Anyone interested in what live propaganda looks like (as of typing) can check the examples below.
Titles might have been part of AI prompts, they appear to be the main message to be conveyed.
Note, "euromore·eu" can be traced back to the Kremlin, and may become unavailable at any time.

Presumably referring to Larry C Johnson (title resonating with this post above):

on the air"EUROMORE" and on the YouTube channel "PolitWera» answered questions from viewers and readers Larry K. Johnson is an American political commentator and former US Central Intelligence Agency analyst.

Here are the main quotes:

On forcing Ukraine to peace:

“I said earlier, I will repeat today: the longer the war goes on, the greater the advantage Russia will have. Russia has strategic advantages... Already today we see that Ukraine is not able to repel Russia, and every day the situation for it will only get worse... The weapons transferred to Ukraine are technologies that are 30-40 years outdated, Russia responds to them by modernizing its own weapons... The situation cannot even be reversed by the F‑16s promised to Ukraine: Russia will simply shoot them down as soon as they take off.”

On the entry of Western troops into the territory of Ukraine:

“French and Polish troops were already present (although unofficially) on the territory of Ukraine. What happened to them? They were all killed and went home in coffins. Even if new troops are sent to Ukraine now, I do not see the logistics of supporting them for more than 2-3 weeks.”

About Ukraine's losses:

“The figure cited is 500 thousand dead; I heard from [retired US Army Colonel] Douglas McGregor the figure of 2 million - these are losses including the wounded.”

On the deployment of nuclear weapons in Poland:

“I think this would be a death wish on the part of the United States for Poland. Russia will not tolerate such a threat on its borders, just as the United States did not tolerate such a threat in Cuba.”

About repression in the USA:

“Today in the United States, students are being persecuted for their political positions, even though they were peacefully protesting the killing of Palestinians. We see that their rights are being violated. Today many people are leaving America. In December and February I was in Moscow, where I met with some expats who now live in Russia - they consider this country to be freer, since in Russia they can speak out. By the way, for those who still remember the events of the Cold War, this may seem strange.”

On the possible restoration of friendly relations between the United States and Russia after Trump comes to power:

“I think Trump would like to change the situation and reverse recent trends, but we need to understand how possible this is. I think that, from a political point of view, this is impossible. Today, propaganda controls the minds of Americans so deeply that anyone who tries to restore relations with Russia is immediately labeled a “traitor” or “Putin’s puppet.” Today in the United States there are no politicians who could establish [friendly] relations.”

The full version of online communication is on video. — Larry K. Johnson (CIA): Americans are leaving for Russia for freedom · 20.05.2024

Supposedly referring to a Margarita Waldman:

Several European, American and Canadian experts whose columns work on the website “EUROMORE", we received identical questions and accusations from journalists-provocateurs from leading media outlets. In their letters, they denounce experts for disseminating pro-Russian propaganda through the website “EUROMORE"and in receiving money from Russia.

The stupidest accusations from those who have never read our project!

Site "EUROMORE"was created with one goal - to prevent the Third World War, which we are being actively pushed towards today (including such journalists-provocateurs!).

Dozens of enthusiasts with an active anti-war position are working on the project. I’ll repeat it again for those who don’t understand: we provide a platform for everyone who takes an active anti-war position!

We have our own editorial office and do not cooperate with any Russian organizations, foundations or authorities. We publish only reliable information and do not support any political force! Our content allows us to earn money from advertising.

I want to ask you, dear provocateurs, three questions:

1) Do you have any complaints about our materials?
2) Do you have any complaints about the balance of opinions?
3) Do you realize that by demanding that anti-war media be blocked with your “initiatives”, you are making World War III inevitable?

With disrespect,
Margarita Waldman
Chief Editor
«EUROMORE» — Anti-war media are being squeezed out of Europe. Preparing for World War III? · 26.06.2024

Presumably referring to Steffen Kotré:

Member of the German Parliament from the Alternative for Germany party Steffen Kotre said that there is convincing evidence of US involvement in the damage to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.

This is reported by "EUROMORE».

Steffen Cotre said that non-governmental organizations that positioned themselves as environmentalists were actually carrying out actions aimed at opposing Russian gas supplies.

Earlier, Handelsblatt reported that the current German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, while serving as Finance Minister in 2020, proposed that the United States enter into a secret agreement to avoid sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. — German MP Cotre called the facts of US involvement in the bombing of SP-2 undeniable · 30.06.2024

Formatting (and embedded links) not included, just the text.
Various other examples can be found, fuel price problems due to sanctions, posts impersonating Ukrainians, nefarious Ukrainians selling given weapons, heck 5G causing maladies.

Surely there must be something better to bomb?

Russia’s heaviest bombardment of Kyiv in 4 months kills at least 31 and hits a children’s hospital (footage 54s) (— Hanna Arhirova, Illia Novikov, Samya Kullab · AP · Jul 8, 2024)

Russian missile attacks kill at least 41, hit children's hospital, Ukraine says (— Olena Harmash, Max Hunder, Anastasiia Malenko, Yuliia Dysa, Oleksander Kozhukhar, Kanishka Singh, Emma Farge, Tom Balmforth, Ron Popeski, Cynthia Osterman, Christopher Cushing · Reuters · Jul 8, 2024)

Russian boats remain the primary (or ≈ only remaining) suspects in cutting cables between Svalbard and mainland Norway in January 2022:

Kabelmysteriene (original Norwegian)
The cable mysteries (English translation via google)
^{— Benjamin Fredriksen, Beth M Pettersen, Gyda K Hesla, Inghild Eriksen, Håvard Gulldahl · NRK · Jun 26, 2022}

Hybrid CoE Paper 18: The Arctic after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: The increased risk of conflict and hybrid threats
^{— Andreas Østhagen · Hybrid CoE · May 10, 2023}

Whatever the case, Canada and others have made various parallel observations. ^{(2021Apr4, 2021Apr5, 2021Apr12, 2022Mar28, 2022Nov16, 2022Nov22, 2022Nov25, 2023Feb20, 2023Apr20, 2023May2, 2024Jun20)}

Venturing a guess, in some cases, the Kremlin machine is running basic empirical procedures: test, watch, learn.

↑ not all directly related to Ukraine, but to try catching contours of wider endeavors

The Putin System | Putin – 20 years
^{— Fabian Burkhardt (translation by Robert Orttung) · дekoder · Mar 18, 2020}

Is the Kremlin conducting more operations outside Ukraine, than Kyiv is conducting inside Russia?

From $7 graffiti to arson and a bomb plot: How Russia’s ‘shadow war’ on NATO members has evolved
^{— Nick Paton Walsh, Sarah Dean, Karolina Jeznach, Clayton Nagel · CNN · Jul 10, 2024}
Russian assassination plots against those supporting Ukraine uncovered in Europe, official says
^{— Aamer Madhani, Geir Moulson, Ellen Knickmeyer, Rebecca Santana · AP · Jul 12, 2024}

They're close to committing acts of war against a bunch of countries. I guess it's consistent with their ramblings about 2 or 3 continents.

At least the Chinese military in Belarus wasn't ehh disturbed, that we know of anyway:

The Shahed entered Belarus at 3 a.m. and flew over 350 km (— Belarusian Hajun project · Jul 13, 2024)
The Shahed entered Belarus at 3 a.m. and flew more than 350 km (— Belarusian Gayun | Belarusian Hajun project · Jul 13, 2024)

Four enemy UAVs were shot down by units of mobile fire groups of the Defense Forces in the Donetsk and Kharkiv regions. The fifth - left the airspace of Ukraine in the direction of the Gomel region of Belarus. (— Air Force Commander Mykola Oleschuk · Jul 13, 2024)
Russian drone incursion prompts Belarusian military response (— TWA · essanews · Jul 13, 2024)

As far as I know, just about the only response to Kremlinian nuclear rattling, was Washington saying that there would be severe consequences. Maybe something more was said behind closed doors.

