Remind me which of those countries were subsequently annexed by NATO countries?

I think a lot of that depends on whether the flags in the court have gold fringing or not... Or I might be mixing up Russian propaganda with plain old home grown US disinformation... Of course, there does seem to keep being more and more evidence that a lot of that actually is planted by Russia in the first place, so who knows.

"Our", right... In any case, sure, the US is imperialistic and pushy and obnoxious on the international stage. Prominent European nations also have a lot to answer for in the history of imperialism. So what though? Two rights don't make a wrong. I can simultaneously think that Russia is wrong to do something while thinking the US was/is wrong to do other things. For example, US occupation of Guantanamo Bay? Completely illegal with no valid justification. National sovereignty is not some gift bestowed by the US on other nations.

So, yeah Russia did overthrow the legitimate government in Crimea, and in Donetsk and Luhansk. As for the rest of that, pretty much all bull. There were no agreements that would have re-united the Russian occupied Donetsk and Luhansk with the rest of Ukraine. Not unless you mean surrender demands by Russia which would "re-unite" them by making them all Russian Oblasts.

No, it is actually entirely accurate. It leaves out the nuance that it is for Putin's own glorification, etc. but it is accurate.

More bull. I am sure you love the concept of the Russian Mir, but being an ethnic Russian or Russian speaker does not mean that Russia owns you. The overthrown politician in question was actually overthrown by parliamentary procedure. There are some excuses that it wasn't valid because of some constitution juggling that was going on beforehand (also one of the reasons for his overthrow), etc. Of course, while it was already well known how incredibly corrupt he was, the aftermath showed the sheer, disgusting scale of his corruption.

While it is, to some degree driven by Russian ethnic hostility towards non-Russian Slavs (what do they call Ukrainians again? Khokols?) the broader reason is Russian imperialistic expansionism.

That is hilarious. The Russians are only maintaining their presence in Ukraine through the continuous mass sacrifice of their own people and whatever foreigners they can trick into dying for them. This war has made it entirely clear that NATO forces, or pretty much any of the major NATO countries individually, could roll through Moscow and St. Petersburg (Pretty much the only major parts of Russia that the Russians who matter live in) within a month in conventional warfare.

It's not that James Hansen is a fanatic, it's that he he is in his mid eighties and formed many of these opinions earlier in his life. He was ten when the first power generating nuclear reactor came online and 12 when the "atoms for peace" initiative started. So, we have a budding young future scientist who grew up in what they were trying at the time to dub the "atomic age" which was when the US government most heavily propagandized nuclear power. That's bound to leave an impression. Likewise, his impression of things like solar cells would have been formed in his college years when they were just starting to become more widely available, but were tremendously inefficient compared to today. Back then is when they started throwing around notions that solar panels would never produce more energy in their life time than they took to make. It may have been pretty close to true at the time. Basically through most of his life, those renewables were not as advanced as today and were not yet ready to be viable as cost-effective, efficient power sources. At a certain point, older scientists do tend to get fixated on certain ideas without keeping up so well with the state of the art. Hansen was around 74 when he made the statement you attribute to him above.

It is worth noting that, despite being a prominent climate scientist, Hansen has many, many critics in the field on his pro-nuclear stance. While I am not a prominent climate scientist, I am one of those critics because the economics and logistics don't work out.

Well, for citations of cask storage failing that all depends on whether you would consider a reactor containment building to be a cask. If you would, then one failed when used fuel exploded out of the top of the "cask" and ended up scattered all over Chornobyl (and large areas of Europe). Or the time it melted through the bottom of the immediate "casks" and ended up pooled at the bottom of the primary "cask" where it is only kept cold by continuous cooling water and has been there for a decade and a half and will probably be there for three or four more decades at least.

That is tongue in cheek of course. As I have said, I have no doubt that dry cask storage is no worse than all of the other inadequate schemes for storing more conventional long-term toxic waste out there. I actually agree that it is not really, but itself, any sort of reason to worry about nuclear power. I only mention it because you keep mentioning it. My objection to nuclear power for general electrical generation remains the same as always: It is too expensive, too slow, and too inflexible.

What about good old logical OR with regards to lies or incompetence where person X is either lying OR they are incompetent (it's a logical OR, so they can be both as well). Any possible option should disqualify them for whatever they are being considered for, but many people seem to work on the basis that, if they can't be sure they are lying, and they can't be sure they are incompetent, then person X must be neither.

