The obvious strategic move is to decapitate Ukraine and install a puppet. — RogueAI

Exactly. — ssu

It's not obvious at all for anyone with more than a surface-level understanding of the political reality in Ukraine.

You can't just "decapitate" a country that has been preparing for war for a decade with western backing. And you don't just "install a puppet" for the same reason.

A puppet regime would probably last about a day, and all you would have achieved is to give the foreign backers total control over the country.

The Kremlin typically declares these as their justification:

• bad bad NATO/West, needs to go away (†)
• bad bad Ukraine, needs deNazification + demilitarization (†)
• bad bad Ukraine, genocide on Russian-speakers

Apart from their usual bombing and such, the Kremlin

• employs heavy-duty crackdowns domestically
• employs heavy-duty crackdowns in occupied areas + Russification
• employs offenses against others externally (†)

You don't need access to classified information to exemplify their rhetoric (propaganda) and their hostile acts (unless you're in Russia perhaps).
House Trump exceeds them in sheer amount of (in-your-face) lying/misrepresentation, though.

Here's a snippet of examples of the first two and the last • above (†) in chronological order, that coherently go together:

• Russia’s Influence on Europe’s Far-Right Violent Extremism
• The children of Severomorsk are told that neighbouring Nordic countries support Nazism
• Two foreigners detained for displaying Nazi symbols in Pechersk, Kyiv, - police. PHOTOS
• Two foreign nationals detained in Pechersk district for displaying Nazi symbols
• From Moscow with chaos: How Russia unites extremists across Germany
• Chats: Wie Putin seinen Krieg der Desinformation auf Wiens Straßen führt
• In Austria, an FSB network disguised as "Ukrainian Nazis" was exposed
• Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting media corporation, Moscow, December 15, 2025

A short summary is that the Kremlin circle more or less says that the better part of Europe supports/is Nazist, and they've engineered some supposed evidence.
Anyone in Europe can tell how ridiculous it is; they're talking post-truth alternate world; plus, Kyiv is decidedly not a Nazi rule; the Russian government is worse than those they accuse.
There's a lot of such evidence, from or corroborated by several independent sources, spanning a decade (well, more).

But you are assuming Putin is sane, what he has done is insane. Certainly if Putin’s goal was to increase Russia’s security, what has resulted is the opposite. Not the moves of a smart, or sane man.

But you are assuming Putin is sane, what he has done is insane. — Punshhh

Exactly— you assume he’s insane. Which is so ridiculous it’s unbelievable it’s seriously argued.

When did he become insane exactly? When he invaded Ukraine? Or Crimea? Before then, what? Because nobody was saying he was insane back then.

Much like the use of “terrorist”, these have become codes for essentially anything we don’t like. Meanwhile, Mohammed bin Salman is considered sane, and gets invited to the White House. They’re just fine until they go against US interests. Then they’re evil maniacs bent on destroying the world.

Very good post.

I can’t imagine you really know anything about this topic either, but given your constantly bad guesswork I now question whether I’m right. Thanks anyway though— I definitely care about your approval.

Exactly— you assume he’s insane. Which is so ridiculous it’s unbelievable it’s seriously argued.

I don’t assume he’s insane, I’m considering it, because his actions appear to be the actions of someone with questionable sanity. I mean to say repeatedly for over a decade that NATO (a defensive alliance) is encroaching upon Russia. Leaving him no alternative but to invade a province of Ukraine, precipitating Sweden and Finland to join NATO. Alienating the Ukrainian people for generations to come which will push them into the arms of Europe and leave them with no alternative but to join NATO. To galvanise Europe into re-arming, following the post war settlement and ending the lucrative oil and gas deals with European countries.

Either he is insane, or he has another agenda. Like an agenda to cling onto power in Russia by claiming Russia is under attack, requiring the imposition of martial law and mass conscription. This requires an actual war to sustain, so he invades a Ukrainian province. The Russian people become powerless to oppose him, because the young men of Russia are being forcibly sent to the front lines to be killed in a war of attrition. A strategy rather like Assad’s regime in Syria, to literally destroy your own country to maintain power.

Either way, the sensible thing for Ukraine to do is fight and defeat the Russian invasion and ask Europe for assistance. While building alliances with Europe with the aim of becoming a EU member and joining the NATO alliance. Any alternative would be to throw the Ukrainian people to the wolves. Weaken Europe and encourage Putin to push his agenda further afield.

Either he is insane, or he has another agenda. — Punshhh

Yes, like keeping Ukraine a buffer state and not allowing missiles on Russia’s border. Would it be insane if Trump invaded Mexico if China were conducting military drills, supplying weapons, and discussing a military alliance?

Yes Ukraine as a buffer zone makes sense, if one believes something that Putin says. But Putin’s actions worked against this becoming a possibility. Culminating in Russia invading Crimea 2014. Any reasonable prospect of this working was long over by that point. Alternatively perhaps Putin is planning to prevent Ukraine joining NATO by either occupying part of Ukraine, or installing a Putin friendly government in Kiev. But this won’t work either because he would have to occupy all of Ukraine to prevent the parts he doesn’t control then joining NATO after the war has ended. Also there still wouldn’t be a buffer zone. Infact there isn’t going to be any buffer zone.
So everything has, or is failing, apart from one thing. Putin is cementing his dictator status in Russia on a par with Stalin and he will crush, or destroy his own people and country to maintain his position.

