Cameroni

Military analyst George Barros: “To pull off this operation, they had to take some of their most experienced forces from the line in the Donbas, where the Russians already had an upper-hand, something that increases the likelihood of a more territorial gain by Russia there. There are also real questions about their ability to hold captured Kursk territory over the long term as leverage in future negotiations with Russia, given the lack of fortifications and trenches there.” The offensive could also provide an unexpected boost to Putin by giving him a new justification to increase the size of his forces, Alperovich said." https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2024/08/russia-pulling-some-troops-out-ukraine-fight-ukranians-russia/398884/?oref=d1-featured-river-top

That's a fair point, it could have been a political play set in motion by the US. After all they gifted Tukey F16s just to buy their vote for the move.

I wish I had known how much better Thailand is than any other country in the world, in the areas that count, 20 years ago, so I could have moved here then. The 20 years outside Thailand were good, but I feel in Thailand they would have been better.

They do have to pay their own medical expenses, no insurance would cover this.

Agreed, very interesting. Who would have thought that in Russia Putin can't launch nukes alone but has to get 2 people to agree, where as Biden could do it alone. “Russia has a robust nuclear capacity. They refurbish their warheads often,” says Amy Woolf, a US specialist in nuclear weapons policy. Schneider, too, is confident that Russia’s nukes are serviceable."

Errrr, no, I was thinking through one of the possible outcomes that could take place.

I would, except international relaions are not decided by popularity contests.

I did not say that at all. I was merely expressing the view that should Russia drop a nuclear device on Ukraine, then the US would not risk retaliating and thereby become involved in a nuclear war with Russia.

Which once again illustrates how useless treaties are between countries. Of course Russia did not know at that time that Ukraine would become a member of NATO. It would be a bit odd for Russia to adhere to a security guarantee for Ukraine, whilst Ukraine is becoming a member of NATO and putting Russia's security at risk, don't you think?

But it doesn't have to be if Russia nukes Ukraine since Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Sorry to diappoint you.

Vance is a far better orator than Harris though. She's not been blessed with a dulcet voice.

The nuclear arsenals of both US and Russia have the ability to survive a wide range of counterforce attacks and carry out a second strike in response. Russia has too many missiles and submarines, the US could never destroy them in one strike. It's impossible.

MAD is between USA and Russia. Not Ukraine and Russia. I think you're getting confused.

I missed that, thanks for getting me up to speed. That's hilarious.

Surely this is a case by case situation? I can believe Thai women are more liberal with Farang men, does that make them more intelligent? Probably not. The women are harder working though, like everywhere, not just Thailand.

Russia is a minor economic power, true, however, it is still a major military power, Russia has the most confirmed nuclear weapons of any country, not to mention new fancy bombs. Already in the 1990s you read about this "end of history" stuff from Fukuyama, even then it seemed like a crock of xxxx to me. Yes, Russia has a smallish economy now and it could not invade Europe or occupy any counry long term. However, clearly people still fear Russia's military. Sadly not enoughto take into account Russia's core security interests. So Russia has to sacrifice its men and resources again to do so. I noticed that as well, it's understandable given the bipolar world we used to have. Due to sheer geographic size it is hard for Russians to compare their country to us mere Europeans I suspect.

I am shocked how often Trump lies. He's pretty shameless about it. It's almost as if it's a bit of fun to him and the audience is in on it. But again, he's a politician so, we don't expect him to be honest.

Okay, let's leave the negotation spin to one side. What would be realistic terms for you? Only Russia leaves and keeps nothing I presume, so nothing would be realistic in your eyes? If Russia drops a nucear bomb on Ukraine the US will not be in a nuclear conflict with Russia. Why do you think the West is not giving Ukraine NATO membership now? Because that would mean NATO going to war against Russia, and NATO an the US do not want that. NATO has made sure, specifically, that it has no obligation to aid Ukraine if she is hit with a nuclear bomb, by not granting Ukraine NATO membership. NATO might aid Ukraine with all manner of supplies but it will not put troops on the ground or strike at Russia. Why? Because Americans want to live, and a conflict with Russia could get nuclear and Americans do no want a nuclear conflict with Russia. MAD only works with USA vs Russia. Not Russia vs Ukraine. The West would have no option but to let Putin win if he uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, because the alternative is NATO herself being in a conflict with Russia. NATO wants war between Ukraine and Russia, but it does not want to be involved itself with troops or conventional or nuclear strikes This is all hypothetical of course, because I do not think Putin wants to use nuclear bombs, which is indeed very risky, and they can win by conventional means as well. Far be it from me to dream of Russia using a nuclear bomb against Ukraine, I would not wish that on anyone and least of all Ukraine. I am just realistically pointing out that the US will not risk nuclear, conventional or any war with Russia, apart from a cold war. Even if Russia were forced to use a nuclear bomb, which they are not at the moment.

If the US launch a nuclear missile towards Moscow I sincerely doubt the USA will absolutely safe in that situation.

Singling out Trump for "lies" is a bit, I don't know. All politicians lie. Constantly. A politician is expected to lie. He has to really in democracy. What politician never lied? Almost none. As for his mental state, it's funny how eveyone's a professional psychiatrist now, but he's clearly not insane. Eccentric? Yes, sure. Like all billionaires. But not insane.

I quite agree, the Kursk incursion does not represent a risk to Russian statehood. Which is why Putin has not even declared martial law, as he very well could in this situation, but only a counter terrorist operation. I suspect Ukraine could hold on to territory for 4 months or so, best case scenario for Ukraine, because the Ukrainian troops there are highly trained and have western weaponry to disrupt Russian air superiority. Russia wants to go home, the Russians were keen to negotiate a settlement, but Ukraine, flush with American supplies thought it preferable to fight. At the latest before the election a peace negotiation should commence, I suspect. If the US, btw, would hit Russia with conventional strikes, as you know that would unleash a state of war with Russia. Why would the US risk entering into a nuclear conflict with Russia, thus risking its own survival, just for Ukraine? You don't think this will happen, surely?

I think there are mistakes in your calculations, Russia does not have one or two nuclear bombs, it has over 5000. More than enough to defeat Ukraine. Indeed India and China may put sanctions on Russia then, but if Russia were to use a nuclear bomb then only because it felt its territorial integrity and survival as a nation long term are endangered. In that scenario economic concerns would take a back seat, as they often do in Russia. Your notion that the US and NATO would hit Russia with conventional strikes is misguided, because that would potentially mean the US would put itself in a state of war with Russia, which as you can tell Biden is very careful to avoid. Americans know they can not afford to be at war with Russia, lest they risk a nuclear conflict.

Again, if Sweden and Finland seriously thought about it, they would have understood that Russia cannot possibly invade them. Nor Latvia, Estonia, Poland or Germany. Because Russia's economy is smaller than Texas. Already to occupy a small part of Ukraine is a struggle long term, imagine Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germay etc.... It doesn't even make sense.

Because Putin does have the upper hand. He is winning the war in the Donbas region very clearly. The Kursk incursion will be dealth with. And if it all were to go sideways Putin could always defeat Ukraine with a nuclear missile, knowing the US can not retaliate with a nuclear weapon against Russia. So Putin has nuclear insurance. He can not lose. No matter what happens. 10000 troops hiding in Kursk villages won't change that.

Before Sweden and Finland said they will join NATO Putin did not threaten them. Very foolish of Sweden and Finland btw, they could have had a nuclear free Baltic. Now the arms race is back on. Very bad news for Sweden and Finland.