I'd say that the best way to remove Putin is to speak to everyone in his security personnel. Instead of a black op, message everyone surrounding Putin that if they kill him and order a stand-down on all nuke orders and army in Ukraine, they will receive $50 billion (can be taken from the oligarchs), diplomatic immunity, and whatever "medal of honor" possible. Adhere to the idea of heroism, that they'll be hailed as heroes who saved the world from a tyrant.

If you rule by fear, you risk having to fear everyone yourself.

This could lead to an underpaid staff of security personnel, being close to Putin, having a seed planted in their mind that there is a solution to the situation and a big gain in their own life, as well as a positive reputation globally if they act.

I don't expect either of these scenarios. — Baden

Hope for the best, expect the worst.

The nuclear rhetoric is just a way to counterbalance this imo. — Baden

He will either act upon it, or he will be hunted as a war criminal after this. This is how people talk about this at the moment. Some officials have said that the Hague Tribunal is waiting for him after this.

I don't fear Putin winning, I fear him losing. If he loses he might act to take down everyone with him in that fall. As I said before:

No one in their right mind would use nuclear weapons today... Putin is not in his right mind. — Christoffer

And yet... — Isaac

And yet...

US has the most competent army for this kind of operation. Who else would be able to do it? And what is the alternative? Can you provide anything of substance in analysis at all? How would you deal with Putin holding his hand over the button of nuclear attacks? What's your solution?

But I think this ought to be taken extremely seriously. I can understand why most people believe that these weapons just won't be used, it would be way too costly.

But I'm not as confident. — Manuel

No one in their right mind would use nuclear weapons today... Putin is not in his right mind.

That's the clearest argument for why this is really serious.

Who do you see carrying out this magnificent plan? — jamalrob

Most likely a covert op by the US initially. Then an alliance of US troops with troops from European nations (not through NATO, but each nation's regular army) to seize the nuclear weapons and keep civil war from escalating. The pressure on the temporary leadership of Russia to stand down arms, retreat Russian forces from Ukraine, and all nuclear orders to stand down immediately.

The remaining forces and people over the long-term change in Russia would be UN forces and personnel.

You're saying this without having considered possible consequences. Suppose we declare March 15, the Ides of March, All Tyrants' day. What then? Who or what will follow Putin in Russia? Do you have any idea? Would it become a fairly elected republic or would it be an Augustus or a Caligula? — magritte

Was this the case with Hitler? To think about what comes after and therefore not act? Of course there will be consequences, they are extreme consequences.

The best scenario would be to remove him, let's say eliminate him and the oligarchs. Then seize their money to a fund for rebuilding both Ukraine and changing Russia's political landscape. Next step would be to remove state propaganda sources, shut down media with state ties and give the void to independent media outlets to become official. Then, seize all nuclear weapons to remove the risks of rogue nukes. Then, initiate a republic leader, a president that has support from a large portion of the people of Russia. So far, that would be freeing Navalny and install him as the president. This is a temporary solution in order to build-up a proper democratic function. This is always a problem in nations that didn't have ideas of freedom and democracy within the population, but a large portion of Russia's people want to have a proper democracy, Navalny wouldn't have the support he had if there wasn't an underlying will to have this kind of state. Over the course of a few years, the development will be monitored by the world in order to push down anyone who sees the void after Putin as an invite to do the same.

Of course, this is the best scenario possible, but an immediate threat of nuclear war is more critical to push down than what comes after. It is the final type of threat, there's nothing worse than it so anything after Putin cannot be worse than nuclear war.

So very true. Unfortunately. The mentality is already there, it just needs the right conditions.
I don't see this being stopped anytime soon... — Amity

This is why I earlier said that Putin needs to be put down. Whatever the outcome of the current war, he is such a big threat to the world that there's no point in dragging this out keeping the world in jeopardy. There's no point in having the ideal of pacifism or diplomacy when someone is literally holding the hand on the button of nuclear war.

Black ops, intel, infiltration, whatever it takes. Remove him and his oligarchs before his current embarrassment turns him into a ticking time bomb. The only problem is that we don't know where he is exactly. Maybe anonymous could hack the nuclear codes to aim at his location instead.