But Putin’s actions worked against this becoming a possibility. — Punshhh

Not really.

. Alternatively perhaps Putin is planning to prevent Ukraine joining NATO by either occupying part of Ukraine, — Punshhh

:up:

Putin is cementing his dictator status in Russia on a par with Stalin — Punshhh

He’s very little like Stalin, actually.

Not really.

It would require trust and integrity from both sides of the buffer state. The trust might have been there at the point of the signing of the Budapest Memorandum. Once this agreement had been broken by either side, the inevitable outcome would be a new iron curtain. Which is where we are heading.

How is occupying part of Ukraine going to prevent Ukraine joining NATO?

He’s very little like Stalin, actually.

I mean in the level of control. We don’t know if new gulags have been built yet. Putin will want to maintain the impression of normality as long as possible. So it will be done slowly and quietly.

How is occupying part of Ukraine going to prevent Ukraine joining NATO? — Punshhh

You want me to explain it to you? Why not Google it?

https://www.cfr.org/articles/neutrality-alternative-ukraines-membership-nato

During war and with territorial disputes, it’s very unlikely NATO accepts members. Even if it’s agreed that everything Russia has occupied becomes part of Russia, it’s still extremely unlikely that the western parts become NATO members. NATO membership is dead for Ukraine— there’s no way around it.

The article spells out NATO membership in all but name. So after another 10years or so after the war has finished, it will be formally recognised.

The article agrees with my assessment (which I made at the beginning of the thread) that there will be a new iron curtain;

NATO allies have to recognize that their new frontier—the Iron Curtain, the inner German border, the East-West divide—runs from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea and along the border between Ukraine and Russia.

Even if it’s agreed that everything Russia has occupied becomes part of Russia, it’s still extremely unlikely that the western parts become NATO members. NATO membership is dead for Ukraine— there’s no way around it.

As I say, a member in all but name, which is pretty much what has pertained since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Even if the U.S. pulls out of support for Ukraine, Europe will step into the breach and finish the job.

not allowing missiles on Russia’s border — Mikie

Too late for that.
Not that there ever were nuclear missiles on their border (or Ukraine's).
Do you think Putin will declare a "special Finland military operation" if the Finns install systems to shoot down nuclear missiles?

Defense of Ukraine need not be NATO, though Budapest turned out useless.
I'm sure the Ukrainians would accept some other sufficient defense agreement.
But that might well (also) get in the way of the Kremlin's plans, even if it meant peace and no NATO.
What are the chances that Putin would hand back the occupied territories?

The article spells out NATO membership in all but name. So after another 10years or so after the war has finished, it will be formally recognised. — Punshhh

No, and no.

As I say, a member in all but name — Punshhh

Well, what can I say? You’re just not paying attention. The difference is real, and it matters.

Well, what can I say? You’re just not paying attention. The difference is real, and it matters

Yes, there is a difference, but for whom does it matter? The only person I can think of who would be very concerned about it is Putin. Meanwhile, European and Ukrainian leaders have been meeting frequently. There is increased military integration and support between the militaries of European countries and Ukraine forces. Alliances which have been developed since 2014*. This is all going on quietly behind the scenes, without the inevitable reaction from Putin that there would be if formal NATO status for Ukraine was being negotiated.

*following the invasion of Crimea.

People do not need to believe the following claims:
- Putin wanted to conquer the whole of Ukraine
- Putin declared he wanted to conquer the whole of Ukraine [1]
- Putin had the means to conquer the whole of Ukraine
- Putin had a plan to conquer the whole of Ukraine

And still believe that Putin wanted and STILL wants to have Ukraine under Russian hegemony for alleged security reasons (instead of having it under Western or American hegemony) and the vulnerabilities shown by the American administrations (the occupation of Crimea, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the growing competition with China), the appeasement of Russia's demands by Europeans, not to mention the anti-American and anti-EU narrative in the West (and which Russians contributed to nurture) have encouraged were enough to achieve such goal by brute force.

Those claims often attributed to people in this thread are as often strawman arguments. The fact that Western media and press may have pushed a certain narrative based on those claims, doesn't commit me or any other participants in this thread to support such a narrative. So cut the crap, self-entitled nobodies.

[1]
Nethanyahu never declared to want to conquer the whole of Palestine, did he? So what?

Yes, there is a difference, but for whom does it matter? — Punshhh

It matters to the Ukrainians, certainly—and to Russia. And to anyone who wants to understand the conflict.

People will believe what they want to believe, until they're the ones to pay the price.

Easy to play games with other people’s lives.

