Cameroni

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.

I think it's fair to say that NATO was moribund after 1990, when Russia agreed to allow Germany to unify. I still remember the euphoria and how people were questioning the very need for NATO, now that Russia is "one of us". Remember how Russia implemented western economic reform, co-operated with the US on space stations, and how Putin even talked of being part of the EU? At that time, indeed NATO had seemed to lose all relevance and appeared, as you say 'moribund'. However, instead of creating a new security framework, as older Bush and Baker had promised Russia, America chose to revive NATO. This climaxed in the 2008 NATO conference in Romania when it was announced that Ukraine and Georgia would become members, eventually. We see the result now, with war in Ukraine, a direct result of this foolish American policy. NATO was not a "self-inflicted" wound, it was a problem the West created for Russia, Ukraine and all of us taxpayers who pay for it.

Again, yes. The headlines are changed and then the ad is presented as if The Guardian or The Independent wrote it. It is deceptive. The Guardian too will seek the removal of those ads. “While we understand why an organization might wish to align itself with The Guardian’s trusted brand, we need to ensure it is being used appropriately and with our permission. We’ll be reaching out to Google for more information about this practice,” a Guardian spokesperson told Axios." https://www.fastcompany.com/91173357/kamala-harris-ad-controversy-explained

They re-wrote the headlines and then try to deceive readers into believing the reputable new outlet had written those headlines ("It is entirely wrong for anyone to put fake headlines under The Independent brand."). This is deception and simple propaganda. If there was nothing wrong with it The Independent would not be so incensed and seek to have these ads removed. Yes, legal, but so is prostitution, it doesn't mean it's not lamentable. The issue is they are deceiving the reader into believing The Independent wrote the doctored headline, not the Harris team, as is actually the case.

No, the Harris team has re-written the headlines to make them appear favourable to Harris and then presents them as if the reputable news outlets, like the Independent, had written those headlines. It is diabolical misinformation and propaganda, of the kind Goebbels may have thought up, and The Independent not only condemns it in the strongest terms, but will have these "ads" removed. Good on them. "A spokesperson for The Independent condemned the practice: “It is entirely wrong for anyone to put fake headlines under The Independent brand. We object fiercely and believe it is undermining of what politics and journalism should be about. It is misleading to muddle fake headlines with any campaign trying to persuade people to vote in an election, and must be widely condemned. We will be seeking their removal.”" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kamala-harris-google-ad-campaign-b2596410.html

It was pretty obvious when the NATO treaty was signed that it was directed against Russia. The aim being to contain and if need be fight Russia. If some people in your neighbourhood armed themselves and issued a declaration patently directed against you, then moved ever closer to your house, maybe you would not see that as such a defensive set up. Pehaps you would get concerned, the way Russia got concerned. One man's defense is another man's offense and vice vcersa.

Sadly not, because in offensive realism it is the smaller neighbours that have to take into account the interests of the larger neighbour. Not the other way around. The US does not take Panamanian interests into account, but Panama has to do that with American interests. Same with Ukraine and Russia. In fact Russians would say that they gave Ukraine territory, infrastructure and fought for its freedom, but again, it is the smaller countries that have to take into account the interests of the larger, more powerful neighbourt. Lest events like the war in Ukraine or the invasion of Panama get unleashed. I don't think Russia can tolerate a pro American Ukraine, with nuclear weapons, as many Ukrainian politicians have demanded. For obvious reasons this is a security issue for Russia

Well, in relation to the point I was making, that smaller neighbouring countries of large powerful countries have to take account of the interests of the latter it is clearly irrelevant what political system a country has. It is just a valid dictate of offensive realism. Noriega actually had strong associations with Cuban intelligence, as well as being a drug dealer. The US did not seem to mind the drug dealing, it was when they found out Noriega was supplying Cuban intelligence with passports and shipping restricted military equipment to Cuba (Noriega was all about money), that the US used a pretext to invade Panama. I'm not equating the political systems, I am equating their real position in international relations, both were neighbours of very large powerful countries who showed a blatant disregard for the interests of that large neighbour. Panama paid the price, and so did the Ukraine. This idea that Putin wants to bing back the old Soviet Union is really just propaganda that you can't take seriouly. Putin never said that. He waxed lyrical about the joint historical roots of Ukrainians and Russians, something every Russian believes, and this was spun by the Atlantic Council and others as evidence of Russian Imperial ambitions. It's just poor propaganda. What Putin actually said was: "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains." in New York Times 20 February 2000; a similar remark was attributed to General Alexander Lebed in St Petersburg Times (Florida) 28 June 1996 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00016963 In the west they usually only quote the first part of that sentence, which obviously distorts the meaning substantially.

You're wrong. Putin has no problem with Ukraine being independent, all he wants is a Russian friendly neighbour. Not a pro-American neigbour. Ukrainians don't have to be "slaves". But if they think they can be cheerleaders for America, join NATO, well obviously this is not taking account of Russian interests. If you are a small neighbour of Russia, then you have to take into account Russian interests. Same if you are a small neighbour of America, as Panama found out.

If Ukraine wants to be independent it has to stop poking Russia in the eye with a stick. If you are a neighbour of a country like Russia, then you have to take into account Russian interests. Just as if you live next to America you have to take into account American interests, as Panama found out. This is just the reality. Independence is all very well, but you can't antagonize countries like Russia, if you're a small neighbour. It's just no a wise way to ensure your independence.

Konstantin Samoilov is a "Survival University Teacher". After serving in the military for several years, he discovered his latent magical abilities and was recruited to the Grand Lodge. https://wodoneshot.fandom.com/wiki/Konstantin_Samoilov Yup, sounds like a great source on the military developments, good job, Jinthing. 😂

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss the question seriously. My bad. I see you have no real points to make.

Great video. You gotta love Musk.