rmind

Ruble is a weak indicator as the central bank has tools to control the exchange rate. Soviet ruble also had a strong and, for a long time, quite stable exchange rate with the US dollar. However, in Soviet Union you could not legally own foreign currency (nor you could buy Western goods and services). The exchange rate by no means indicated the economic situation in the USSR.

You are buying too much into the Russian propaganda. First, it is not NATO which expanded "into" the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. These countries voluntarily applied and their diplomats lobbied very hard to get accepted into NATO, precisely because of Russia's aggressive and militaristic policies. Why do you think that these sovereign European nations actually want to be a "buffer"? Why do you think somebody should have a right to constrain their sovereignty?

Ukraine was not even close to joining NATO, despite all declarations (moreover, Russia firmly prevented it by orchestrating the War in Donbas). With Finland joining NATO, Russia will now have 1340 km border with NATO. What Putin is going to do about that? It was never about NATO. Look at the origins of the Russian-Ukrainian War (it wasn't just 2013, the cracks started as early as 2004). Moscow always had a distorted view of the Ukrainian history and its sovereignty as an independent nation (despite signing treaties and agreements recognizing it).

> For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).

This is precisely what they tried to do with this invasion, thinking that if the Ukrainian government gets decapitated, the majority of the Ukrainian population would not resist and cooperate. Kremlin massively miscalculated because they started believing their own propaganda and their intelligence would feed the dictator with the information he wanted to hear rather than reality.

Why do you think there should be a "valid" (you mean face-saving?) exit from the war? I would argue that a full military defeat of Russia is a valid end of this war.

It is absolutely a loss-loss situation for Russia and Ukraine. However, as long as the West maintains sanctions on Russia and provides a substantial support (both economic and military) to Ukraine, then Russia will not be able to sustain its war effort and pressure on Ukraine.

Europe is finally, for real (albeit slowly and painfully), moving away from the Rusian fossil fuels this time. It will take some time, but it's a tectonic shift.

Russia didn't invade Ukraine "out of the blue". Russia has been at war with Ukraine since 2014, when it occupied and annexed Crimea, and at the same time orchestrated and instigated covert War in Donbas.

You ramble something incoherent about the RAND paper from 2019. Just to clarify this: yes, it is precisely where the defense research should have spent the money following the Russia's aggression.

You forgot couple important aspects: he also ruined the Russian economy (the conservative estimate is -12% GDP drop this year). Russian military industry also lost access to the Western high tech (unfortunately, a lot of it has been used in their modern equipment, such as missiles, aircraft, etc). It will take at least a decade for them rebuild the armed forces after the war with Ukraine.

There is indeed a risk of Kremlin using the tactical nuclear weapons. The United States needs to have a very robust strategy for such possibility. However, such use cannot be left without a response. Most likely it would be a military response. No response would set a catastrophic precedent, as it would invite the use of nuclear weapons in pretty much any conflict which involves a nuclear power. Just think about South China Sea, Kashmir conflict, etc. It would also lead to an era of nuclear proliferation, as weaker states would see no other option than to obtain nukes.

I think even the nutcases in Kremlin (or at least the Russian Armed Forces) understand that there would be an unprecedented response.

The very concept of a nuclear country being "pushed" (what does that even mean?) to wage a war against a country, which is more than 3x smaller in population and around 5x weaker economically, is simply delusional.

Russia attempted to wage a 19th century style conquest: brutal and open territorial grab including the subjugation and repression of the local population.

It's done within the constitutional system in Finland and Sweden. The timing and the speed of process is a rational choice while Russian military is choking in Ukraine and is unable pose a serious military threat elsewhere right now. It's a window of opportunity and the wise leadership used it.

The Finnish defense budget for 2022 was €5.1bn, but I am sure they bumped it up after the Russian invasion. The overall cost of the F-35 acquisition is €8.378bn (jet fighter cost being €4.703bn of that). Naturally, such acqusitions are done gradually (e.g. over a few years).