A different response could be for NATO to publically declare a reciprocal return. Say, if Russia uses a nuclear bomb, then they'll get one in return, and so on. That would then be more proactive/direct — nothing preemptive, but as a "mechanistic" reaction, sort of "set in stone", seemingly predictable.

Are there strategies here, in terms of public perception versus deterrence? Outright nuclear war, however unlikely, would be bad for all, fear thereof can be useful. Then there's the North Korean wildcard.

Trump has vowed that he could end the war in Ukraine in "one day" when President. Even if it's the ordinary populist Trumpian rhetoric from Trump, we have to look at what his last surrender peace deal was with the Taliban: all that Taliban needed to do was not to attack Americans, yet they could basically were given a free hand to attack the pro-American government as they wanted. Quite a similar to the Dolchstoss that Americans gave to the South Vietnamese in the 1970's. But if you want a deal at all costs, that's the kind of shitty peace deal you will get along with the fact that you lost your longest war you had fought.

End result, Trump will make his grandiose attempt for a peace deal, which very likely it will fail. Trump angrily will want to cut all support to Ukraine, but Pentagon and the Republic Party won't accept this, and Trump will end up cutting the aid to Ukraine. For the Russians this war isn't a sideshow from where to "pivot" somewhere else as for the Americans, hence if they aren't fought to a standstill, they'll continue the war. Russia will halt the war only if continuing the war leads to a far more worse outcome. This should be understood from the Russians.

Europe should understand that for at least 4 years with Trump the US will be a very unpredictable ally and they have to put money on defense and support Ukraine themselves (hopefully increase the aid).

To be honest, I think a peace deal is easily within reach. The Kremlin has signaled that they want a diplomatic settlement since the start of the war.

The biggest obstacle is Ukraine itself, which got royally fucked by the US and cronies, and is now refusing to be forced into a shitty deal by the same people that encouraged it to fight on. I'd say that's somewhat understandable from the Ukrainian side, but it's a bitter pill they will eventually be forced to swallow.

The reason the royal fucking hasn't come full circle is because Ukraine probably holds some serious leverage over the Biden administration.

Once Trump enters office that will be off the table, and he will likely be free to force Ukraine to sign an uncomfortable peace deal with the Russians or withdraw support.

After that, the Russians will in all likelihood seek a return to the pre-2014 status quo, restoring economic ties with Europe. They have no reason to involve themselves into large-scale conflict with Europe when the US and China are on the cusp of war, and with Europe and Russia standing to profit greatly from that conflict.

The Kremlin has signaled that they want a diplomatic settlement since the start of the war. — Tzeentch

With denazification and all that? Lol.

Once Trump enters office that will be off the table, and he will likely be free to force Ukraine to sign an uncomfortable peace deal with the Russians or withdraw support. — Tzeentch

That's what I was writing about. Trump makes absolutely shitty peace deals. The peace deal with the Taleban was really surrender, which then Biden gladly accepted (and hence there's absolutely no discussion of this defeat as both parties are culprits to the lost war). I bet that Kim Il Sung would have gladly accepted a similar peace terms, and if South Korea would have been left to face North Korea and China alone, I'm sure that there would be unified Korea, just as there's a Vietnam today.

After that, the Russians will in all likelihood seek a return to the pre-2014 status quo, restoring economic ties with Europe. — Tzeentch

Good luck with that. Only when Putin is dead and buried perhaps something like that can happen.

They have no reason to involve themselves into large-scale conflict with Europe when the US and China are on the cusp of war, and with Europe and Russia standing to profit greatly from that conflict. — Tzeentch

Russia wants Finlandization of all Europe. And if the US "pivot people" get their way and US really "pivots" to Asia (what that means I don't know as the US is already in Asia) and doesn't care Europe anymore and the EU doesn't hold together, then Russia can pick every European country one-by-one. Russia is far more powerful than any European nation on it's own. Hence it's no surprise that Russia wants to break the Atlantic tie.

Europe doesn't profit from a US China war. Russia does. Anything that's worse for the US is good for Putin's Russia.

With denazification and all that? — ssu

The point is to enter negotiations and make a deal that's acceptable for both sides. This already happened in March/April 2022, so it's clearly possible.

Trump makes absolutely shitty peace deals. — ssu

Well, a shitty peace deal is all the Ukrainians will be getting and they have the US and cronies to thank for it.

Only when Putin is dead and buried perhaps something like that can happen. — ssu

The most important factor in whether this can happen is whether the US pivots and stops fueling Russophobia in Europe.

Once the European leaders start thinking for themselves again, they will seek normalization too.

Russia wants Finlandization of all Europe. — ssu

Russia has a fraction of Europe's GDP and population. Russia is hardly a threat if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses. There's no basis for this type of fearmongering nonsense.

Europe doesn't profit from a US China war. Russia does. — ssu

Europe would profit immensely from a US-China war, because it would become a critical market for both the US and China if it stays on the sideline. Russia will do the same thing.

Furthermore, while the US and China beat each other to a pulp, Europe and Russia would remain intact and grow in relative power.

Why do you think the US is trying so hard to embroil Europe and Russia in a war with each other? It's trying to prevent either of them from becoming the laughing third.

It's easy to understand why the Russians are so keen on a diplomatic settlement when you understand this context.

The only people who don't seem to understand anything are the Europeans.

From basement to battlefield: Ukrainian startups create low-cost robots to fight Russia (— Derek Gatopoulos, Anton Shtuka · AP · Jul 15, 2024)

Worrisome? Well, something similar is likely going on elsewhere. Seems unlikely it'll have much impact for the time being.

Adding to other reports (schools, language, museums) ... land grab, Russification ...

^{• Ukrainians say they were pressured to register babies as Russian during occupation (— Reuters · Mar 3, 2023)
• Russia Threatens Ukrainians Who Refuse Russian Citizenship (— HRW · May 16, 2023)
• Russia forces Ukrainians in occupied territories to take its passports – and fight in its army (— AP · Mar 15, 2024)
• The enemy does not register pregnant women without a Russian passport (— UA Gov · Jul 7, 2024)
• Russia’s Occupiers Steal Homes, Hearts, and Minds (— CEPA · Jul 10, 2024)
• Enemy threats to seize cars from Ukrainians who do not receive a Russian passport starting in 2025 (— UA Gov · Jul 18, 2024)}

External responses have been fairly consistent ... Leave Moldova be^{(radiochisinau, rferl)}, leave Ukraine be^(nato) ...

Russia can get the message: back off. How about you get out of Ukraine and stop the illegal and immoral war that you’re engaged in and how about you try to stop interfering in domestic affairs of other sovereign nations. — Anthony Albanese (via The Guardian · Jul 13, 2024)

Official bullshits to everyone's faces (again), maybe that's become the norm:

We are concerned about the freedom of the media and opinions as you are. We did not immediately respond when you started expelling our journalists and closing entire bureaus. I discussed this issue with Maria Zakharova. I believed that we should not do what they were doing, that we should remain true to our principles and the principles of the OSCE. But then it came to disgusting, reckless and aggressive steps. So, it’s an eye for an eye then. — Sergey Lavrov · via The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs · Jul 17, 2024

Maybe Ukraine should go for "an eye for an eye"?