It matters for the Ukrainians, but in the longer term. Which is what I was suggesting, formal NATO membership will likely be agreed about a decade after the war has finished. For Putin, it matters right now. Because he’s in the middle of an invasion where he needs to maintain the narrative that he is being successful. If an offer of NATO membership for Ukraine were announced now. It would put Putin in a difficult position.

narrative that he is being successful. — Punshhh

Is it a narrative? Leaving aside who you like, it’s fairly obvious he achieved his goals. Also, NATO membership will not be offered in 10 years or 20 years. It’s not happening.

Is it a narrative?

The narrative being fed to the Russian population. They don’t receive what we in the West would call news. It’s a propaganda narrative.

it’s fairly obvious he achieved his goals

To become stuck in a forever war, into which the young men of Russia are fed like a meat grinder? Doesn’t sound like much of a goal to me. Unless it’s more about crushing any possibility of decent at home and ruling by tyranny. Interestingly it emerged yesterday that Navalney was poisoned by a deadly frog poison only found in the Amazon, weird.

Also, NATO membership will not be offered in 10 years or 20 years. It’s not happening.

Is that code for, the U.S. will veto any offer for Ukraine to join NATO. I noticed that Marco Rubio, didn’t even mention Ukraine in his keynote speech at the Munich Conference two days ago. When questioned about it he mumbled something about a deal was on the table. Looks like the U.S. is a Russian patsy.

It doesn’t matter, because as I said Europe will provide security for Ukraine once the war is over. By working with the Ukrainian forces. It doesn’t matter at this point whether it is about NATO membership, or not.

The narrative being fed to the Russian population. They don’t receive what we in the West would call news. It’s a propaganda narrative. — Punshhh

And what do you believe we in the West are being fed?

PS: Well, I guess the answer is already contained in the quote. You believe we receive 'news' - cute.

What do you make of the hundreds of times 'the news' brought you information that was far-fetched at the time, and obviously untrue in hindsight?

So according to you, the Russians are losing badly and have achieved nothing, and any day now the Europeans are going to pick up the slack and help Ukraine push them back.

Wishful thinking. And also the outgrowth of a steady diet of superficial “news” (propaganda). Yes, it’s frustrating when the bad guys win sometimes. But the reality is what it is.

So are the two narratives are comparable, in the degree of disinformation?

Sure.

So according to you, the Russians are losing badly and have achieved nothing, and any day now the Europeans are going to pick up the slack and help Ukraine push them back.

I’m saying the Russians are bogged down, they’re not losing as such, there is a stalemate.

Now let’s compare the two sides in the stalemate. One side is fighting to preserve their existence as a free country, so they are not going to stop. They can’t put down their arms and go home, because the front line is their home. If they did retreat what would the Russians do, stay where they are now? Or go all the way to Kiev and hoist the Russian flag in the main square?
Then there’s the Russian side, They are conducting a special military operation in another country to defeat some Nazi’s and it’s so special that it’s worth sacrificing a million young Russian men to do it. Meanwhile the Rubble has lost most of its value. Many people have fled Russia, there are wide ranging sanctions imposed by wealthy nations around the world. The lucrative gas and oil pipelines to Europe are turned off. Nordstream two built at great expense had just been completed, but was never turned on. The Russians are running a shadow fleet of over a thousand old and failing ships to to ship their oil to third world countries around the world who want cheap oil at any cost. (The U.S. and Europe are organising to halt this trade at the moment).

So much winning. Unless, as I say, the war is a distraction, while tyrannical control of the population and the crushing of the possibility of dissent, is the actual goal.

Remember during Covid, Putin became paranoid about catching Covid and whenever he was seen in public, he would be seen sitting at the other end of a very long table. I’ve heard Russian correspondents saying that he watches footage of the demise of President Gaddafi and is terrified that he will meet the same end. You have to consider the state of mind, of such a person in all of this.

Wishful thinking. No basis in reality. The Ukrainians should press on, even under the threat of losing Odesa and Kharkiv? Seems exceedingly silly.

The Ukrainian military will eventually collapse in the long run, especially without US support. They stand to lose even more territory. They should have accepted a deal in 2022 — they didn’t. They’ve now lost four oblasts. So now they should press on, according to you? All because we can’t let the bad guys win? Yet the bad guys are already winning and stand to win more. Sometimes there’s no great options, and one has to choose the least bad. Knowing when you’re beaten is sometimes the smartest thing.

Easy to treat this like it’s a game of Risk when you’re far away and posses a Nickelodeon understanding of war.

The Ukrainians should press on, even under the threat of losing Odesa and Kharkiv? Seems exceedingly silly.

Interesting phraseology, Ukraine isn’t pressing on, they are defending their home.

They should have accepted a deal in 2022 — they didn’t.

That deal would have left Ukraine effectively a Russian vassal and Russia would have pulled out anyway. By the way, Ukraine has accepted every deal on the table, on the condition of minimal security guarantees and fine details to be worked out. But on every occasion it was Russia who scuppered the talks, or walked away.
Haven’t you seen a pattern yet. No deal that Russia signs up to is worth the paper it’s written on. The Ukrainians know this, maybe it’s time you listened to what they have to say now. As I said, they have the measure of Putin.