It's not the same because one party is clearly not willing. That's all it takes: consent. If tomorrow morning Friesland decides by majority vote it wants to be independent of the rest of NL I'd be perfectly ok with that. Likewise I'm fine with countries deciding whether or not they want to join one alliance or another.

Languages and history have nothing to do with it, it is all about consent. If you plan to kill people in order to get them to join your idea what your country should look like you've already lost, then you're just another occupier.

I've lived in Poland under the USSR, it was pretty clear what the Russian position was on how they viewed the Poles - and anybody else that wasn't 'properly' Russian for that matter. This was an occupation, not a league of nations, and in a way Russia got more out of WWII than even the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact would have given them. I've lived in Romania, I visited Latvia many times, I visited Ukraine, many times. Everywhere the sentiment is roughly the same: that they would rather die than live under Russian occupation again, they already know what that is like. And no amount of shared history or language (or forced relocation, which in many of those cases is the source of that shared history) is going to offset that.

You're if I'm not mistaken someone with Russian roots living in Berlin. Coincidentally, I know more people that are in that position. Most of them still have family back in Russia so they are very circumspect in the positions that they take. But they have zero illusion about Russia having good intentions in any of the wars they have engaged in since the USSR fell apart and it is patently clear by the indiscriminate attacks on the Ukrainian population that Russia does not care for the people that they in the same breath claim to call their brothers and sisters.

>If tomorrow morning Friesland decides by majority vote it wants to be independent of the rest of NL I'd be perfectly ok with that.

That is a easy postition for the Netherlands to take because it has very little security against invasion even now before Friesland secedes, given its location in which there is little in the way of mountains, rivers or seas between it and countries more powerful than it. (More powerful if only because of their greater size: I'm not claiming that the Dutch are bad at fighting).

But it would be foolish for Australians to allow a large chunk of Australia to secede or for the Japanese to allow part of Japan to secede because the way it is now, both countries enjoy a very favorable security situation in which any invader would need to cross an ocean or at least a wide channel even to begin an invasion. If Japan split into two, then one of the two new countries might invite in the military of a larger power with the result that the other new country is in a vastly more precarious security situation than it was before the split into 2 countries.

The Mongols attempted a massive invasion of Japan, but the invasion was foiled by stormy weather while the Mongols were trying to cross the wide channel. If there were two polities in Japan at the time, the Mongols could have offer to protect one polity from the other one, and if their offer had been accepted, they could have moved their forces to Japan at their leisure, and would not have needed to risk an operation in which all their forces try to cross a sea as quickly as possible ready to fight as soon as they get to the other side.

Because of their separation from other countries by large bodies of water, Australian and Japan have been invaded or occupied only once in the last 2000 years (Australia when Europeans arrived and Japan after WWII) whereas during those 2000 years, the Netherlands has been invaded many times (with the occupation or annexation of the Netherlands by Spain having proved particularly painful).

Again: the Netherlands is not giving up much in the way of security advantages by allowing parts of itself to secede, but not all countries are in a similar situation.

You are just repeating the same idea without further analysis. As a German born in USSR I do know something about oppression too, however I also understand the difference between socialism, imperialism and Russian flavor of neoconservatism - 3 different ideologies that existed in Russia in last 300 years. They are very different in operation and expansion modes and those differences are very important for external observers, especially when there are few trillions of taxpayer money at stake. Russia stopped being an imperial project with colonies in 1917. Period. Soviet Union wasn’t Russian nationalist project at all, so mixing it up with contemporary history or seeing it as an extension of empire is just incompetent. Contemporary Russia of Putin’s period is claiming to extend both, but it’s just propaganda legitimizing the regime, when the motives, the goals, the government structures are very different.

It's a distinction without a difference. For the victims it hardly matters what idiocy motivated the occupiers, and those are the people we are concerned with, not with how Russians view themselves. Just like I don't give a fuck about how MAGA adherents want to redefine what the United States is. I do care about the people that they then collectively threaten to murder/invade.

Instead of spending taxpayer money it would be better to seize all assets held by Russian entities (including private citizens) in NATO and other allied countries. Just steal it all. Killing Russian soldiers is expensive so we might as well let the Russians themselves pay for it.

I actually do understand why Russia is attempting to seize Ukraine, and from a strategic geopolitical perspective it was sort of logical. But so what, that doesn't mean we should have any sympathy for them or let them gain any advantage. Better so utterly crush, humiliate, and impoverish them so that they cease to be a threat for a couple generations to come. This will also serve as a useful object lesson to anyone else who might want to try a similar stunt: FAFO.