Trump and NATO: Global Perspectives on the 2024 NATO Summit and America (— Liana Fix (US), Alessandro Marrone (Italy), Wojciech Lorenz (Poland), Fyodor Lukyanov (Russia) · CFR · Jul 17, 2024)

While glancing through these memos, I get a recurring sense of missed perspective - to what end?

Well, a shitty peace deal is all the Ukrainians will be getting and they have the US and cronies to thank for it. — Tzeentch

Without any help from the West Russia would have likely obtained it's objectives. Which would have been even more shitty for the country. Likely they would have lost the coast to the Black Sea.

Had the West not insisted on changing Ukraine's neutral status, Russia probably would have never invaded. It's worth noting that the Russians spent 6 years trying to open dialogue, before the US forced the issue in 2014.

Had the West not insisted on changing Ukraine's neutral status, Russia probably would have never invaded. — Tzeentch

This is pure "what if" arguments, which are unprobable and now .

As noted far earlier in this thread, there were aspirations for annexing Crimea right from the start when the Soviet Union collapsed. Then there's all the talk, all the aspirations for getting Novorossiya and hence carving up Ukraine... as now has happened.

But this is totally futile debate as we simple here disagree. You insist that everything happened because of NATO enlargement and the West.

We have been over this, so no reason to go again in rounds.

According to Johnson, if McClown has a say about the war, it'll be something like...

• supporters allow Ukraine to use ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, as well as other weapons, to target airfields in Russia; once Russian troops are pushed back, Putin could offer a deal
• Russia retreats to the borders as of Feb 24, 2022; Ukrainian territory under Kyiv's control is recognized as a free country with the prospect of rapid accession to the EU and NATO
• after the war, some Ukrainian troops are to be stationed in Europe to replace part of the 70,000 US troops deployed to deter potential Russian aggression; this would save US $s, bring American troops home, and compel Europeans to up defense, which is one of his goals
• Russia declares that the "Special Military Operation" has fulfilled its mission and deNazified the country; special protective measures are to be introduced for the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine

Not really consistent with prior statements, and not consistent with his present VP pick, but who knows.

, do you think the demilitarization deNazification irredentism stuff (pertaining just to Ukraine) was blather for the gallery? (I'm guessing yes, except when in service of neo-colonialism.)

This is pure "what if" arguments, which are unprobable and now . — ssu

The point is, you're projecting aims and goals onto the Russians for which there is no basis.

Russian rhetoric and behavior has been surprisingly consistent over the course of more than a decade when it comes to this issue.

They bent over backwards to try to preserve peace in face of NATO expansion - that's how much they valued stable relations and trade ties with the West.

Ukraine was a bridge too far, and that too they tried to resolve diplomatically, even though they were consistently ignored by NATO. Even the Minsk accords were agreed upon by NATO in bad faith, showing that it's NATO and not Russia that has rejected diplomatic solutions.

After the war broke out, the Russians have been signaling for a diplomatic solution since day 1, which again was refused by the West.

Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"?

They repeatedly give NATO chances for dialogue, and NATO repeatedly ignores them.

As long as you provide a decent argument I agree there's no point in restating what has already been said, but these depictions of Russia as "the big bad" are just baseless caricatures used to fearmonger by parties who want war, not peace.

↪Tzeentch, do you think the demilitarization deNazification irredentism stuff (pertaining just to Ukraine) was blather for the gallery? — jorndoe

No, they mean it.

NATO used militarization and fanatical anti-Russian elements in Ukraine to create a fait accompli with regards to its NATO membership. The Russians are looking for guarantees that that won't happen again.

NATO used militarization and fanatical anti-Russian elements in Ukraine to create a fait accompli with regards to its NATO membership. The Russians are looking for guarantees that that won't happen again. — Tzeentch

I find it really confusing that you're ok with that.

That has nothing to do with it.

This is just the reality Ukraine has to deal with.

Russian rhetoric and behavior has been surprisingly consistent over the course of more than a decade when it comes to this issue. — Tzeentch

Was denazification on the table in 2014? But I agree, Russia has been quite consistent in attempting to annex Ukrainian territory irrelevant of NATO. As it was an "artificial" country.

They repeatedly give NATO chances for dialogue, and NATO repeatedly ignores them. — Tzeentch

Have you ever noticed what kind of dialogue that was? It was that Russia should have a say if a country could join or not NATO. That naturally goes against NATO's charter. At least for Finland that was the second to last straw to break (the last straw being the full invasion of Ukraine).

And of course, what you always forget, is that simply putting the troops on the border made immediately NATO countries like Germany vow that Ukraine wouldn't be accepted to be in NATO. But naturally that wasn't the goal, just as Saddam's mobilization of Iraqi troops to the Kuwaiti border wasn't done in order that Kuwait would follow OPEC guidelines on oil production.

Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"? — Tzeentch

Here's Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, from the official Russian Foreign ministry website :

As for the “Finlandisation” of Europe, I remember that period very well. It was an element of euphoria that developed after the end of the Cold War, when everyone was considered a friend, and ideology was abandoned everywhere.

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/en/foreign_policy/un/1959636/

That's the delusional way that official Russia thinks about Finlandization.

In fact, the Soviet Union hoped the Finlandization would catch on. It's simply how it wants to influence other countries. The best way is to "influence" the actions of other countries without having an open conflict. The worst thing for this idea (and the present Russia) is European countries forming an union and the Atlanticism that NATO creates.

Russia has been quite consistent in attempting to annex Ukrainian territory irrelevant of NATO. As it was an "artificial" country. — ssu

They've stuck to their red line for over a decade. They told us exactly what the problem was, and they told us exactly what the consequences would be.

We chose to ignore them, and they stuck to their word.

Have you ever noticed what kind of dialogue that was? It was that Russia should have a say if a country could join or not NATO. — ssu

Ukraine's neutral status is the key to a stable Eastern Europe.

So yes, obviously Russia's position should be taken into account and not simply ignored if a stable Eastern Europe is the goal.


It's worrying how your rhetoric turns any dialogue with the Russians into something negative.

Just like the way you use the term 'Finlandization' to describe any kind of positive relations with the Russians.

It bears every hallmark of war propaganda, which is designed to make war the only outcome. The same trick was used in Ukraine to make it fling itself willingly into the abyss.

The question you should ask yourself is whether you will be the beneficiary of such a war, or whether that will be some unnamed country across the pond.

1. Regardless of what you think about Russia, countries in our system have a right, and rationally do anyways, act in preemptive self defence. What's been referred to as legitimate security concerns. A nuclear power creating missile bases nearer and nearer to you is one such obvious security concern. — boethius

You don’t seem to follow through your own reasoning here. Indeed, what is true for Russia, it is true for the US and Ukraine too: regardless of what you think about the US and Ukraine, “countries in our system have a right, and rationally do anyways, act in preemptive self defence. What's been referred to as legitimate security concerns.” A re-arming nuclear power with hegemonic ambitions over the US own sphere influence (e.g. Europe) and elsewhere (like in Africa and Middle East), engaging in Russia’s direct/conventional threats or asymmetric/unconventional threats, programmatically hostile to the US-led Western hegemony and pledging a strategic allegiance with other hostile authoritarian regimes like China, Iran and North Korea is a legitimate security concern for the US-led allegiance. Actually, the security dilemmas you think explain or justify Russia’s imperialist war are very much the same that led the US to become world hegemon, build-up a Western alliance and turn into some Great Satan to people like you. Russian elites imperialist's ideology and military build-up, supporting Western enemies and projecting military power in Africa and Middle east at the expense of Western interests, are all provocations from Russia against the US and its allies in their backyard. That’s why your argument looks so self-defeating to me.
Concerning the idea that a “nuclear power creating missile bases nearer and nearer to you is one such obvious security concern”, that’s currently the case of Russia at the expense of the US allies (see Kaliningrad). States can live with it. And also the Cuban missile crisis shows another way in which hostile hegemonic powers dealt with their security concerns, without engaging into a war with territorial annexations. If Russia wishes to be treated as the US in terms of security concerns, but the US and its allies don’t acknowledge the right of Russia to be treated as the US in terms of security concerns, then Russia has to impose its will against the US and its allies like enemies do. Western DO NOT need to feel rationally compelled by Russia’s claims of legitimacy about its security concerns, other than for the threats the go along with it. Russia and the US are not the same, do not play the same role in the Western world so they do not have to enjoy the same status AT ALL. Europeans have American bases in Europe, and yet they can live with it despite they may be seen as a national security threat. Switzerland borders with countries with US military bases, and yet they can live with it despite this may be national security concerns. So Europeans have to take position wrt Russia’s hegemonic ambitions in Europe and all its implications in terms of security, political stability, and economic opportunities.