If Putin really makes a reality of using tactical nukes against the west, then a lot of people in this thread will go silent with their naive ideas.

He will be remembered as a leader who switch on a war in XXI century. It sounds lunatic if he is somehow proud of it — javi2541997

He doesn't care. Why did terrorists like Breivik do what he did? Is he proud? Does he care that people hate him? No, he was driven by a narcissistic ambition to be known. There are thousands of examples of this all around the world. It's just a matter of time before a leader of a nation has the same kind of mentality.

How have you determined that his motive is to create a Russian empire, other than taking (some of) his words as truth? All you've done differently is decided in advance which of his words you're going to believe - the ones which fit the narrative you've already committed to. — Isaac

Because I actually research through what experts and researchers on eastern politics, Putin and Russia concluded.

The evidence for why you can't take his words as truth is right there in the videos he makes. He's been lying every time about this invasion. Even to the extent that he recorded the message about the invasion at the same time as he spoke about "diplomacy" with the west. We know this because of the metadata analysis of the video.

The inductive conclusions I make is based on the gathered expertise from researchers on this topic. But what you are doing is just guessing and having opinions based on taking his words as truth.

If you lack the ability to understand where to draw the line between truth and propaganda, then you have not done enough research on this topic. The research informs how to decode what Putin says.

But... which is the main goal of having nuclear weapons? I do not see the value of having a destroyed world. Then, I do not see any powerful country interested on using them. — javi2541997

People need to understand that it's not Russia that is acting here, there is no Russia, there's only Putin. It's his actions, his decisions, his rule. It's like asking the question about a serial killer: "Why would he use these guns and knives? Why would he just destroy everything?". He doesn't care, he's old, he wants to be remembered. If he faces embarrassment as an outcome of this invasion, the entire image of him as a macho leader with great power falls.

And in that fall he will take the world with him. This is not some off-brand Marvel-movie villain shit, this is a real threat to the world and people have to understand this fact.

Now Putin has put his nuclear capability on high alert.

Can people finally understand why Putin is a fucking threat and needs to be put down? Is this becoming clear to all the naive apologists of his agendas and ideas? This is serious.

... by showing that it is (in part) the US's fault, Europe's fault. Had we left well alone Putin would have been robbed of both strategic gain and narrative excuse, but our meddling to further our own economic interests has, in fact, provided both. — Isaac

But this is not Putin's ambition. He's aiming for rebulding a Russian empire, he wants to be a "big man". I think most people are so into traditional geopolitical discussion and reasoning that they forget that there have been dictators who weren't driven by economic reasons. He doesn't care about money, we even see that as evidence in how he reacts to economic sanctions. He doesn't care about it because he cares about rebuilding "the empire". People need to understand that Putin acts are more in line with Hitler than any regular head of state in the world today. He has another vision for his rule, his "empire".

To blame the US for this is just plain stupid and just follows the propaganda machine from Kreml. Of course Putin uses blame as reasoning for his actions, but his goal has nothing to do with the US expansion, unless it just interferes with "the empire". He has no right to invade nations that are independent today in order to expand his empire and any "interference" by the US, or rather, NATO by making these nations members isn't anything more than threatening his ambition to invade and claim these nations for himself.

To say that a defensive alliance like NATO is an offensive threat to Russia when they make nations bordering to Russia members is just uneducated on what NATO actually is.

The truth is simple, NATO is NOT a threat to Russia other than blocking Putin's ability to easily invade and claim these nations for himself. THIS is the threat Putin feels from the west. NATO would NEVER attack Russia, it's not what NATO is about. But since they block an easy invasion, it makes Putin desperate. There's no wonder Putin invades Ukraine, even at a great cost, because he fears Ukraine joining NATO to block his invasion attempts.

This is what is going on.

If Putin is indeed the mad man everyone paints him, then why the fuck have the US and Europe spent the last decade poking him with a fucking stick? — Isaac

Read the above. They're not "poking him" they're blocking his delusional attempts at reclaiming nations that are today independent nations. Without NATO, Putin would have no problems invading any one of them and he would have done it long ago.

