Cameroni

My dear Nownow, Russia did not choose the military option. Russia chose to neogtiate with America. Sadly Americans spoke with forked tongue. They lied and deceived Russia regarding the true intentions of NATO. For decades Russia had drawn a line in the sand and made clear that NATO eastwards expansion was unacceptable due to security concerns. For decades the West ignored Russia and lied to her. Faced with the real possibility of nuclear armed Ukraine as a member of NATO on its very borders Russia had to face reality. It was either fight for security or be encircled by NATO who as policy puts US nuclear weapons in its member states. Russia did not choose this of course. Do you think Russia wants war and to see the cream of its youth perish yet again? Its resources squandered? Why would Russia do this, unless it had no other option?

Well, Russia suffered the communist delusion and also years of WWII which it had to fight almost singlehandedly, losing 20 million people in the process. So those were not great foundations. However, anyone who thinks Russia has no soft-power just has to read the countless books on how Russia made the 20th century, from ballet to modern art to film, medicine, technology, Russia's cultural significance is tremendous. I remember some of my smartest Oxford friends being very attracted to learn Russian. And which country has the soft power of the United States? Germay, Britain and France don't. China hardly does. The US is alone in this regard. It is completely false though to say that Putin has not developed his country. Russia's economy currently is enjoying boom times. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring

We know the reason for Ukraine, we both agree on it.

No, the Nordstream pipeline was owned byNordstream AG, where German, dutch and French companies were part-owners, with those companies being in turn part-owned by their respective states. The Nordstream pipeline went through German territory. German officials temselves have protested that Ukraine's sabotage of Nordstream was grounds to trigger article 5 of the NATO treaty. "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.' 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 Not how Nordstream was described by the Germans as "critical infrastructure", so even article 4 could have been invoked. Germany obviously did not due American interest in supporting Ukraine, despite this sabotage.

You didn't "disprove" anything. In fact you proved my point for me. You claimed the Turkey veto against Finlnd and Sweden was evdidence the US had no undue influence. But remind me again, how did Turkey come around? The US promising to supply F16 fighters and other perks? So you proved my point, Brian no? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/why-turkey-changed-its-stance-on-swedens-nato-membership-2 Your little truth bomb blew up in your face

The attack on Nordstream was an attack on a pipeline that runs through German territory. Nordstream AG was part-owend by German, French and Dutch companies where the sharholder was in part their respective states. This is why German officials were outraged and said that this attack could 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." 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.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-real-story-da24839c So much for "nobody in the world except the Kremlin" would think article 5 could be triggered by the Ukrainian sabotage. Again, at least you tried, ChicagoExpat. Well done. But failed again.

Lol, if you think NATO membership is solely decided by votes you probably never heard of the fact that countries hold talks before crucial votes to ensure the votes go their way. The US provides the main military muscle and the bulk of financial funding for NATO, they have a vested interested what happens with NATO. By the time the vote happens the US would have long ensured it goes the way it wants. Why do you think when Ukraine sabotaged the Nordstream pipeline, something which German officials protested could trigger article 5 of the NATO treaty, we never saw article 5 triggered? Because Germany has to fall in line with what the US wants in terms of foreign policy, even to the extreme of abandoning its own self interest. It's very sad to see a once proud nation like Germany humiliated by America in this way. 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 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 And please tell us all how Turkey came around to support Finnish and Swedish NATO membership? By being leaned on by the USA who promised Turkey F16 fighters and other perks, no? Thank you for proving my point, BKK Brian https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/11/why-turkey-changed-its-stance-on-swedens-nato-membership-2

I made it especially clear for you transam, because I know you need it spelled it out, I put it in bold for you. Because NATO decides who becomes a member

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.