2. Regardless of what you think about point one above, it is just dumb to provoke a war, then actually fight a war, on the principle of denying Russia has legitimate security concerns that would lead a rational actor in the international system to wage preemptive war ... when apparently we all now agree that Ukraine would never join NATO anyways, but also not really we'll just go ahead and claim that's going to happen someday from time to time. Fighting for something you can never actually have is dumb. — boethius

There are several issues with such claims. The idea that the war was provoked PRESUPPOSES the idea that Russia has hegemonic ambitions over Ukraine either for very limited security concerns (e.g. by creating a “neutral” buffer state between Russia and Nato which doesn’t exist yet, right?) or for wider imperialist ambitions and power projection, because 1. Nobody attacked Russia proper, as Hamas attacked Israel proper (this is where I would talk about provocation but I guess Israeli has no “legitimate” security concerns even in this case, right?) 2. No NATO missile bases have been installed in Ukraine yet. But this war started by Russia made this undesirable outcome for Russia more compelling for Westerners (as in a self-defeating prophecy). 3. There was no arm race against Russia (“NATO is brain dead”, Trump’s willingness to have Russia on the US side against China). That’s also why Westerners have great difficulty to military supply Ukraine. BTW it was Mearsheimer himself who suggested Ukraine shouldn’t have returned the nuclear arsenal to (a however much weaker than today’s) Russia at the end of Soviet Union, for Ukrainian preemptive security concerns, especially given their historical beefs. But the logic of appeasement of Russia prevailed in the US back then, not provocation.
I put “neutrality” under quotes because the very existence of the Russian Black Sea Fleat in Ukraine shows that a “neutral” Ukraine is nothing more than a base for Russian power projection led by corrupt politicians bribed by Russians with a pretence of autonomy as Russians understand it.
You are playing with the word “legitimate” in “legitimate security concerns“. To me security concerns are “legitimate” because acknowledged according to relevant politically commitments. Westerners could acknowledge Russia’s security concerns based on international laws and treaties, or based on a strategic logic like that of strategic allegiance in response to security concerns and hegemonic ambitions. Neither case holds for Russia. Russia is not a Western ally nor there are treaties that commit the West to comply with Russia’s security concerns at their own expense.
So according to such an understanding of “legitimate”, Russia has NO “LEGITIMATE” SECURITY CONCERNS to justify this war. Russia is an enemy to the West and should be treated accordingly. At this point, talking about Russia’s “legitimate” security concerns is like talking about mafia’s, terrorists’ and nazis’s “legitimate” security concerns. The enemy has no “legitimate” security concerns. The enemy has just “illegitimate” security concerns.
The problem for the West is to understand Russia “illegitimate” security concerns to better weaken Russia not to acknowledge them, as much as the law enforcement would need to understand mafia “illegitimate” security concerns to better weaken mafia.
Ukraine doesn’t need to be inside NATO as long as circumstances are not amenable to such an outcome. The point is that NATO is taken to be a military alliance which challenges Russia’s hegemonic ambitions in Europe. Other forms of wide military allegiance comprising Ukraine but not Russia could be a problem as well for Russia. Ukraine not turning into a buffer state and neutralising the threats coming from the Black Sea Fleet would help against Russia’s hegemonic ambitions as well. WHATEVER security system that involves Ukraine and Western countries, BUT EXCLUDES Russia may be perceived as a security threat by Russia. And it’s even worse for Russia if Europe manages to become a competing power that could engage in an arm race, build its own security system of alliance, with its own nuclear weapons, and power projection in Africa and Middle East (historically Russia got invaded from Europeans not from the US). Russia needs a weak, defenceless and submissive or divided Europe to counter balance China, even in the case where the US has completely withdrawn from Europe.
So containing and deterring Russia is an imperative ALSO for Europeans, including Ukraine, not only for the US, if Russia can not (or should not) be significantly defeated. There is a balance to be found of course, given the emergence of other hegemonic powers in the international arena (e.g. China) that could profit from Russia’s defeat, the growing challenges coming from the rest of the World with all their aspirations or grievances against the West (which are in good part nurtured by Westerners themselves, including random nobodies like you), the growing discredit and lack of unity suffered by political elites in the Western world. Not easy task I guess but there is nothing inherently dumb in struggling for this goal, that’s part of the game with all its hazards. Once we agree that Russia and its sidekicks are definitely the enemy then we can discuss how, how long it takes, at what cost. And uncertainty remains no matter what path one follows.
That’s not all, talking about “provocation” has little explanatory power wrt the timing of Russias’ gambit. Actually it hides the OPPORTUNISTIC motives which led Russia to aggress the West in a time where the US looks much weaker than it looked after the end of the Cold War while Europeans look extremely vulnerable to economic and security shocks. Pro-Russians underestimate the Ukrainian and the European agency as much as they underestimate the Russian agency. There is only one agent morally and politically responsible for every evil: the Great Satan. All the others are mechanically reacting to the US abuses. So the perceived weakness of the West is the relevant motivational factor for this war NOT provocation. And so the West has to take more seriously its weaknesses as perceived by self-assertive anti-Western authoritarian regimes. The msg here is not: “they wronged me so this is the pay back” or “they made me do it”. But “the US is weak, now it’s time to challenge him, turn its coward allies against him, stab the boss in the back”.
Anyways, I’m looking forward to hearing you whining about China’s security concerns threatened by the US and Western provocations in China’s own backyard.