Which strategies for stopping Putin don't involve America? — Isaac

Who cares? It's like your argument is that if the US is not involved, then it's all fine, but since the US is part of all of this, then it's all just some evil geopolitical agenda. You have no argument.

I see. So when Putin talks about...

the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders.

...we should ignore what he says, all propaganda? — Isaac

Do you actually just listen to Putin and take his word as truth? A former KGB mastermind who's now a dictator, violent towards his own people, aggressor and invader of Ukraine and murderer of civilians?
You don't think that he tells the story that gives him what he wants?

NATO is a defensive alliance. You don't seem to understand what that means. That Putin complains about NATO moving east, he wraps that in a false narrative of NATO invading Russia. But the truth is that he won't want to be blocked from expanding his "empire" west. This is probably why NATO has been expanding east in the first place, to push back against Russia invading nations that are today independent nations.

There are some interesting tactics or "discussion techniques" being deployed here. Do you think the forum should be renamed “the Talk Shop for the Woke” or “the NATO PR Office”? — Apollodorus

Or "an open space for Putin apologists" like yourself.

If they nuke Ukraine, they are killing (at least some of) the people they are saying they want to incorporate into Russia.

But if they do this, it's game over for Russia as a country. That's not happening.

Yeah, military often boils down to brute force. — Manuel

I'm not talking about nuking Ukraine, I'm talking about Putin being embarrassed with defeat, wanting to show strength and just send off nukes towards the west to go out with a fuck you. It's a possibility when you are dealing with a lunatic.

Excuse me, min herre, but I fail to understand why your defensive alliance is headquartered in Germany and not in Poland? — Apollodorus

Germany is central, it's the most connected nation, geographically in Europe. It makes sense. But you don't seem to understand when I point that out. And in what way is that even relevant? What is your point about troop placement? Every one of them are NATO nations, and they protect every nation, not just the border towards Russia or conflict zones. Do you understand that? Why don't you understand this? Or are you just trolling because you don't have anything else to say?

Moreover, why is Germany incapable of defending itself? Why can't it have its own nuclear defense system against those bad Russians, like Britain and France do? — Apollodorus

What are you babbling about? They can defend themselves, but because they're in NATO they are augmented in their defense. That's the point of NATO. And yeah, Putin is bad, not Russia, no one is condemning Russia. Russia is filled with people who want Putin gone, but they get silenced, murdered and imprisoned. Putin is the bad one, Putin and his fuckbuddies are the "baddies" that need to be put down like dogs. Are you defending those dogs?

The US military couldn't do it and that's with the insurgency mostly being different factions within Iraq trying to kill each other, not necissarily attack the Americans. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, that was a country with a pretty weak force against the US. Ukraine is, especially since 2014, a pretty strong military and especially strong in morale.

Russia doesn't have anywhere near the economic staying power for such operations — Count Timothy von Icarus

And with the added sanctions on both economy and electronics (used to repair vehicles and gear), it's gonna cost even more. I mean, Putin could pay for much himself, but it's gonna drain him dry if it drags out and with further sanctions that may lock his money in, it becomes even worse.

So ... if you were NATO central command and wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, you would station the bulk of your forces in Germany???

Have you ever looked at a map of Europe at all??? — Apollodorus

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? Troops in Germany are there for defense. Every NATO member has a defensive NATO force on their soil, especially with war in close proximity. NATO will not fight in Ukraine because they're not NATO members and that would mean actively getting into conflict with Russia. They are DEFENDING the borders and member nations of NATO.

Why don't you understand what a DEFENSIVE alliance means? Don't you understand how NATO works in this conflict and security situation of Europe?

But after EU and NATO expansion the whole eastern front has moved much further east and the country now closest to Russia's western flank is Poland - and the Baltic countries. So US troops should be in Poland or the Baltic, NOT Germany! — Apollodorus

THEY ARE! They are in the Baltics, they ARE in Poland! And Germany is the central place in Europe, you don't think stationing the majority in a place that has fast routes towards each corner of Europe and the member states of NATO is a good strategy? And having NATO troops in each country helps defend against any conflict that can happen. NATO isn't just here for this conflict or just Russia.