My fault. I usually make sure that I at least name the subject once in reply posts rather than just using pronouns, but I failed to do that. Especially bad when I was replying to a quote of a line that mentioned both Jobs and Woz and pretty much left it to context from prior posts to determine which I was selecting as the subject. Sorry about that.

Of course nothing will convince you otherwise. You have made it perfectly clear that you are a fanatic.

People like myself have a very good idea of the history of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and understand it quite well. From an understanding of both sides of the issue, it is quite clear that Russia is in the wrong and the whole thing is about Russian imperialist expansionism.

Not even clear what you think you're trying to say here, but I'm just going to interpret this as saying that, yes indeed, most of Russia's close neighbors think that the Russians are a dangerous, imperialistic threat for good reason.

Was this reply meant for me? I think maybe you meant to reply to someone else.

Just keep on pretending. Why do you even bother. No-one not in your propaganda bubble will believe you. We all know that this is all just pathetic excuses for Russian imperial expansionism.

Proven for a whole 40 years on the site of nuclear power plants. Not really an impressive record compared to what we're talking about here. Basically you're talking about plans to manage things for hundreds of years or more that pretty much require ephemeral entities like corporations to continuously exist to take care of them. This is the same bad plan that has been used for all kinds of non-nuclear toxic waste forever. How many times have we heard stories about holding ponds for mining companies and other industrial interests that were supposed to be kept isolated from the water table and streams and rivers for centuries being completely ignored the second that the corporations that created them stopped being profitable and evaporated, leaving behind absolutely nothing to face any sort of liability ending up polluting people's drinking water and wildlife? Or, for that matter, just bursting a dam and flooding tens of thousands of acres with toxic heavy metals and the like?

Once again, the nuclear waste problem is such a drop in the bucket compared to other forms of pollution that it's barely worth discussing. The nuclear waste problem is not really a big deal compared to the other issues with nuclear power plants. Nevertheless, I'm still not going to ignore handwaving excuses for the kind of brain-dead waste management plans that just hand-wave away the problem of perpetual care. Like we're seeing in Ukraine right now, nuclear power plants are basically reliant on active care to not automatically become disaster areas. That is not exactly a ringing endorsment for nuclear power.

It's only reasonable for you to add a disclaimer to your post that what you are saying only applies outside of the body. Plenty of that stuff is very nasty due to radiation if it ends up in the human body. Especially the more bio-available stuff. Then there's also the fact that, even if it were not radioactive, plenty of it is chemically toxic, even without the radioactivity. That's not to say that there's massive amounts of it compared to other toxic stuff that can end up in the environment. However, we do tend to require that any industry that produces polluting, toxic byproducts to have a viable plan to deal with them. Of course, as we can see with many industry, there are very often failures to meet those requirements. Still, there's no special reason to give the nuclear industry a magical pass on those requirements.

What a load. That is simply not how diplomacy or government really work and you know it. Non-binding schmoozing by diplomats is just that and nothing more. You're basically calling the Russians either liars or morons or both.

Then you're a liar or a moron as well.

You are so ridiculously full of it. So, to be clear, Denis Pushelin, a card carrying member of the United Russia party, with a government full of Russian politicians from the independent Republic of Donetsk and Leonid Pasechnik from the independent Republic of Luhansk, also a card carrying member of the United Russia party, just begged for help from their completely neutral neighbor Russia to defend them from the wicked Ukrainians? Those completely independent leaders of completely independent Republics who totally, totally were not installed by Russia just needed help? Sorry, but that garbage doesn't play so well in places where people can get information from places other than Russian state TV and the walled-off Russian corner of the Internet.

So, in other words, your first sentence is false and it is, in fact not true since the rest of that paragraph makes it clear that there was no promise from NATO. For there to be a promise from NATO, it would have to be more than just some blather from some diplomats for just one of the countries in NATO. A few diplomats do not actually get to make official binding promises for their countries. They talk and they can develop agreements, but those agreements then have to be made official by official acts at multiple levels in the government of their country. For multi-nation organizations like NATO, there is then a framework for the multiple members of the organization to make formal statements, etc.

The rest of your ridiculous contortions are just yet more Russian propaganda. The dumbest thing about it is that, even if it weren't full of misrepresentations, absolutely none of it would justify Russia's invasion, yet you're still trying.