3. Regardless of what you think about how smart it is to fight for a right to have something the relevant parties never give you (which, if they did, the whole point would be to then avoid a disastrous war such as what is happening right now[b/]). Fighting a disastrous war to (maybe, hopefully, wishfully) get something to protect from fighting disastrous wars, is completely moronic. — boethius

You can conclude it’s all moronic if you present things as moronic in all your premises. It’s tautological. But I do not share your questionable assumptions so the conclusion has no appeal to me.
There is not metaphysical necessity in saying “fight for a right to have something the relevant parties never give you”, right? It’s matter of choice, so one has to make an effort to understand the reasoning behind such choices. I find moronic to consider “moronic” certain political moves just because some random dude thinks politicians are playing or should play in the way he suggests, as much as I find moronic to consider “moronic” certain game moves just because some random dude thinks people are playing or should play the ball as in soccer, whiteout considering that maybe people are playing basketball and fine with it.
To me, the reasoning behind such political choices transcend HOW THINGS ARE PRESENTED TO PEOPLE, so beyond pro-Russian and pro-Western propaganda (in the press, on TV, in the social media, etc.), and it is grounded on my understanding of how politicians are compelled to reason in a highly competitive and uncertain political struggle, constrained by all sorts of conflicting interests and limited resources. Besides, the conflict we are discussing has long term and worldwide consequences that most likely will survive us, so I would refrain from putting too much credit on drawing lessons limited to how things look now.
Concerning your onanistic propaganda criticism you so tirelessly and self-conceitedly indulge on, my argument is that if people are dumb to engage in a war because NATO will save them from future wars with Russia, they would still be dumb to not engage in a war because their economic welfare, social freedoms and political autonomy would be safer under Russia.
Dumb people will believe things based on dumb arguments no matter what they are, even when arguments are based on whatever propaganda one wishes to denounce. So politicians are compelled to ensure that dumb people would believe their own propaganda not that of their rivals or, even worse, enemies. Surely, also propaganda war can be played badly, but that’s not necessarily an argument against propaganda in general (no matter how misleading, false and dishonest), just against the efficacy of specific propaganda moves vs others. In that sense, I have no problem to acknowledge that Western propaganda wasn’t as effective as desirable and that Russian propaganda was more effective than desirable, no matter how false.
But, besides the fact that propaganda is only one aspect of the problem, there is also a legitimate security concern about propaganda wars, which you keep ignoring with your populist rhetoric: assuming that there are dumb people believing in propaganda in the West, Ukraine, Russia, China and Iran, the problem is that Western propaganda can be easily infiltrated and instrumentalized by hostile foreign powers while the West can’t do the same against them if they are authoritarian (see Russia, China and Iran). Russia can exploit useful idiots (or honorable men as you wish) in the West but the West can to the same as easily, so Russia has an advantage over the West in terms of propaganda war, which is multiplied by the network of anti-Western authoritarian regimes supporting Russia.

Try to address the points I’m making (wording and phrasing included), not the ones you wished I made.

4. Regardless of what you think about fighting a disastrous war to (maybe) get something that would offer protection (maybe) from disastrous wars, it still only makes sense to do if you can actually win.
For example ssu's argument at the start was that while agreeing with me that he saw no way Ukraine could win, well maybe Ukrainian general have something or know something we don't and will pull off a brilliant victory. Turns out Ukrainian generals had no such thing and exactly what was predictable given the available information is what happened. The corollary of @ssu's position is that if Ukraine had no surprise then their war effort is a disastrous mistake, immoral, got many people killed for nothing, and definitely they should have taken the Russian's offer at the start of the war (or before the war). But these positions are just conveniently swept under the rug of "Ukrainian agency". — boethius

I won’t argue for SSU’s claims, he can do it by himself. I can argue for my claims.
And I think here again you are playing with words, like “victory”.
I’m less concerned with a military notion of “victory” and more with a strategic notion of “victory”. I doubt that a military notion of “victory” automatically translates to a strategic victory.
The problem from the West and the US perspective is the political, economic, and military threats posed by authoritarian regimes growingly powerful, ambitious and hostile to the West and the US. That means that there is a serious risk for the West its elites and its people to lose all the economic, political, security privileges they could enjoy in a Western led world order.
If enemies can/should not be military defeated in a significant way, then enemies need to be contained or deterred. Ukraine is an important piece to counter-balance hostile powers like Russia which aspires to lead the revolt against the West by the Rest of the World.
Ukraine has decided so far to side with the West and now pays the consequences for its choice, as much as Palestinians decided to side with Iran and now they pay the consequences for their choice. Was this worth it? I’d let the Ukrainians (and Palestinians) decide. This is why I’m talking about “Ukrainian agency".
And I don’t think that “their war effort is a disastrous mistake, immoral, got many people killed for nothing, and definitely they should have taken the Russian's offer at the start of the war (or before the war)” at all. So far, Ukraine managed to keep its political independence, to control its most important cities (including Odessa), and to control a good part of economic resources against a much stronger enemy. As long as Russia will keep fighting, Ukraine will be out of NATO and EU and wear out its capacities, but this also ensures that there is no buffer state between Russia and NATO, and that Europeans have more time to properly regroup against Russia. I wish the West could do more and better for Ukraine, but they seem unable/unwilling to do it. So I don’t need to exclude that, for the Ukrainians, this war can turn to be as endless as the Israeli-Palestinian war is, and as disastrous to Ukrainians as the Israeli-Palestinian war is disastrous to Palestinians. But I wouldn’t say it’s immoral and people died for nothing in either case just because they were disastrously defeated. BTW, how strange it is to read such an objection from a self-proclaimed man of honour: aren’t men-of-honour those ready to sacrifice life, wellbeing of themselves and people they are responsible for to save their honour? There are people who kill themselves and their children with their own hands to save their honour.
Concerning the Russians’ offer which Ukrainians should have accepted, the problem remains: both were requiring Western security guarantees with no benefits for Western alliance, only for Russia. So Ukraine could have accepted the deal with Russia without the Western assistance. But they preferred not to. You can speculate it wasn’t good for Ukrainians, but I do not give a shit about your speculation, you are not Ukrainian, right? And even if you were, it doesn’t seem to reflect the views of Ukrainians at large.

5. Regardless of what you think about fighting a war you can't win, the West's policy has clearly been to make sure of this result by drip feeding in weapons systems. Now that the drip feed of weapons systems has run its course, the West has turned to drip feeding "maybe we will, maybe we won't" send in ground troops to turn the tide, to maintain the policy of having Ukraine fight, giving them hope (such as the next wonder weapon or wonder intervention; something we've already seen at the start with all the hullaballoo about a "no fly zone" which was critical in encouraging Ukrainians to fight while the weapons drip feed system was put into place: as that takes logistics).
As I've argued, this is my main problem with Western policy. We are clearly not even trying to help Ukrainians, but just propping them up to take an absolute beating in order to accomplish other things, all harmful to Europe. — boethius

Western policies look pretty disappointing to me as well. But while I’m more sure about the underlying strategic reasoning for the West to support Ukraine, I’m very much less sure about what the West could actually do, especially because the West harbours its own internal conflict of interests and nasty devisions, even in the face of such dramatic and epochal historical events. On the other side these constraining factors are expected since we live in countries with democratic institutions (i.e. more exposed to people’s mood and opposing political views) and a system of allegiance which grants greater political autonomy wrt the hegemonic power (i.e. less submissive to hegemonic power pressure, see Hungary). It could have been very much different for Russia if European countries had authoritarian regimes like Belarus and responded to USA’s demands like Belarus responds to Russia’s. This leads me to believe that your effort to discredit the drip-feeding approach of the West is DEFINITELY not only a pro-Russia argument, but a pro-authoritarian regime argument.
Your critic of the drip-feeding approach would be more compelling if you could actually argue for MORE EFFECTIVE Western policies to counter anti-Western authoritarian regimes’ political/economic/military challenges in general or Russia’s hegemonic ambitions in particular, in a democratic and peaceful way. But you didn’t offer any so far. Also because if you really could do such a thing, I do wonder: why aren’t you leading the Western world instead of wasting your time on the internet as an ordinary nobody like me?
The drip-feeding approach is arguably also the result of conflicting interests: the US wants to contain Russia but also wants to reduce its engagement in the European defence. The US wants Russia to lose but not too much to favour the collapse of the Russian Federation which may also benefit China. Leading EU countries want to contain Russia’s hegemonic ambitions, but they do not want to sacrifice their economic ties with Russia and China, or worse risk a nuclear war in Europe. Leading EU countries need the US protection for their national security, but they do not want to contribute to it significantly nor want to align with the US foreign policies in the face of anti-Western challenges. So what you are framing as “we are clearly not even trying to help Ukrainians, but just propping them up to take an absolute beating in order to accomplish other things, all harmful to Europe” is questionable. There is no single Western head taking decision wrt Ukraine as in Russia. And the Ukrainians without Western help would have not lasted 2 years war against Russia as they did which is still very far from being disastrous or absolute beating as you claim. The Palestinian aspiration to their nation state is what looks to me disastrous and an absolute beating so far. And yet Palestinians are still fighting, foreign powers support their fight materially as much as people like you support their fight politically. And once you accept that the Palestinians misery, destruction and alleged genocide is worth if done in the name of their nation-state (that’s Hamas argument) and support for anti-US forces (like Iran) how credible are your objections against the Western support of Ukraine, really?
On the other side Russia has neither made Ukraine a pro-Russian buffer state (actually it achieved the opposite) nor strengthened its international status and regional control (like in Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict and on Kazakhstan) nor secured its Black Sea backyard to support its power projection.