I mean, what's your actual argument here? That because NATO doesn't have most troops right at the border it's... just wierd? And that the US has some other intentions with their 30 000 troops in Germany? Seriously, you make no sense at all right now and you don't seem to have any knowledge of what NATO even is.

Russia really can't afford to fight an insurgency in a country of 45 million, it would bleed them white and potentially endanger Putin's hold on power. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And if it ever gets to the point where 56% of the population actually taking up arms against the Russian forces (as per their poll), then that's around 22 500 000 people firing at them. I don't think that will happen, but even if just a fraction of that happens, what are they gonna do when 10 million people start shooting at them at every advance?

One wonders if this kind of issue could cause the Russian army to become more aggressive. There's still no clear goal set for this war, that I've heard. Some say that they want to overthrow Ukraine's president. — Manuel

The one thing to fear is that Putin's frustrations boil over and he fires off nukes in order to not be embarrassed by defeat.

Another thing is that I don't think they become more agressive. Russian troops have been reported to be beaten by their own if they don't comply and there are some reports that show that the first to attack was a front of just conscription service (not sure if that's the correct term, but essentially young new blood soldiers with little experience), so essentially young people as cannon fodder. That's the mentality of Putin right there. Kill som young Russians, beat the rest of the army into submission, push towards the front. No wonder most of them are drunks and have low morale.

So going against a nation that has high morale, a fight to survive mentality and 56% of its people willing to fight against the Russians means that Russia can push with as much brute force that they can muster, but that's all they have... brute force, and when that fails, Russia will fail. Russia needs to win this fast. The longer it takes, the less the Russian army will be able to keep up with morale.

so it isn't just Ukraine vs Russia — Apollodorus

It's still just Ukraine vs Russia, just with better arms. You think the planes and tanks and other technology is purely Russian on the Russian side? The sanctions on technology is directly linked to them not being able to repair much of their war machine.

Sorry, but I think you don't know what you are talking about. If America wants "security against Russia", then let it station its forces in Poland. Or Sweden, if you want them. Wouldn't you just love to have 30,000 US troops in Stockholm to protect you from Russia?

Why Germany? Is America going to fight Russia in Ukraine on German soil???!!! — Apollodorus

What are you talking about? It's part of the NATO defense force. NATO defends its NATO member nations or they can be positioned on non-NATO member nations soil if that nation want them there, but the act of fighting against another nation is US choice. However, if a NATO member is attacked, the deal with the alliance is that all of NATO then helps that nation.

Stop talking about just the US, NATO is an alliance of many nations, not just the US.

and see which banks dominate global investment in Europe, for example. — Apollodorus

Economic investment is part of trading, part of collaboration. A high number is not "domination" in any context of how that word was used before, which were directed more towards "domination of other nations."

You must have noticed how the US has been putting pressure on Germany and other European countries to take measures against Russia like imposing sanctions, etc. — Apollodorus

Of course, but is that the US "controlling us"? We're pressuring them as well, it's part of being in an alliance or working with allies. Germany has been foolish enough to let them become extremely dependent on Russian gas and that reliance has been extremely problematic for pressuring Russia with sanctions. You think the US is doing this alone? This is the kind of delusional perspective that the US is acting alone and pressures other nations to do as they're told, but the truth is we are all working together in this.

How is it in Germany's interests to cancel the German-Russian pipeline and buy oil and gas from America instead of Russia (at much higher prices), or to have 30,000 US troops on its soil??? — Apollodorus

It's in Germany's interest to keep Europe secure and help fight the killing of Ukrainians. You talk like people don't actually act to support other people in trouble. Here in Sweden, there are a lot of people who are fine with getting higher electrical bills and possible rationing if it helps the people of Ukraine by pressuring Russia. And I'd imagine there are plenty in other nations of Europe who do the same, otherwise we wouldn't have seen this unity that we have right now. On top of that, Russia is a security risk for nations in Europe as well. You think Germany isn't interested in keeping Germany whole and not divided into west and east? You think Europe isn't interested in pushing back against Russia in order to keep the nations of Europe safe?

And the troops on their soil is because of NATO, it's to have security against Russia.

You speak like you don't understand what alliances are about? If we had 30 000 German soldiers outside of Stockholm under the flag of an alliance like NATO I would be extremely happy since we're then much better prepared for a despot dictator who wants to measure his dick by invading.

