Cameroni

The US has been telling my country what to do for 79 years. It is nice to live in this world of perfect morality, however, real events do not happen there, they happen in the real world. Russia has fed Ukraine, built up Ukrainian infrastructure, fought side by side with Ukraine, gave Ukraine territory, you may find Russians see this differently.

Look, if a snake eats a mouse, the mouse thinks "this is very bad". The snake just thinks it's lunchtime. There is no good and bad. Only perspective. Yes, from UKraine's and uniformed Westerners perspective the invasion of Ukraine was bad. However, from the Russian perspective, they had been lied to and deceived by the West that they would not expand NATO eastwards. They had invested millions in building Ukraine, given them territory, and shared a common history only to see Ukraine instead put its hand down the west's trousers and insult Russia, even calling for nuclear weapons in Ukraine. To Russia the invasion was not the same bad as for Ukraine or the West. Their perspective was different. If you want to understand this conflict you need to understand this perspective too.

It was not a "treatise", merely an article he wrote where he articulates what every Russian thinks, that Ukrainians and Russians are descended from the same people. It is a historical fact actually. This is the same, as when NATO's Atlantic Council tries to twist Putin's words in that interview and claims that because of his views on history Putin inevitably wants to invade Poland to recreate Imperial Russia. It's ludicrous.

Oh please, this is like referring to Andrew Neil's nationalist fantasies and then claim it is UK state policy. You are confusing propaganda and wishful thinking by ten a penny nationalists with real state policy. They are not the same.

Yes, that is what anoher poster here has suggested. Of course Russia wants a pro-Russian Ukraine, but if it can not be so then perhaps Russia will settle for a very weakened Ukraine. No, Russia does not want Ukraine's resources, because if they did they would have attacked those areas where those resources are, and they have not. The fighting is contained in a very specific area mostly. No, I'm not "drunk", I just understand that Crimea did not happen in a vaccuum, but rather happpened after NATO made clear in 2008 that Ukrainian membership in NATO was on the cards. Russia had repeatedly made clear that NATO expansion eastwards was unacceptable and a line in the sand. When the West foolishly crossed that line, a response by Russia was inevitable.

You don't have to read Russian media, all you need is to hear John Mearsheimer speak, the world's leading authority on international relations, he explains the Ukraine conflict very well. I have, have you? I am not "throwing mud around", I am merely calling a duck a duck. You have a very single sided view of this conflict. Russia bad. Ukraine good. But reality is quite different. And were you not accusing other posters of swallowing propaganda?

Sorry, but that's pure fantasy. You only have to look at the location of the current fighting to understand that Russia does not want to conquer all of Ukraine, nor does it want Ukraine's resources. Western Ukraine has hardly seen real fighting. It is not just the US that is aware that Russia's economy is smaller than Texas' economy, believe it or not the Russians have these figures too. Russians understand that they do not have the capacity to conquer and occupy all of Ukraine long term. That is just pure fantasy. Much less could Russia conquer Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden etc long term, this is all pure fantasy an proaganda by NATO and the west. After 2008 it became clear that Ukraine became ever more pro-Western and what Russia wants is a pro-Russian Ukrainian state, that is true of course. But it can not occupy all of Ukraine and Russia has no intention to do that. You just need to look at the facts on the ground and Putin's statements, ie the evidence, not wild fantasies.

It is very hard to know what Trump would do, but he has threatened North Korea many times with total destruction, and he does not strike me as someone who makes threats and does not follow up. But I did not say he will nuke Russia, I said the opposite, that he will not, because he is hopfully a rational person who will heed the advice of his military that to nuke Russia would lead to the deaths of untold numbers of Americans and the destruction of US cities. Remember this was premised on the scenario what would the US do if Russia used a nuclear device in Ukraine. The rational view would be that the US would not respond with a nuclear attack on Russia, because America would then be in a nuclear conflict herself. And my hope is that Trump is a rational person.

I think you will find that it is you, who has swallowed propaganda hook line and sinker. After the West had promised Russia not to expand NATO eastwards and then in 2008 announced that, contrary to assurances given to Russia, this is what NATO would do, two things were clear: 1. There would inevitably be a Russian response to the deception and existential threat 2. The West had to come up with a propaganda narrative to explain the Russian response not as a reaction to Wesern lies and deception, but rather as evidence of a power mad Russian dicator helll-bent on re-constituting Soviet Russia or a fabled Imperial Russia. It is not surprising that you have swallowed this propaganda, after al NATO and Western media have worked overtime to spread this propaganda. It is not your fault. You would have to understand the underlying reality of the situation and the history, to understand that Western propaganda is false, and clearly you do not.

Thank you for explaining. As you know generally a girl wants to get married and have children, and ensure she and her are taken care of. When she was with you initially that iswhat she was hoping for most likely. Since you have shown that you will not provide that for her, but staying for a short period and staying in your home country for 10 years her thinking now is most likely "He provides money, I will keep him, it is only a short period each year, and I need the money". However, since she can not count on you to make a full commitment to her, ie come and stay with her full time in her country, she is most likely also looking at other sources of providers and if she finds a good one she will choose him. If you want her you will have to move to Thailand or bring her to your country. But starting anew is most likely a better option. How old are you both and how much were you sending her every month?