6. Regardless of what you think of the drip feed theory, if there was some genuine intent to use the leverage of clearly being willing to drip feed weapons into Ukraine to seek a diplomatic solution that is favourable to Ukraine, the Western leaders would put on their big boy pants and go and try to negotiate that happening and using their leverage (such as the sanctions and so on; whole point of sanctions being to serve as leverage to compel compliance, if the goal to effect Russian decision making and not just have a big giant war for the sake of all the sweet, sweet profiteering).

Furthermore, sending money to a pervasively corrupt polity is a de facto bribe to the elites of that polity. That the West puts zero controls or supervision on the money nor the weapons sent into Ukraine is making explicit there's not even pretence that this money is not a de facto bribe. That the West recognizes a lot of that money and weapons "disappears" but has not found one single Euro of laundered money or laundered weapons outside Ukraine, is explicitly participating in the money laundering scheme. — boethius

Surely sanctions are not a magic wand to fix international conflicts, they are a double edged swards since they can damage the economy of the sanctioning countries, not only the sanctioned one. But also excessive fever can kill people, still fever can be effective in killing parasitic bacteria. And even though sanctions may not be effective in inducing compliance, still they can increase costs and constrain power projection opportunities, so they have an attritional force. If sanctions were utterly pointless there was no need to strengthen them against Iran (as Trump did) and for China to refrain from openly doing business with Russia and Iran, and avoid sanctions. It’s a power struggle so also economic sanctions can be a valid defensive mechanism within a wider and long-term strategy. What the impact of sanctions against Russia or Iran shows is that Russia can count on a network of strategic alliance, which needs to be countered by a network of strategic alliance not by a single actor, no matter if it as powerful as the US.
Concerning the bribing argument, assuming it’s broadly or decisively true or just plausible what you claim (but what are your evidences to support it, really?), I would counter as easily that Russia too is bribing Ukrainian politicians (oh… and Western politicians too!). So if Ukrainian politicians are there to be bribed, better to be bribed in support of pro-Western objectives than pro-Russian. A similar argument to that one about dumb people who believe in propaganda, better they believe pro-Western propaganda than pro-Russian propaganda. The point is not propaganda or bribery but efficacy in advancing pro-Western objectives with whatever leverage currently available. Politicians do not operate in a world starting from ideal conditions, effective and efficient tools, universal good will and patience, to fix a cosmetic local issue but from any shitty predicament humanity ended up with at certain time in history where one problem is connected to every other problem, and conflicting interests press in all directions from all directions. So they are compelled to use whatever they can afford to gain relative advantage wrt competitors. And this reflects in the policies of the countries they lead as well as in the off the record measures they take to advance national interest (if we are lucky).
Moreover it is naive to expect that a country struggling for hegemony or national aspirations would spare itself from using a questionable but effective measure (be it bribing, torturing, exploiting terrorists, committing war crimes, using weapons of mass destruction, concentration camps, provoke famines, killing civilians, etc.) if the enemy doesn’t do the same, unless its power to impose its will with other means (including a valid network of allies) on its enemy is overwhelming. There is also some karma here: the more unfairly demanding our expectations about our politicians versus foreign politicians are, the more easily we will get disappointed.

Therefore, the policy of propping up Ukraine is to have it destroyed, have hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians killed and maimed and traumatized, depopulate the younger generations making the existing demographic collapse that much more catastrophic, simply for the gesture of "our hearts being in the right place" of wanting Russia to lose a war and "learn a lesson”. — boethius

…unless you are projecting on the West the martyrdom rhetoric of Hamas (which btw you support, right?). One could also argue that Iran is propping up Palestinians to have them destroyed, have hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed and maimed, traumatized or cleansed, depopulate the younger generations making the existing demographic collapse that much more catastrophic, simply for the gesture of "our hearts being in the right place" of wanting Israel to lose a war and "learn a lesson”. And this is perfectly in line with what was declared by the Palestinian political leaders governing Gaza.
My counter argument is that you may be confusing reasons and consequences: precisely because "our hearts being in the right place" are not wanting Russia to lose a war and "learn a lesson” that Ukraine may be utterly destroyed, have hundreds of thousands of people killed and maimed and traumatized, and trigger a demographic collapse. Indeed, it’s people like you underestimating the Russian threat and pointing at the US as the Great Satan, among the reasons of why many Western politicians can afford at best a drip-feed strategy policy. You are pointing at a problem rooted in people more persuaded by pro-Russian arguments like yours than by pro-US ones, but simply too scared to irritate the US. And, my objection sounds even more plausible to me after reading your defamatory argument: indeed, your argument shows how you cornered yourself into a position where whatever Russia does against Ukraine and the West, this will be nothing compared to what the US has done and is responsible for (that’s actually one of your major claims, you argued a while back if I remember correctly). So the more perverse you can depict Western intentions in Ukraine the more self-rewarding your feel it is your piece of propaganda against the Great Satan. As far as I’m concerned I find such arguments more speculative than evidence-based, more rhetorically appealing than analytically appealing. Yours is just populist porn. Intellectual misery at its finest.

The war is not existential for the Ukrainian people, Russia has no way of conquering all of Ukraine anyways and clearly doesn't want that headache if they could, the Russian speaking regions have pretty solid evidence they (a lot, perhaps even a very solid majority) happy being in Russia (considering the real repression they experience by Ukrainian speakers). — boethius

I disagree. The Ukrainian war is existential in that it has to do with the very existence of an independent nation state with its territorial integrity. In order to do that Russia is ready to destroy Ukraine, massacre Ukrainians, reject Ukrainian national identity and commit war crimes at convenience . So yes Russia is an existential threat to the Ukrainian people too.
On the other side, even Russian security concerns which Putin is waving at to justify his war in Ukraine are not existential for the Russian people, since Ukraine (or the US, for that matter) has no way of conquering all of Russia anyways and clearly doesn't want that headache if they could. So if Russia has security concerns, Ukrainians too has.
This raises another issue: not only the claims that the war in Ukraine is not existential for Ukrainians and that Russian security concerns are legitimate are questionable, each one in its own merit, but why are you using different criteria?! Why are you assessing Russia’s case in terms of its legitimate security concerns but not Ukraine, while Ukrainian’s case in terms of existential war?! And if legitimate security concerns and existential wars are related then why Russia’s aggression of Ukraine can be explained/justified in terms of security concerns but Ukrainian self-defence can not be explained/justified in terms of existential war?!
Concerning the UKRAINIAN MINORITY happy of being part of Russia against the Ukrainian majority, either they could pursue a war of independence (no matter if the autonomy of related Ukrainian regions was already acknowledged prior to this war) but that wasn’t their choice. The alleged civil war was imported from Russia, actually by Russia private imperialist and neo-nazi militias (with the blessing of Russian politicians), plotting with a few local likeminded (or bribed?) politicians, as far as I can tell. Or they could migrate to Russia to avoid persecution, as Jews fled to Israel to avoid persecution. I’ve heard Russia is plenty of unpopulated lands where they could host their fellow pro-Russian Ukrainians. I’ve also heard Russia is also impressively effective in forced migration of non-Russian people and Ukrainian children, so I let you imagine how effective they could be in supporting wilful migration of fellow pro-Russian Ukrainians eager to be enrolled in military armies in the pursuit of imperialist goals, right? But if a minority of Ukrainians want to keep Ukrainian land while rejecting the Ukrainian rule and replace it with a Russian rule, why on earth should the majority of Ukrainians let them do it? Russians too repressed Chechen independence movement for the same reasons with two (civil?) wars. So, under the questionable assumption that there were all the premises for an indigenous civil war, also Ukraine should be allowed to repress independence movements within its territory in blood, and Russia’s military siding with the independence movement should be deemed as an illegitimate interference.