You talk like we're not nations able to think and act for ourselves, it's rather disrespectful and actually pretty stupid. Maybe you should actually visit other nations and speak to the people who live there and maybe study other nations' actual conditions before making simplistic blanket statements with no real insight into the politics that's actually going on in Europe.

you accept US financial, material, and technical assistance, and in return, you do as you are told by the US. — Apollodorus

We don't do as we are told by the US. We act by our own accord. We trade with the US and they trade with us. We collaborate when we have mutual benefits, that's all. This kind of idea that Sweden is in any shape or form a "puppet" of the US is downright stupid. It's geopolitical nonsense and while being true for many other nations in the world, you use it as a blanket statement about us.

However, (1) where did you get your "ideals" from? and (2) do your ideals entail submission to US domination? — Apollodorus

1: By developing our own ideas based on primarily western philosophy, as most western nations have done, INDIVIDUALLY. The US has not shaped our ideas or ideals, hell we are social democrats, they hate that in the US, especially when we beat them in life quality indexes and generally have a much better working democracy.

2: What submission? What domination? I don't see the domination you are talking about? Economical interests, investments and influences I can see the US is conducting. I can see them going too far plenty of times. But this "world domination" seems to be mistaken for their American exceptionalism self-image, which isn't the same. What Putin is doing, however, there's your example of "world domination".

It seems that when a nation share ideals, ideas, interests or conduct actions that align with the US, people who spend all their time viewing the US as villains just automatically conclude that the smaller nation is a "puppet" of the US. I guess it's easy to view the world and geopolitics in such simplistic ways, but it makes actual discussion about Putin and his war impossible.

Such blanket statements make me lose respect for the one I'm discussing with and I can't take them seriously for one second.

Sweden was a signatory of the financial-aid-coordinating agency, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (later renamed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD). — Apollodorus

So what does this have to do with our critique of Putin and Russia today?

Sweden is one of the most highly ranked nations in the world on the individual freedom index, it's been in our mentality for a long time. Soviet and Russia has always been in opposition to this ideal while the US has always been more in line with our thinking (but obviously questionable due to high corruption, which is something else we are extremely low on compared to the rest of the world). So when we ally ourselves in a certain direction, we choose what more reflects our own ideals. Russia has never aligned with our ideals, so naturally, we would never support them. But we are not only in alignment with the US, but any other nation closer to our ideals.

So when you and baker speak like this:

Europeans have become too entitled, too greedy, too thankless, too short-sighted. They've become like a bunch of spoiled teenagers. — baker

I question the ability to be rational on your part.

While Sweden pays A LOT in aid money, supporting nations around the world, stand up for freedom and uncorrupted democracy, in a far more "teach as we live" kind of way than almost any other in the world, how does that align with "selling our souls"? What "souls" have we sold? What have we given up and what corruption and crimes are WE conducting?

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it's just a big pile of a "guilt by association" fallacy. It's childish, stupid and only serves to weaken the foundation for any argument trying to critique "the west". "The west" isn't the US, US is PART OF "the west". We in Sweden don't agree with the US on a number of things, we don't support them or slave under them or anything like that. We trade towards those that are closer to our ideals and we act as a voice of reason against acts by these nations when they do crimes, show corruption or act in questionable ways.

But when a crazy despot invades another country and threatens us with war, we naturally oppose that. And therefore we naturally ally with any other who oppose the aggressor. And since Russia is one of the most powerful war machines in the world, we are outnumbered and will be crushed if the dictator wants us defeated. Naturally, as a free nation, we don't want this, so we ally ourselves with those who CAN oppose Russia.

This is Putin's actions, and his alone. He's the aggressor. If defending against this is considered "being a puppet of the US" or "sold our souls to the US", then I would say that this kind of idea is the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

There is no will to do so, because Europeans have become too entitled, too greedy, too thankless, too short-sighted. They've become like a bunch of spoiled teenagers. — baker

I asked you a question before, please answer instead of continuing with these bullshit opinions. If you complain about others' level of discourse, please fix your own first.

Look at the level of your discourse. — baker

Look at your own perhaps?

