au/institute-news/lord-sumption-a-state-of-fear So again. The covid restrictions were unnecessary. They caused 2 trillion Dollars of losses for people around the world. And if things have rebounded to some degree, then because of the hard work of businesses and their employees, not because of politicians. Despite politicians. And for you to seriously claim "governments did a pretty good job"...."they kept their nations running" just flies in the face of very obvious evidence. Politicians ground their nations to a halt. They recklessly and incompetently caused 2 trillion USD of losses for people. Their job was, when faced with scientists in throes of panic like Neil Ferguson, to evaluate correctly if a lockdown's benefits would justify the loss. And the politicians failed the test. Miserably. They took the easy way out and saved their own skin, letting the rest of the world burn. Now, that we all put out the fires, you applaud and tells us what a great job they did.

Well, Russia invaded Crimea after the US made clear in 2008 that it will incorporate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, after Russia had very clearly indicated that Ukrainian membership in NATO is a line in the sand. That was known for a long time by America. Noone was invading Russia, but the logistical possibility that an invasion of Russia could happen became ever more of a problem with the continuing expansion of NATO. Ukraine was a bridge too far for Russia. And btw, Putin will get away with Crimea, and he will get away with Donbass. There is no way Ukraine can continue the war for 5 more years. There will be a peace settlement. It was the Western politicians who created this problem. The war in Ukraine was completely unnecessary. Obviously Ukrainian clamouring to be part of the West did not help.

I understand they're not changing the stories. I also understand the ads are marked as "sponsored" so clever people like you can see immediately there is a risk this ad has been rewritten, or rather its headline. However, the Harris team is writing a favourable headline which, to the vast majority of people who see the ad, makes it look like the Guardian or Independent wrote the headline. If Harris campaign do this, obviously they must see a benefit to this. However, it is deceptive and should be illegal imho.

No, I tell you why, I don't think Trump should talk about this nonsense. He should talk about policies and issues. This makes him look odd and obsessed with Ms Harris.

I saw the Guardian too will seek to have those ads removed. Should be illegal in my view.

The original headlines are still there, but the headline the reader sees FIRST is the one written by the Harris team and passed off as Guardian or Independent headline. It's not illegal, but it should be. I realise these ads are marked as "sponsored" but who among the readers knows that sponsered ads can be manipulated this way? Almost none. They will see the Harris written headline and assume it is from the Guardian or Indpendent.

I realise it's not illegal and done all the time. But I don't like it because it is deceptive. It makes the reader think that The Guardian or The Independent wrote the headline which the Harris team wrote. Prostitution is legal too in many places but I wouldn't want to live next to a brothel.