Therefore, if the war is not existential, there must be some reasonable cost to waging it to accomplish the objectives.

This is the core question, which no one on the self described "pro-Ukrainian" side has even attempted to answer: no matter what you think of "justice" there must be some limit to the cost to Ukrainians in their war. Likewise, regardless of what you think of Ukrainian just cause, it is not good for this so called just cause nor moral in and of itself for the West to continuously manipulate Ukraine with false promises and false assurances. — boethius

I’ve attempted to answer your and your sidekicks’ analogous “core” questions sooooo many times that I was really looking forward to doing it again, of course. The answer that best fits your “core question” to me is that your “core” question is dumb, so I’m not surprised if other representatives of the “pro-Ukrainian" side didn’t answer. People can't take seriously answer so grossly misleading questions. It's like asking people how many grey-looking hair has the current king of France on his head. If the question is flawed, then it should be denounced as such.
Indeed, you are asking people who do not put their skin in this war to answer for those who put their skin in this war, based once again in non-shared assumption surreptitiously taken to be shared (that the war in Ukraine is not existential for Ukrainians?! But Russian security concerns are legitimate?! Are you crazy?!). The “reasonable” costs of fighting for a Ukrainian Westernisation are decided by Ukrainians as much as the “reasonable” costs of fighting for a Palestinian nation state are decided by the Palestinians. Ukrainians have agency as much as Palestinians. And Ukrainians are arguably better equipped in terms of military support and strategic allies than the Palestinians. These people do not fight because they are brainwashed by Western or Iranian propaganda into fighting, they are struggling for their nation-state and they rely on the support of INTERESTED strategic allies accordingly. Palestinians strategically allied with Soviet Union and then with Iraq before allying with Iran to oppose Israel, while Ukrainians allied with Habsburg and then with the German Nazis, before allying with the West to oppose Russia’s hegemonic ambitions.
Besides when people are driven by identitarian motives there are uneconomical sinking costs which explain why nations are built into blood, genocides and cleansing over generations, and their wars can be ENDLESS (see the Afghans and the Kurds).
So I gave you two reasons why your “core” question looks preposterous to me: first reason, national interest is by definition identitarian, and costs and benefits are shaped by identitarian national interests. This is why you should not ask me what is worth fighting against Russia for Ukrainians, I’m not Ukrainian. In the end, it’s their motivations that guides their choice of fighting Russians not Western motivations for Ukrainians to fight the Russians. Second reason, identitarian aspirations are grounded on uneconomical sinking costs, such uneconomical sinking costs of human life and welfare are very much essential, intrinsic, inherent part of nation building processes. And such aspirations can go as far as the logic of martyrdom by Hamas (which you support, right?) goes. I don’t think it’s the case of the Ukrainians though.
Your one-sided moral blackmailing is a goofy way to dispense Russian leaders from the moral burden of starting and prosecuting this war until Ukrainians surrender to all their demands. And if you dispense the Russians, I’ll dispense the Westerners.
All I can concede is that the West will more easily succumb to its enemies if Westerners are not ready to fight against its enemies as much as Ukrainians are ready to fight against Russia, when the time has come. So Ukraine, far from being a dumb puppet of the US proxy war, is giving the West a bitter but decisive moral lesson and precious time to regroup against the common enemy.

Try to address the points I’m making (wording and phrasing included), not the ones you wished I made.

, and deNazification, this, sham referenda + swift annexations, this, irredentism? And, as mentioned before, what they're doing won't solve their (supposed) NATO-phobia. Seems odd if they wouldn't know that. :shrug:

On another note, I considered doing a poll: Is NATO more of an existential threat to Russia, than Russia is to Ukraine? Since there's no proof, it would be a matter of honest assessment. Seems reasonably clear what assessments have come out of Finland and Sweden.

I would love to engage with your comment, but as is unfortunately somewhat of a pattern, you're relying on me to decipher them first.

Ukraine's neutral status is the key to a stable Eastern Europe. — Tzeentch

Everybody even Ukraine would have been totally happy with Ukraine being neutral... assuming that Russia wouldn't have intension of annexing large parts of Ukraine into itself, as it has done. And this simply is the reason for all of this. I think you have a problem in understanding just how a big deal is it to other sovereign states for a state to attack another one (which it has earlier recognized) and then to annex parts of it.

And this is the reason why Russia itself creates the situation where other countries want to join NATO.

Just stop and think it yourself for a moment: why would Sweden with a leftist government want to shed it's over 200 year neutrality and Finland, that earlier enjoyed the fruits of having good relations with Soviet Union and later Russia, suddenly join NATO? You think it was an American plan?

It's worrying how your rhetoric turns any dialogue with the Russians into something negative. — Tzeentch

The majority of Putin's rhetoric is negative. Not all.

Just like the way you use the term 'Finlandization' to describe any kind of positive relations with the Russians. — Tzeentch

WTF are you talking about? We had good relations with Russia. Finlandization has a negative definition, which as a Finn I clearly understand.

Finlandization the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system.

But your stance is that if a country attacks another and starts annexing parts of that country (and actually has done this to two of it's neighbors), then other countries should continue to have perfectly normal relations with this country. And if countries oppose the aggression by severing ties and sanctions, that's bad. Oh, that's so bad!

It bears every hallmark of war propaganda, which is designed to make war the only outcome. The same trick was used in Ukraine to make it fling itself willingly into the abyss. — Tzeentch

Blaming the victim is so nice. :vomit:

The question you should ask yourself is whether you will be the beneficiary of such a war, or whether that will be some unnamed country across the pond. — Tzeentch

I'm a great supporter of deterrence: with good deterrence, you can avoid blackmail and war. Without any deterrence, Great Powers will do as they want with you. Russia is and has been this kind of Great Power that if it see's an opportunity it will use it, especially in it's former "colonies", even if we don't talk as colonies. Well, my grandparents were born in a Grand Dutchy of Russia. That was basically something similar to France in Algeria. And Russia views it's "near abroad" as similar as other Great Power viewed their colonies. With Putin at the helm, Russia hasn't moved on from it's imperial past and simply continues similar policies as earlier and views it's near abroad as it's own. Unfortunately, it isn't as benign as the US is to it's neighbors (at least after it had it's wars with Mexicon and the British Empire). And this is why other countries like mine that were for a long time non-aligned have chosen NATO. Annexing territories is the real key here.

I would be really happy if Russia would be a normal country and respected the borders of it's neighbors. I have nothing against Russians, I have known many, I have been in Russia and love it's food and culture. But it is a dictatorship that lost in it's gamble and is mired in a war.