It's "silly" only in the sense that it comes too late. Most Europeans have sold their souls to the US long ago. — baker

In what way have, for example, we in Sweden "sold our souls" to the US? Please explain, from the perspective of my country, how we've done this and how our fear of Russia's threats against us is "selling our souls"?

Well, Putin is getting away with it. And I'm guessing he'll gain in stature for it. He'll seem strong. — frank

No one knows, but plenty speculates that even if he succeeds in defeating Ukraine, he will still not benefit from this. There's almost no "win" for him in any of this.

We go to war because we love it. — frank

Except, it's gone out of fashion. Moving borders, getting influence etc. usually goes through democratic elections, corporate investments etc. This is the path China's been doing for many years; creating trading partners in the hundreds, invest in business within other nations etc. China has a lot more influence in the world today due to their trading and investing strategies than they would have ever had if they conducted military invasions and actions.

Of course, that would be ironic if they invade Taiwan, but the fact of the matter is that these kinds of invasions happen because of some other reasons than modern geopolitical ones. They stem from some "dream" of increasing the "empire" or that some political figures believe they have some "right" to some land.

Most of those reasons don't work today because they get shut down pretty fast through pretty strong alliances, far more than around the time of the world wars. So no one wants to try it if the intention is a long-lasting geopolitical change. Only lunatics like Putin do things like this, if he goes too far he will be killed like any other dictator who tried the same previously.

I'm surprised at how many swallow Putin's propaganda machine. Many seem to uncritically eat up his and his machine's words as actual valid perspectives during this conflict. It's insane.

People always need to be critical of media, politicians and also regular people on any topic, at any time, and people need to know how to be critical. Overskepticism tend to happen when people don't have the correct mindset for critical thinking, or they don't have any methods of figuring out if something is true or not, which leads to bias as the only guiding thought ends up being the one that "feels best". Critical thinking requires a reviewing methodology detached from ideology or preferences. And if skepticism exists without any kind of thought behind it, it becomes conspiracy theory.

And if that is the standard baseline of critical thinking, it requires even more effort when listening to a nation that is pathologically lying and producing propaganda as a factory. The Russian propaganda machine is one of the most extreme in the world and it requires extreme levels of scrutiny in order to be used as a valid point of view for an analysis of the conflict.

What? — javi2541997

He's trying to undermine Ukraine's legitimacy as an independent nation. Hmm, sounds an awful lot like someone who invaded them...? Same rhetoric.

The Old World. — baker

What is that? Is that a fantasy utopia?

The West will probably win, if in no other way, then by destroying the planet with consumerism — baker

Sure, but what has this to do with any of the current events? It's like you don't really know what's going on and just blank state anti-consumerist conclusions without it having anything to do with the current war.

Let me ask you... how do we solve this current conflict? How do we deal with Putin?

baker's got daddy-issues with putin — Changeling

Obviously.

The West has always been dishonorable toward Russia. — baker

Towards Russia? It's towards PUTIN! What is it that you don't understand? You think Russia and Putin is one and the same? All of this is the actions of one man, a dictator leader! Not even the Russian people want to have a war, but he does it anyway and if anyone challenge his leadership he either assassinates them or put them in prison. What are you actually defending here?

Looks like the Western propaganda has done its job on you. — baker

Isn't it easy to dismiss others like that? Turn on the news before continuing with your Putin apologistic ideas. Just tell them they are indoctrinated by propaganda. Just like you are indoctrinated by the Russian propaganda machine. I mean, Putin recorded his invasion video at the same time he did his video talking about further diplomacy. He's playing his own game, he doesn't give a fuck, but people swallow his words like truth. It's disgusting.

Nevertheless, what is the actual end-goal here? — Manuel

To return to the glory days of the Russian empire. According to those who have done research on Putin and his intentions.

People seem to not understand the simple reason that Putin acts like the old-time empire building dictators. He wants to expand the borders of Russia. Ukraine is just one part of this ambition. My personal belief is that Putin knows he's getting old and he wants to do this now so he can be remembered for bringing back Russia as an empire. Regardless of what the costs will be, even to the population of Russia.

He is a lunatic.