What about if you give the gift to your long term live-in partner, but you are not married to her, would that also be a way to avoid tax liability?

No it's not a story. It's based on where the fighting took place. You just have to look at the facts. The reason the fighting is taking place in the Donbass region mostly is because that is the region Putin is interested in. And the reason large parts of Western Ukraine see no major fighting is that Putin has no interested to occupy all the Ukraine. One only needs look at the economy of Russia, which is smaller than Texas, to realise why Putin is not interested in occupying all of Ukraine, because Russia does not have the capacity to do that.

Well, the hearts and minds of Ukrainians, that ship has sailed long ago now. Apart from the Russian Ukrainians who make up a sizeable number of Ukrainians. It was funny to see how they translated school messages in Western schools into Ukrainian for Ukrainian refugees, only to find they do not speak Ukrainian, only Russian. The convoy on Kiev never engaged Kiev properly and disappeared in a few days, it was most likely a decoy to confuse the enemy and bind troops there, while the Russians attacked elsewhere. They never intended to absorb Ukraine, because you can see it by the evidence, where the fighting is contained. Had Putin really wanted to conquer all of the Ukraine he would not just have sent a decoy toward Kiev, but would really have attacked western Ukraine in a substantial manner, something which has not happened to date. Putin has allowed large parts of Ukraine to remain intact. Naturally Russia wants a regime in Ukraine that is friendly toward Russia, but it can achieve that by means that do not resort to installing their own men.

Russia knows it will never win hearts and minds. It tried to do that since 1989. Russia allowed Germany to re-unify. Russia helped the US to explore space. Shared intelligence with the US. Russia implemented western economic standards. Russia bent over backwards to be accepted at the table. And we know how that turned out. In 2008 the US revealed what it had planned all along, to extend NATO onto Russia's underbelly. I really don't think Russia is concerned about hearts and minds anymore. Militarily, yes Russia can defeat the Ukraine with nuclear weapons. And we know the US would not, and could not, retaliate, lest it risk nuclear conflict itself. You are right though that Russia does not want to do that. All Russia wants is a Russia friendly Ukraine, not a Western influenced Ukraine. Failing that, a Ukraine so weakened that it has no influence and the West's influence there will not matter. At least that is what it looks like for now, nobody can look into Putin's mind, but from his statements and actions that is the correct reading. He never intended to absorb Ukraine completely.

I of course thought the same of your comments, thoughtful and interesting.

The economies of the western world are highly regulated today not just on socialist principle but also to avoid monopolies. They do not always succeed of course.

Your analysis is correct. Still, at least we don't eat our babies, like the chimps.

That is a fair point I suspect in the south they have the best Masaman.

Stauffenberg was not that "high ranking".

That was certainly the case in the 90s with that deranged slob Richard Perle, Wolfowitz and all the other neo cons. Obviously Trump has major international relations deficits and is married to Israel. But I think the support for Ukraine, though they have no chance to win, is just America pursuing its natural interest, to weaken Russia. As for Israel they are now out of the box so to speak and will do whatever they want. I do agree with you, Russia would use the nuclear weapons if they believe they have to. And it is all so unnecessary.

Expectation management, it can take time to clear out 1000 or 2000 troops. But cleared out they will be. As we both know. But to suggest this is some kind of beacon of hope for Ukraine, or the turning of the tide...I mean come on. It's 1000 to 2000 troops. These poor Ukrainians are on a one way ticket to hell.

What always disappointed me about democracy is that it did no put the most able in power. Instead of the greatest economic expert in country, some lawyer becomes chanceller or finance minister. It does not seem sensible.

I used to think unfettered capitalism was the way to go. But I realise now that some socialist watering down of capitalist excess is desirable. It looks like in some countries they are evolving in the direction you desire, as Germany and Finland have seriously tested "civic money", paying everyone a salary for nothing. Maybe that will come.

Oh please. You're dreaming. Ukraine has sent 1000 troops. Do you have any idea how many Russian troops they will be facing soon? Sure, 1000 armed troops can wreak a bit of havoc, but in the overall narrative of the war this will be a mere curiosity, like the German's Kursk offensive which was far more powerful and still failed.

Undoubtedly capitalism is the cause of many of the world's problems. It does work to a certain degree though. And nobody has come up with a viable alternative. Though as you rightly pointed out, socialism has greatly muzzled the capitalist beast in most countries. The sense of obligation you raise is most interesting. In the end children taking care of their parents out of obligation and social expectation, is there no selfishness here? For beautiful words we can look at the bible and enjoy the wisdom. Like love, religion is a fantasy of the soul. We now know, looking at economics, history and philology that the western religions too are not devoid of selfishness. Do you think capitalism will end and communism still has a chance?