Cameroni

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.

I'm talking about the plausibility of nations being concerned about their security. Finland and Sweden were. And so was Russia.

That doesn't suprise me, all the evidence is that immigration officers almost never enforce this rule and plenty of people have lived in Thailand for long periods on visa waiver. It doesn't change the fact that the current Thai e-Visa website says the tourist visas are for a period of 6 months and th current UK website of the Thai government says the visa waivers are for a 6 month period (albeit that webste has out of date info it does refer to the 6 month period). If you want the law you'll have to find it yourself. I certainly hope you're right and this 6 month period is not law.

Note how this is double standard. Nobody threatened Finland or Sweden. However, when these countries join NATO, in the absence of any threat from Russia whatsoever to these countries, everyone nods and signals understanding. However, when Russa is encircled by NATO member states, some of whom have nuclear weapons, but all have conventional US weapons and Russia then feels threatened, this is a big shock to everyone. Very odd this congnitive dissonance among some.

Norwegian salmon does have toxins, but these are below levels that scientists find of concern. However, if you eat too much of Norwegian salmon you could have adverse health effects. "The contaminant levels in Norwegian farmed salmon have generally decreased between 1999 and 2011. Excluding other dietary sources, the levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in 2011 allowed consumption of up to 1.3 kg salmon per week to reach the tolerable weekly intake." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201400302X

Not at all. As soon as Ukraine made clear in 2002 that it wants to join NATO the possibility of a nuclear powered, pro American Ukraine who is a NATO member started to be a problem for Russia. America has known this for decades.

I never post lies, as you should know by now. I'm a bit hurt, Lacessit. "By late 1992, the Ukrainian parliament was vocalizing more pro-nuclear views. Some believed that Ukraine was entitled to at least temporary nuclear weapon status. Perhaps optimistically, the U.S. government promised Ukraine $175 million in dismantlement assistance. Instead, the Ukrainian government began implementing administrative management of the nuclear forces and claimed ownership of the warheads." https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-and-security-assurances-glance In 2014 "Pavlo Rizanenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, told USA Today that Ukraine may have to arm themselves with their own nuclear weapons if the United States and other world leaders do not hold up their end of the agreement. He said, "We gave up nuclear weapons because of this agreement. Now, there's a strong sentiment in Ukraine that we made a big mistake."He also said that, "In the future, no matter how the situation is resolved in Crimea, we need a much stronger Ukraine. If you have nuclear weapons, people don't invade you." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction On April 15, 2021, Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany Melnyk said that if Ukraine is not allowed to join NATO, his country might have to reconsider its status as a non-nuclear weapon state to guarantee its defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction As for nuclear sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

Firstly Sweden and Finland have been official partners of NATO since 1994. So these two joining NATO changes nothing really. Secondly, they purely acted out of irrational fear. Any person who has had a cursory glance at the size of the Russian economy knows it is an impossibility for Russia to invade Sweden, Finland, Poland, Germany and all these other countries who seem to be so scared of Russia. Russia is hardly able to fight and occupy all of Ukraine, so any notion of an Imperial Russia comeback is just fantasy. Sweden's military weakness came into full view in 2013 when Russian bomber planes were able to simulate an attack on Stockholm and Sweden needed Nato help to ward them off. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61397478 So it was Sweden's own weakness that made it join NATO.

No, the US could not do that, because the US would then be in a nuclear conflict with Russia. Americans want to live. They will not risk their cities and millions of Americans being wiped out because of Ukraine. Sorry to disappoint you.

America has been arming Ukraine with ever more lethal weapons. It is almost certain once the war is over Ukraine will participate in nuclear sharing after it becomes a NATO member. Ukrainians have demanded nuclear weapons for decades. Of course NATO can't grant Ukraine NATO membership now when it is at war with Russia, because that would mean going to war with Russia. But once the peace settlement is in place it will be a question of time only before Ukraine becomes a NATO member and participates in nuclear sharing.

In Central they have both the cooked and raw variety of Salmon sushi. I always eat the raw variety and never had any issue. They must use some method to ensure this raw salmon is not spoiled, surely?

Again, you keep putting words in my mouth, I never said Poland's negotiations to obtain nuclear weapons were a cause of the Ukraine war. However, the possibility that Ukraine could become a member of NATO and request nuclear sharing most likely did play a role in considerations in Russia. How do you know there was no intention to extend nuclear sharing to some of the new NATO states, like is now being considered for Poland? How do you know what talks are held behind closed doors? What we know for a fact, several NATO member states do participate in nuclear sharing and have US nuclear weapons stationed in their territory. In 2008 NATO declared Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Ukrainian politicians have called for nuclear weapons of their own LONG BEFORE the Ukraine war.

Of course they do. The US uses NATO to project Western influence. NATO was founded in the West to protect the West. To say the West projects its influence using NATO is no more "outrageous" than saying a Zebra has stripes.

That's the view of people like this juvenile Annalena Baerbock, who really should be running a kindergarten not Germany's foreign ministry. However, Ms Baerbock will not be around forever. Political views change, just look at Willy Brandt. Who knows what the future will bring. If we could predict it we will all be lottery winners, right candide?

NATO and Western Influence amount to the same thing. NATO is western influence incarnate and western inluence is exercised through NATO. Listen, there is no "good" and "evil" here. Neither America or Russia are "good" or "evil". This Old Testament way to look at the stuation is way too simplistic. There are perspectives. The Russians have theirs, informed by their need for security, and the Americans have theirs informed by their national interests. These only become good or evil depending on which perspective you choose. You for example choose to believe NATO propaganda. So for your Russia is evil. But Russia is not "evil". It is merely trying pursue its national interests, just like America.

I did not say in "every" NATO country, but American nuclear weapons ARE stationed in several NATO member states. Poland and the US are negotiating as we speak about Poland receiving US nuclear weapons. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2024/04/22/polish-president-wants-nato-nukes-for-deterring-russia/ Obviously the possibility of a country like Ukraine, that has in the past seen many calling for its own nuclear weapons, then also using "nuclear sharing" to arm itself is very real.