The West has been intensely building up contempt against Russia for at least 80 years.
For all this time, the West, and specifically the US, has made a concerted effort to consistently ridicule the Russians, in every way imaginable.

And yet we're supposed to believe that the West are well-intended and morally upright! — baker

You don't seem to understand that this is all Putin. Even the Russian people were against an invasion of Ukraine. All the Russians I've heard from really didn't want this to happen. Putin deserves all the shit he gets. And the growing contempt might have it's reason, especially since Putin has been building a mafia state out of Russia. So we went from the Soviet regime, which I don't think people can really defend, that's not some "western contempt", the Soviet regime was shit in every way possible.

Then it broke and we went into the 90s with a fresh feeling of Russia being part of the world, like, it was a good time seeing Russia getting on its feet. Did you forget about that time? Then came Putin and started building his mafia empire out of Russia, just as Russia started to climb out of it's economic depression.

But Putin isn't bad because we do bad things as well. That's your point I guess? Can't you just, understand that Putin is bad, I mean REALLY bad? Turn on the news please and answer me in what way you suppose the west's "badness" help mitigate the "badness" of Putin?

Because all I see is someone invading another nation to expand his ego. Let me know if you have similar examples from the west. Like, a war started out of lunatic ideas of a dictator in the west. Who assassinates his own people if they oppose him and change laws to benefit himself and his friends. But... remember the west, remember that they are bad too. We might need to focus on removing this threat before trying to fix the "badness" of the west.

I've already explained. Any response to Putin doesn't happen in a vacuum. — Isaac

What is the reason for his current invasion according to you?

If they also do bad things, as you seem ready to admit, then we'd best be damn sure their 'bad things' aren't worse than Putin's 'bad things' before we sanction their involvement. — Isaac

Explain to me what bad things that compare to the invasion of a free and independent nation like we see now? Explain to me how Putin's actions can't be harshly criticized without the need to mention that others also do bad things or put them on a freakin scale to measure before acting. Seriously?

An American-led response (which it will be) is likely to go the way of all other American-led responses, which have been historically, unmitigated disasters involving massive loss of life, economic destruction and the rampant profiteering of multi-national corporations. — Isaac

What has this to do with responding to what Putin is doing right now? What he might do later? So we shouldn't do anything, grab popcorns and watch Russia burn down Ukraine with the hope that Putin won't snap after he's done in Ukraine? You live inside an argument with no current connection to the actual real-world events going on right now.

And who will carry out this removal? And who will be put in his place? Shall we call on Thor? Our list of superheroes willing to carry out regime change with only the good of humanity as reward is somewhat thin. — Isaac

Spare me your attempts at downplaying my intellect. I'm speaking of different levels of threat. If Putin acts on his threat of nuclear power, then that is essentially the start of a world war and a swift operation to take him out is a realistic outcome. Before that, there might very well be a coup within Russia that does it if sanctions push Russia to the brink of economic collapse. Depends on if it's long term or short term. But I don't think you understand how dangerous Putin really is. I find it funny that people speak like this of Hitler and Stalin, but trying to point to actions RIGHT NOW that is being acted out by a similar dictator leader is "fantasy".

There's real people living in these countries. What matters to them is whether they have a roof over their head and food on the table. If America (IMF, ECB etc) suck the welfare of the country dry to pay the interest on the reconstruction 'loans' and leech out the countries resources so that they can't provide employment or social care, then I don't think they're going to give a shit about the lack of an American flag on the passport. — Isaac

What point are you trying to make here? That there are people living in these countries that will suffer? Well Ukraine is suffering right now, what's your actual point?

In 1990 the then Secretary of state for the US James Baker met with Gorbachev and agreed that NATO influence would move "not one inch Eastward" — Isaac

In a time of peace, not with a leader like Putin. The game has changed since Putin came into power, his changes to Russia don't reflect the basis for the agreement. It's easy to promise something when there's a mutual ground, but Putin changed all that.

So what does Putin want? Perhaps one ounce of honour from the West to it's promises? — Isaac

Not with the aggressions he's conducting. You mention Ukraine seeking membership in NATO in 2019, well that is after Russia already took part in Ukraine in armed conflict.

