AndrewL

I think it's pretty clear that Russia was/is a military threat to Ukraine and Ukraine's desire to get into NATO is well justified. In fact joining NATO was the only rational way for Ukraine to protect itself from Russia in the absence of having nuclear weapons. This is manifestly obvious given that Russia has already invaded (twice) and has now progressed to indiscriminate missile strikes and shelling because the war isn't going well for them. Any claim that Russia's invasion is justified to protect itself from NATO is just dumb given that Estonia and Latvia have been part of NATO for years and both are closer to Moscow than Ukraine. In any event, NATO is simply an excuse to justify Putin's invasion. The real primary objective has always been a land corridor from Russia to Crimea and restoration of access to fresh water for Crimea. Just look at the news. The only part of this war that is going remotely close to plan is in the south. All of the BS in the north is to provide a distraction for the Ukrainian military and to force Kyiv to sign up for the annexation of additional Ukrainian territory as the price of Russian withdrawal. Putin has gravely miscalculated western reaction, Ukrainian resistance and also has failed to fully convince his own military or government apparatus. Putin's is more dangerous than ever right now, because he is fighting for his very life and fears those around him far more than he fears the US or NATO. The obvious way out of this predicament for Russia is to get rid of Putin and let him take all the blame. If Putin does not show success in Ukraine soon, a coup in Russia becomes a real possibility. The war in Ukraine was lost before it even began, and everyone in the Russian government and military now knows this. The best result Putin can hope for is decades of Ukrainian insurgency and being cut off from most of the world's economy. Russia could have a better outcome without Putin in power, but it will take a long time for the west to trust Russia again. Unfortunately, I think it will be years of insurgency and the destruction of the Russian economy. The only winners in all this will be the USA with a Europe even more dependent on the US and China with a Russia even more dependent on China. Putin was played, or Putin lost his mojo, take your pick. The invasion of Ukraine was a mistake of epic proportions. It will be studied by military academies and politicians for centuries as an example of what not to do.

There really is only two results of letting in expats. 1. They will bring their money into Thailand and invest. 2. They will bring their money into Thailand and spend. Rich people are rich because they know how to invest. They invest in Thailand because Thailand is a good investment. That has to do with the business environment, how well the economy is managed and laws concerning investment. It has nothing to do with visa's for living in Thailand. The rich may get a visa, but they are not going to invest because they have a visa. They will spend, but there are few of them. Regular retirees, will also not invest. They can't afford it. But they will buy a house, they will buy a car, they will pay for electricity and food and travel inside Thailand. In other words, retirees come to Thailand to spend money. They are like year round tourists. They may not spend as much per week as regular tourists, but in a year they spend far more and they will spend money on the same things as middle class Thai's. This builds up infrastructure and business that all Thais use, spreading their spending to a much wider range of businesses than tourists do. It is a very healthy type of spending as opposed to only restaurants, hotels and bars. Who will generate more sustainable and predictable economic benefit to Thailand: 100 billionaires or 1 million retirees? Wealthy countries are not wealthy because of billionaires, they are wealthy because the middle class is large. Thailand would be far better off getting many, many retirees. They will bring in their money, they will spend it then, when they die, they will leave houses, infrastructure and money to their relatives and friends inside Thailand and that wealth will help the Thai economy long into the future. Thailand needs a larger middle class. Import it. My suggestion is 1. Long term retirement visas. At least five years. 10 would be better. 2. No 90 day reporting. I think yearly is a decent compromise to ensure legal residency/marriage in Thailand. For non-retirees rules may be different. 3. Yearly Medical Insurance fee for the government program as part of the visa, just like all Thais. If a retiree wants more, they can pay for more, just like Thais. 4. Ability to own a single personal residence and land of a maximum size (2-4 Rai say). The residence can be inherited by the owners children regardless of residence or citizenship. Retiree would feel more comfortable making this large investment and it would cut down on the fraud often associated with land and expats. These changes would be enough for me to feel secure and to deeply commit to living in Thailand. But, I have a one year visa, so I plan one year at a time. Something I am reminded of every 90 days.

I get it that Thailand doesn't want to give free health care to long term visa holders. What I think they should do is add fee to visas or visa extensions and and put visa holders on the government heath insurance scheme. You get treated like everyone else, and that's what happens if you have an accident or you don't have money. Most farang, if given a choice, would pay at the private hospitals anyway. My daughter did a study on Thailand's heath care for her Masters in Canada. The Thai health system has a focus on stopping problems before they happen, and is surprisingly cheap and effective. Patient outcomes are similar to the private and military health system at a fraction of the cost.

I enjoyed your rambling thoughts that came to the point slowly. Good writing. I hope I can be as coherent and enjoyably when I reach 75. There is, however, no danger of you being considered a tea snob for Yellow Label Tea is a blight upon the world. It tastes like mud, and not very good mud. I drink my tea without cream or sugar, so I get all the flavours, good and bad. Darjeeling is known as the King of teas and is my favorite type. Celon tea, which forms the basis of English Breakfast, is also quite good. Perhaps you should try a different brand of English Breakfast or Celon tea. I find they vary quite a bit in how they taste. I have settled on Dimah Celon tea as my local reasonably priced, go to tea. Another very good tea is Cameronian Gold by BOH of Malaysia. It can be found on-line. I lived in Malaysia for about 9 years and lived across the hall from BOH's English owners. Perhaps we may be able to agree that Earl Grey should go the way of it's namesake Prime Minister, be fondly remembered for what it never really was and respectfully buried.