Source: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/the-lockheed-martin-f-35a-lig...

"Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia to Confront the West" (2018) by Keir Giles is also worth reading: https://icds.ee/en/the-moscow-rules-ten-principles-for-worki...

It explains the reality that Russia's confrontation with the West is their default state throughout history, rather than abnormality.

The article is well overdue, given that it was written in 2019. The strong and overwhelming sanctions on Russia should have been adopted in 2014 when Russia started the over War in Donbas. A strong Western response then could have prevented the war of 2022, instead of pursuing the "let's be nice and try to talk this through with Kremlin" diplomacy which the Eastern European countries long knew is hopeless.

Like it took a night for the Russians to wipe out Ukraine (which has been lacking modern weapons)? The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russian army is in reality. They have no chance against NATO whatsoever. Poland and Baltics are also arming themselves to teeth now.

NATO would have become a dysfunctional organization. It is not about the Russian fear of NATO. Russian political system cannot get over its loss of an empire, despite us living in the XXI century. It's entirely different root of the problem..

You are delusional. NATO doesn't want anybody to join. It's all eastern Europeans who actively lobbied and had to sweat convincing NATO leaders to accept them. It was voluntary choice of those nations. Why did they choose to join? Because Russia has been threatening and interfering with their way of life, with the desire to be free. Russian invasion of Ukraine just reinforced the desire to be in NATO.

Were German people responsible for Nazis? Russians have been figting Nazis so fiercly during the World War 2 and it is so ironic that they have a Nazis in Kremlin now.. with many supporting them or just doing nothing about it.

Baltics have LNG terminals and can fully supply themselves from alternative gas providers. Tell it to Germans who addicted themselves to the Gazprom drug needle.

War in Donbas was orchestrated and fueled by Moscow, with covert militants coming and running it from Russia. Please.. read at least some basic literature with plenty of supporting references (by international organizations, such as the United Nations, OSCE, etc) on this subject:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_in_the_2021%E2%...

Following the full-scale Russian invasion of a sovereign and peaceful country, the Ukrainians are defending their home, their land, their freedom, and their way of life. Putin essentially told in his speech that Ukraine, as a nation, does not have the right to exist. The last time events like this happened was in 1939 and there is name for it.

Russia must stop this terrible war. There is just no other way.

EBV VCA IgG antibodies remain present for the rest of your life, as your immune system maintains certain antibody levels to keep the virus in check (it's a delicate host-virus balance).

EBV VCA IgM indicates a primary EBV infection and these antibodies remain for a few months, until seroconversion happens. They might not necessarily be present immediately. During the primary infection, the virus is in active lytic replication which can accurately be shown by an EBV PCR test.

Once the virus establishes latency, EBV PCR will be negative. It may occasionally become positive when EBV reactivates, but it may also reactivate in other compartments i.e. it infects more than just B-cells and the standard PCR test wouldn't show that. There are more antibodies involved and the whole thing is more complex than just the lytic and latent cycles.. the immune system is very complex.

If you want to test whether you already had EBV, then it would be a test for Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to the EBV viral capsid antigen (VCA). It shows whether the virus has established the latency in your body. Most laboratories would just label it as "EBV IgG", so just ask for that.

If you are in your 30 or older, then you most likely have had it already.

Back in 1980s, there were proposals for a "chronic mononucleosis" or "chronic mononucleosis syndrome" as a diagnosis / standard disease. There were very comprehensive studies trying to investigate the patients who had chronic fatigue and other long lasting debilitating symptoms. After a good decade of studies, the research community found that this group of patients is very consistent (their complaints, symptoms, etiology), but failed to prove EBV as a cause (although the studies did not disprove it either) or at least come up with a clear serological diagnostic criteria. So, in 1990s they decided to define a generic Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) as a standardized disease. Other viruses and pathogens can cause CFS/ME and a broader definition would sometimes include even psychosomatic patients, so as a result CFS/ME has been quite discredited.