Your the one talking about enlarging the war, not me.

* * *

And from an earlier response, I'd like to add:

Russia has a fraction of Europe's GDP and population. Russia is hardly a threat if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses. There's no basis for this type of fearmongering nonsense. — Tzeentch

You simply don't even read what I write: Russia with it's large armed forces and with it's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is more than a match against any EU country vis-a-vis. And with the US out of the equation, the military balance is quite on the side of Russia even if you group up European countries. And then there's just all the hybrid operations that Russia has done, which you dismiss, of course.

, OK, follow the thread, where the bottom quote seemingly confused you (I've underlined some snippets):

With denazification and all that? — ssu

Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"? — Tzeentch

↪Tzeentch, do you think the demilitarization deNazification irredentism stuff (pertaining just to Ukraine) was blather for the gallery? (I'm guessing yes, except when in service of neo-colonialism.) — jorndoe

No, they mean it. — Tzeentch

This is just the reality Ukraine has to deal with. — Tzeentch

They told us exactly what the problem was, and they told us exactly what the consequences would be. — Tzeentch

↪Tzeentch, and deNazification, this, sham referenda + swift annexations, this, irredentism? And, as mentioned before, what they're doing won't solve their (supposed) NATO-phobia. Seems odd if they wouldn't know that. :shrug:

On another note, I considered doing a poll: Is NATO more of an existential threat to Russia, than Russia is to Ukraine? Since there's no proof, it would be a matter of honest assessment. Seems reasonably clear what assessments have come out of Finland and Sweden. — jorndoe

By the way, which do you think is the larger threat there (if any/comparable)?

Everybody even Ukraine would have been totally happy with Ukraine being neutral... assuming that Russia wouldn't have intension of annexing large parts of Ukraine into itself, as it has done. — ssu

The move to change Ukraine's neutral status predates Russian military actions by some 6 years at least. Worse still, the Americans were aware that this was seen as a red line by the entire Russian elite even before the Bucharest Summit of 2008 took place; they knew exactly what they were doing.

Just stop and think it yourself for a moment: why would Sweden with a leftist government want to shed it's over 200 year neutrality and Finland, that earlier enjoyed the fruits of having good relations with Soviet Union and later Russia, suddenly join NATO? You think it was an American plan? — ssu

I think what plays a large role is that, despite all the historical evidence, Europe seems chronically incapable to view the United States as a ruthless great power which follows realist logic. And I think US propaganda plays a large role in that.

It's understandable. They fell for the propaganda storm and made a spur of the moment decision.

So Finland and Sweden gave up their neutral status and put themselves in the crosshairs of a future conflict to 'protect' against a power that was trying to return to stability to begin with. The power who is trying to avoid a return to stability is the one they chose to jump in bed with.

Geopolitical ineptitude is a problem that plagues all of Europe, and this is another indication of it.

The majority of Putin's rhetoric is negative. Not all. — ssu

We haven't had any real dialogue with the Russians because we refused to talk to them.

We had good relations with Russia. Finlandization has a negative definition, which as a Finn I clearly understand. — ssu

Yes, so everything that looks like normal relations with Russia you will call 'Finlandization', just like you referred to 'Finlandization of Europe'. Normal relations are, apparently, seen as something negative by you.

Is everything that makes war with "the enemy" less likely undesirable?

But your stance is that if a country attacks another and starts annexing parts of that country (and actually has done this to two of it's neighbors), then other countries should continue to have perfectly normal relations with this country. — ssu

That's not my stance.

Again, your pro-war bias is starting to shine through when you can only caricature any opinion that doesn't call for total war.

US propaganda has got you right where it wants you: begging for a war that will lead to your own destruction. I've even noticed over the course of our conversations that you repeatedly invoke World War 2.

One thing that propaganda does, is it makes you emotionally attached. When people are emotionally attached, they can no longer think rationally.

You clearly have a problem with the idea that things can return to normal after this war, even though it would likely be the best scenario for all parties involved (except the US). Why?

Because you want to see Russia punished. And that's somewhat understandable. But, guess what - that isn't going to happen in the way you envision it, and the price for clinging to this fantasy is costing thousands of Ukrainian lives per week.

Further, this effect has been amplified by US propaganda spreading insane war goals like "taking back Crimea" and "breaking apart Russia" and nonsense like that. Maximalist wargoals make people more emotional, because if one fails to reach the maximalist goals it will feel like defeat, leading to anger. It's designed to make and keep you emotional, and to make peace impossible.

Emotional actors are easy to take advantage of. This was known and written down as far back as Sun Tzu (circa 500 BC).

I'm a great supporter of deterrence: with good deterrence, you can avoid blackmail and war. Without any deterrence, Great Powers will do as they want with you. — ssu

I actually agree with this, but this is arguing after the fact.

Was changing Ukraine's neutral status a part of that deterrence? No, clearly it was provocative, and we knew the Russians perceived it as such.

Deterrence is good, but intentionally seeking to flip neutral buffers to our side, refusing dialogue, militarizing and combining it with openly hostile rhetoric is not deterrence - it's warmongering. The US then sells this to Europe because they're naive enough to believe everything Uncle Sam tells them.

Geopolitics is a delicate art that Europe understands literally nothing about, which is extremely dangerous for Europeans themselves. We know what happens to naive geopolitical actors: South Vietnam, various parties in the Middle-East, Ukraine - they get taken advantage of.

Your the one talking about enlarging the war, not me. — ssu

Do explain.

Russia with it's large armed forces and with it's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is more than a match against any EU country vis-a-vis. And with the US out of the equation, the military balance is quite on the side of Russia even if you group up European countries. — ssu

That's why I said "if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses".

We caused that military build-up by refusing a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem and subsequently feeding Ukraine all the weapons we have.

So not only did we let our militaries atrophy over the course of decades, we also sold what's left of them to a lost battle in Ukraine, forcing the Russians to mobilize in the process.

And now we moan about 'the Russian threat'. Please. The Americans are laughing all the way to the bank about how we let ourselves get played.

If Russia was so threatening, why aren't we at least talking with them? Talking costs nothing.

We both know the answer: talking brings with it the risk of peace.

I'm aware of the context, and still I cannot decipher what point you're trying to make.

The move to change Ukraine's neutral status predates Russian military actions by some 6 years at least. — Tzeentch

So what should Ukraine have done to diffuse the tension? Declare they're no longer interested in joining NATO? Pass a law that affirms their neutrality?

Or is it all just about what Russia thinks the US intends?

Related to this:

Was changing Ukraine's neutral status a part of that deterrence? — Tzeentch

This talks about Ukraine in the passive, i.e. their neutral status is altered by third parties.

So what should Ukraine have done to diffuse the tension? — Echarmion

Opening any kind of dialogue with the Russians would have been a sensible start.

This talks about Ukraine in the passive, i.e. their neutral status is altered by third parties. — Echarmion

When the former hegemon gets involved, I see little point in ascribing much agency to Ukraine. The United States has a track record of leading countries down the path of their own destruction. Ukraine is no exception.

Opening any kind of dialogue with the Russians would have been a sensible start. — Tzeentch

You mean like electing a president with good relations to Russia who proceeded to declare an end to further NATO ambitions? Because that is what happened in 2010.

When the former hegemon gets involved, I see little point in ascribing much agency to Ukraine. The United States has a track record of leading countries down the path of their own destruction. Ukraine is no exception. — Tzeentch

So what really are we talking about? If noone but the great powers really has any agency, then your entire argument seems kind of hollow. The only choice anyone has is which hegemon to court.