Elerond

There are contingency plans and actively preparing to invasion by increasing forces and moving them to attack positions

It may increase support for NATO option, but it is unlikely that Finland will join in this decade

Putin's decision to invade was not made abruptly considering that his notification of invasion was recorded three days ago and Russia started moving troops to Ukraine boarders several months ago. And they already made anticipatory plans with Belarus six months ago. They may have alternative plans to achieve their goals only with threats, but clearly Russia has prepared for this route for long time now

Russia wants to demilitarize Ukraine and change Ukraine government and order to achieve that goal they need to have there occupation force that can keep status quo after their invading forces leave. It isn't easy to keep alternate government in hostile country, you can just ask how easy it was for USA in Afghanistan. Resistance doesn't need to be big in order to change governance as soon as occupying forces leave. So in order to Putin to achieve his goal he needs to have total dominance over Ukraine.

In past China has not ever supported letting areas get independence, because it goes against their policy in Taiwan and Tibet. So Russia will have hard time to convince China to give them official support

It seem that Russian troops new home is in Ukraine

Like I said he will help them get independence so that they can join Russia. Meaning that he will use pseudo democracy to annex areas from Ukraine to Russia. It is theatrical performance for Russian to so that he is the great doer opposed by evil west

Russia seems to repeat strategy they used in Crimea. Supporting repel area to get independence from the Ukraine and then letting it to decide that it wants to join in Russia.

Ice cream manufactures also have some explaining to do

You were one that compared Russian Syrian mission to Nato's actions in Libya. So in this case whataboutism come from you

Russia has not seek UN security council's approval on its actions. So I don't see any relevant comparison. It would better to compare Russian's actions to USA's actions in same area. Question was that Nato attacks countries outside its borders and against its own rules, not how justifiable its actions have been.

That quote shows that they had authorization from UN security council to use force in order to protect civilian population. That they did poor job doesn't change fact that they acted with security council's mandate.

Technically NATO has only once attacked country outside of NATO and without approval from UN security council, In Serbia 1999. As in other cases NATO members did attacking outside of NATO and NATO come later on to peace keeping with approval of UN Security Council. Although NATO has couple times participated in air campaigns approved by UN security council In Bosnia 1995 they bombed forces of Army of Republika Srpska who where seen as threat to UN safe zones in Bosnia. In Libya 2011, Nato enforced non-fly zone and bombing camping with approval of UN Security council in order to protect civilians after two Libyan fighter pilots fly their fighter to Malta after Muammar Gaddafi had ordered them to bomb civilian protesters. And Nato participated in counter piracy mission in Red Sea between 2009-2016 to protect ships from Somalian pirates.

There is never good justification for power politics, but Russia is taking opportunity given them discord in west

That depends on what is your definition of going home. It is like "Russian troops have been pulled back 1,500 kilometres from the Finnish-Russian border in the spirit of peaceful relations" event though their closest naval air base is just 60 km from Finland's eastern border. And their later explanation also is bit clumsy.

In 2017 Afghanistan's budget balance was in -2.5 billion dollars and it got worse after that, but they have only 1.3 billion of debt, so without foreign aid there would be nothing left of those 7 billion worth of assets today. Also currently Da Afghanistan Bank does not have official leadership and it does not have official position in Taliban governance, so its formality is not that simple. Taliban is also bit on thin ice when complaining about US seizing those funds considering how much foreign assets Taliban seized when they took over the Afghanistan

Technically they weren't Afghanistan's money but international aid to rebuild Afghanistan, which is why they were in US and why US was able to freeze them and take over them. They were mostly money paid by US tax payers. EDIT: They were Afghanistan's money in sense that they were promised to them and there was already budgeted targets for them, but all those projects were cancelled when Taliban took over, so technically Taliban should start again all those projects again in order to get access to that money.

Corporal punishment had been illegal in Finland now 35 years and we are in brink of anarchy, as young people don't have any form respect towards their elders.

Aren't they guilty by association same way as BLM protesters? And it would be acceptable to take them all away in unmarked cars by people not wearing uniforms?

They have applied to it already several times

It become even harder to get credit when your credit score is lower just because of zip code for area where you live because it is seen as poor/bad/etc. area, which is true for almost all areas where majority population belongs to minorities in USA. https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201209_Analysis_Differences_Consumer_Credit.pdf

So they can't teach anymore that Jesus is God's son?

There has been lack if good leadership for past 80000 years, which is why we have seen constant change of leadership EDIT: Costa has been PM of Portugal for over 6 years now. His win is surprise because people have not liked his policies, but it seem that they like opposition even less. EDIT2: with that win Costa was able to keep his promise that he doesn't let hard left parties like Communists and Left Block in the government

Russia has already seen this as possible scenario and created alternative SPFS, also EU has planned INSTEX to trade with countries that aren't part of SWIFT

ironically one of reason why we are where we are is because Ukraine gave up of its WMDs, because Russia and USA (plus UK and France) promised to ensure its territorial integrity