Diagnostic techniques evolved and research progressed. In the recent decade, new studies are very close to proving that EBV is indeed a likely cause of CFS/ME (well, one segment, as there are other causes too). Reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7912523/

NATO never promised to not expand, see Myth 3 here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception...

The Baltic States have electricity links with Finland, Sweden (subsea cables) and Poland (with another cable link planned). They are scheduled to pretty much disconnect from the Russian/CIS electricity grid by 2025: https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/baltic-states-and-poland-sign...

I totally agree on German forces being deplorable. Regarding Poland:

- MIM-104 Patriot (air defense): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43574308

- JASSM-ER (cruise missiles): https://defence24.com/70-jassm-er-missiles-for-the-polish-f-...

- F-35 figher jets: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/01/31/poland-...

- M142 HIMARS rocket launchers: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/02/11/poland-...

- M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 tanks: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/07/14/polish-defence-m...

.. and there are plenty of smaller scale projects. Poland is arming to teeth.

NATO has more than enough military power to defend, as long as it has enough political will and freedom to act. I think that is what the debate is about.

Also, I would not underestimate Poland. The country spends 2.2% of its GDP on military and has been gradually increasing the expenditures further. Moreover, Poland has been making very major acquisitions of modern equipment and capabilities (something Ukraine is currently just dreaming of -- see one of my posts above) as separate budget lines. It is on the track to become one of the main military powers in the EU and is certainly a very credible power to resist Russia.

The information in this Wikipedia page is out of date. There are quite a few new LNG terminals in the EU now which diversified the gas supply. High consumption from Russia doesn't not necessarily mean dependency, e.g. Lithuania has an LNG terminal with a capacity to supply itself and the other Baltics states, but the country buys mostly the Russian gas simply because they offer lower market price. However, Lithuania has been shipping gas from Norway, Qatar and USA. It's all free market now.

Poland and Finland also have LNG terminals with more of them being planned in other European countries. Germany, on the other hand, is still very much on the Russian gas needle.

You suddently jumped to conclusion that EU could not do much without NATO, but that's just your speculation.

- EU is basically the third largest economy in the World. Meanwhile, Russia is about similar size economy as Italy. The combined EU military spending and capability/equipment is well above Russia's. So, in terms of economic and military power, the EU certainly has means, but see below.

- Would EU have political might and unity? That is a big question. However, the situation with the Baltic States is not so simple: these countries are well integrated parts of the EU, including the membership in Eurozone, Schengen Area, financial and banking system (banks are mostly Scandinavian in the Baltics), etc. Any threats to them would have significant consequences e.g. to Euro as a currency.

- While some EU countries might be reluctant to do anything, there would be other EU countries which might take unilateral action as they might feel threatened too. In particular, Nordic countries and Poland (which, by the way, recently is getting very heavily armed).

Just a few points:

- The Budapest Memorandum was, unfortunately, not legally binding. Not justifying the lack of support from the West, but just pointing out an important aspect.

- North Atlantic Treaty is legally binding. Also, the Baltic States already host a small multi-national contingent of NATO troops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Enhanced_Forward_Presence

- It is also worth noting that the EU has mutual defence clause as per Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union. Nobody knows what legal or practical effect it would have though.

Moderna seems to be also developing an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) vaccine [1]. It might not only prevent from some lymphomas and other oncologal diseases, but might also help the people who suffer from the EBV subset of the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) or similar post-viral disorder.

It is very exciting, yet it will probably take a decade until these inventions will become available in the market. Medicine is painfully slow.

[1] https://investors.modernatx.com/static-files/834b6509-553f-4...

West Germany during the Cold War? At least technically, USA (following 911)?

Crimea was part of the Ottoman Empire for 3 centuries and a part of the Golden Horde for 2 centuries before that. What's your point? Just because some state controlled the territory in the past doesn't mean it belongs to it in the XXI century. This world came up with the international law and rules for a reason.