The promise was made to a nation on the brink of becoming an ally, Putin does not and has never acted as an ally.

He wants to build the Russian empire back up to its glory days. I think you have singled in on one single reason for his actions that I hear no expert on eastern politics and Russian historians talk in regards to Putin. They are pretty clear on what his intentions are, but you don't care about those reasons, you seem to know the truth better? It might be a reason, or an excuse for Putin, but his intentions are far from "just wanting some respect", he wants the empire back.

It's a fact that NATO influence is creeping Eastard despite assurances that it wouldn't — Isaac

An example of this is us in Sweden who isn't part of NATO yet. But since Putin's military is always breaking our borders, flying with bomb planes and stalking the waters outside of Stockholm with submarines, there's a growing need to be part of NATO. You don't seem to understand that NATO isn't expanding as a way to shift power, it is we in Sweden who would want it, it's because of how aggressive Putin is towards Europe. If the reason for the line of NATO creeping forward east comes from nations WANTING to join to guard themselves, that is a direct consequence of Putin's actions, not NATO. It's not NATO who decides which nations that are part of it, it's the nations themselves who decide if they want to join NATO.

And since Putin's aggressions just keep getting worse, there's no point in holding onto an agreement that is seriously outdated.

Why don't we stop poking him with NATO-shaped stick — Isaac

You don't seem to understand Putin's intentions. I mean, you can talk to an expert on Putin and Russia if you like, but you don't seem to understand what drives him. You have your own made-up idea of why Putin is doing what he is doing.

It's 'Stop Putin at all costs!'. Right out of the current playbook - hype up one specific immanent crisis and legitimise the response to it without any sensible attempt to look at the consequences. — Isaac

You have no fucking idea what is going on right now do you? Do you have any notion of what Russia is doing around the other borders towards Europe? You think this is a game to legitimize a response because "that's the plan"? What's your angle here? Because I don't understand how you are reasoning in light of what is happening at the moment.

Then what exactly is the point of your posts? Are you just wanting to whip up a more anti-Russian rhetoric for your own comfort? — Isaac

And what is your point? Apologising Putin's actions for your own comfort? Is this invasion hurting your thesis of how the world works? That all of a sudden we actually have a dictator who's acting like 20th-century empire leaders and it breaks any thesis of a world balanced by only economic proxy wars and invisible aggressive actions by the world's largest nations and economies?

My point is that Putin isn't some balanced leader who acts like the rest, he is a lunatic, he is dangerous and the question is how to stop him. You want to call that an off-brand Marvel movie, fine, just don't underestimate the actions of a lunatic leader with nukes making actual threats. That's just naive.

Seriously? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60473233 — Isaac

So? What does that prove? That the US only do this for oil prices? You do understand that the surge in oil prices hit US hard as well? How does that function with the thesis that the US sanctions would benefit them?

The history of US involvement has been nothing but a litany of misery and exploitation and you're saying that this time it'll be different without giving any reason at all why America has suddenly had a change of heart. — Isaac

The difference might be that we actually want US with us in Europe to handle this conflict. And that Europe are allies with US.

All you do is make blank statements with little regard to the dynamics of geopolitics. This is the first time since WWII that we have a full scale war in Europe. But you say "this time it will be different". This time it is fucking different, yes.

These nations may be capitalist, but they are not the kind of simple-minded, greedy consumers as Americans and the West in general. — baker

I'm not saying they are simple-minded, how do you draw that conclusion? Do you think everyone else is simple-minded? You think the consequences for Russia will be that of simple-minded people?

And again, do you even listen to yourself? With ease, you demand the death of another person, and here, you impute evil motivations on a person. Have you no shame? — baker

There's a war going on with an aggressor who's invading and killing Ukrainians as we speak. You think I'm gonna sit here and be an apologist for someone like Putin? Treat him with respect? Like he treats Ukraine with respect? The fuck is wrong with you?

There are lines crossed when there's no morale choice but to remove a player that imposes threats of the scale he does and who's at the moment killing innocent people. I would say that when he indirectly threatens, with what all experts agree on, nuclear weapons towards anyone trying to help Ukraine. That is a fucking line crossed.

Are you a Putin apologist? Is that it?