Graham wrote:
The only thing that really matters now is keeping them poor and isolated so that they cannot build up a conventional military capable of posing a real threat.
You know what, that is what the Versaille contracts did to Germany. You remember the result? That’s right. WW2.
Is it ok to “hate” Putin and his war machine? Absolutely. Is it ok to hate and wage economic or other war on the Russian population? IMHO that is the worst thing we can do.
In 1945 did anyone think Germany could ever become a valued member of the international community? Hardly. many pushed for the total destruction of Germany as a nation, for collective punishment and more. Marshall thought differently.
What Russia will need once the Putin regime has been relegated to history is exactly that. Poverty creates hate, corruption and populist leaders. A well working state is not something a population will easily put at risk. Even though it can happen if the right populist comes along.
esteban wrote:
I take as neutral to mean ‘not hostile to Russia, not planning to entering a military alliance whose whole reason of existence has been to contain Russia, not planning to evict Russia from the Sevastopol base’.
Right, so you’re suggesting Russia has some sort of right to dictate what it’s neighbours are allowed and not allowed to do in terms of alliances? You start by saying ‘not hostile to Russia’ but make it pretty clear that means doing as Russia wishes. Any why shouldn’t Russia be evicted from Crimea? It took it by force in a totally unprovoked attack back in 2014.
whose whole reason of existence has been to contain Russia
and quite right too!
Graham wrote:
Europe’s leaders were beyond stupid for thinking they could treat Putin’s Russia like a normal, modern country.
They saw what they wanted to see. And I have a hunch that initially, also Russia and even Putin had the desire to see his country accepted within the ranks of normal modern countries. Not least because this meant the influx of billions of cash.
Graham wrote:
Up until February 2022 when Russia rolled in properly, Ukraine was neutral in the sense that it wasn’t at war with anyone,…..
I take neutral to mean free and independent, joining (or not) whatever alliance/bloc they wish.
Actually no.
Neutrality means permanently not to be in any military block or other alliance and to stay neutral in conflicts. That is how e.g. the role of Switzerland had been defined in the Paris contract of 1815.
Ukraine was neutral in the sense that it did not belong to either NATO nor was it under Russian influence like e.g. Belarus is now. However, they did indicate multifold, particularly since the election of Selenski, that they wished to give up that Neutrality and become as well an EU and NATO member.
Russia said clearly it is unacceptable to them that Ukraine would join NATO and that doing so would mean WW3. They did compare Ukraine in Nato to the Cuban missile crisis, where one could also claim that Cuba was a sovereign country with the right to choose being part of the Warzaw pact and station missiles there, alas Kennedy would (rightly so) not have it. Russia before that grudgingly accepted the NATO east extention but saw it already as a breach of trust between NATO and itself.
It is perfectly clear to me that Russias purpose in the Donbass war was to avoid Ukraine becoming egligible for NATO membership and most Ukrainian politicians prior to Selenski knew that. Selenski changed the tone from day one and declared joining NATO his political goal. That is largely how Russia justifies their actions.
That is largely how Russia justifies their actions.
Of course, and they are spouting BS as always. They just did an opportunistic land grab. The 2014 land grab worked a treat, much of Europe was bought off with cheap gas so, in addition to the usual champagne socialists, there would be a good bit of looking the other way. They were right, too. Except for dodgy intelligence on Ukraine, which post-2014 knew the rest of their country would be next, so they got their fingers out and got equipped and trained.
That’s one thing which surprises me. The old KGB was way too professional to make that sort of mistake.
If one believes the “NATO threat” BS angle, one also may as well believe the de-nazification BS angle. It’s all propaganda. And it is working on quite a few people. Fortunately not on those who currently matter.
Cuba was 1962…
There is no such thing as neutrality in Europe, and never was, in the last 100 years. It’s all just-pretend, while the Great Satan is providing a free umbrella.
But all the time people believe in the BS coming out of TASS, this thread will go to 10,000 posts like the Covid one 
Peter wrote:
There is no such thing as neutrality in Europe, and never was, in the last 100 years.
It went out of the window largely after February 24 I grant you that.
It is wrong however that there was no neutrality in Europe in the last 100 years. During WW2 lots of countries were neutral and that was used by both Germany and the Allies. Portugal, Switzerland, Spain in Europe to start with.
Peter wrote:
But all the time people believe in the BS coming out of TASS, this thread will go to 10,000 posts like the Covid one
It does not matter what we believe or not, it matters what Russians believe.
Intelligence communities understand that, that is what they live of and that is how they figure out ways to defy enemies, by figuring out how they tick and then get them where they are vulnerable.
During WW2 lots of countries were neutral and that was used by both Germany and the Allies. Portugal, Switzerland, Spain in Europe to start with.
Portugal was strategically irrelevant to Hitler. He didn’t go into Botswana either
Switzerland provided loads of stuff and private banking and deposit box services (the latter maintained way beyond 1945; always a fertile debating area).
Spain had Franco doing Hitler’s job.
it matters what Russians believe.
The mostly brainwashed population is irrelevant. Well, below a certain body bag quantity… maybe a million or so?
It matters what Putin & Co believe, and I don’t think anybody is quite sure (publicly). It increasingly looks like the old (and funny and fairly useless) saying: “I have started so I may as well finish”.
Peter wrote:
There is no such thing as neutrality in Europe, and never was, in the last 100 years. It’s all just-pretend,
One semi-official comment from the Russian regime about Sweden’s NATO application was that “This changes nothing. If you have lived together for 75 years it doesn’t matter if you finally get married.”
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Portugal, Switzerland, Spain in Europe to start with.
Besides these 3 which role Peter briefly (and correctly) described above, we had Sweden who happily supplied iron ore to Germany and allowed German troops transportation. However, when war tide turned, they allowed allied forces to use bases on their soil.
However, it’s not up to Putin to decide about his neighbour’s alliances using this just an excuse for invasion. He doesn’t have any agenda for Russia except him in the power forever – just remember his charade of exchanging president and prime minister roles with Medvedev as well as constitution changes allowing him additional terms in the office. Ukraine looked like hanging fruit according to intelligence data he had and he reached to grab it. Nothing more, nothing less – the stories about fear from NATO on border or endangered Russian minority are just bed-time stories for naive Putin-lovers.
if the right populist comes along.
Nailed it 😀