> Instead of spending taxpayer money it would be better to seize all assets held by Russian entities (including private citizens) in NATO and other allied countries. Just steal it all.

So basically just like Israel in Gaza. What will be left from EU if it cannot stick to its own charter, which rejects collective responsibility?

That amount of money is barely enough for Ukraine anyway. European defense will cost much more.

I'm not an EU citizen and don't give a damn about the EU charter. The important thing is to win the war and wreck the "Russian Empire" at minimal cost, regardless of artificial legalisms.

> So basically just like Israel in Gaza.

Yes, it is possible to be both against what Israel does in Gaza and to be against what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

> What will be left from EU if it cannot stick to its own charter, which rejects collective responsibility?

This does not even parse. The EU has plenty of collective responsibility, is part of the EU mutual defense pact and is part of NATO. The only two countries that are nominally in the EU but that are not unified in their viewpoint here are substantially influenced by russia.

> That amount of money is barely enough for Ukraine anyway.

It seems to have an outside effect on the situation in russia, for as little as it is, but I agree with you it should be much more and we should do this sooner rather than later.

> European defense will cost much more.

So what? Why are you so focused on the money angle, rather than on the injustice and the indiscriminate murder of citizens in a country that meant russia - or should I say you - no harm?

Where is your voice in this? As a person safe in Berlin you could afford to raise your voice against Putin if you wanted to.

> This does not even parse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility

Israel executes collective punishment of all Palestinians for actions of Hamas. Putin executes collective punishment of all Ukrainians for actions of certain politicians. The commenter above suggested that the same principle should be applied to all Russian citizens.

> So what? Why are you so focused on the money angle, rather than on the injustice and the indiscriminate murder of citizens in a country that meant russia - or should I say you - no harm?

Why I should be focused on that? To release the steam? Oh, yes, that’s bad, poor people. What’s next? Their fates are determined not by the preparation of Europe to war, but by the willingness of politicians to discuss realistic peace terms. The sooner the war will end, the less people will die. This war was lost by Ukraine and NATO when counteroffensive failed (not least because NATO failed to provide sufficient help), so the only important thing to discuss is how to minimize the losses, because we are obviously not engaging directly. But nobody in Europe is prepared to start this conversation. The money is the only topic where real conversation happens.

> Where is your voice in this? As a person safe in Berlin…

What kind of voice are you expecting and why do you think I’m not using it?

> Israel executes collective punishment of all Palestinians for actions of Hamas. > Putin executes collective punishment of all Ukrainians for actions of certain politicians.

Yes, both are nuts.

> The commenter above suggested that the same principle should be applied to all Russian citizens.

There is a fair chance that if Russia decides to engage NATO that it will in fact end up that way. If that's not something you want then now would be a good time to act.

> Why I should be focused on that? To release the steam? Oh, yes, that’s bad, poor people.

Yes, indeed, poor people. Why gloss over that? It's the main article, not some kind of side dish.

> Their fates are determined not by the preparation of Europe to war, but by the willingness of politicians to discuss realistic peace terms.

Did you entirely miss the previous times that Russia agreed to terms and then violated them, over and over again? If you want people to be willing to discuss peace terms it would really help if you had a good track record of abiding by those terms. Russia does not currently have that track record.

> The sooner the war will end, the less people will die.

No shit. But unfortunately there is one party that seems to want to continue this war, no matter what the cost. The other side has one option: to capitulate, but for some weird reason they seem to think that that is not an option. Mostly because they already know how that part of the story goes just by looking at other places that did just that.

> This war was lost by Ukraine and NATO when counteroffensive failed (not least because NATO failed to provide sufficient help), so the only important thing to discuss is how to minimize the losses, because we are obviously not engaging directly.

You are not as well informed as you seem to think. As we speak 21.7% of russian oil refinery capacity is down, and it will remain down for another 3 to 6 months at a minimum. My guess is that when Ukraine is done going after russian oil infrastructure that number will be a lot higher and then they're going to set their sights on electrical infra. And they're getting scary good at this. Russia is succeeding in grabbing land and killing civilians, Ukraine is succeeding in seriously reducing Russia's capacity to continue to be a power of any kind at all. You must at least be aware of some of this.

> But nobody in Europe is prepared to start this conversation.

Nobody in Europe is in a position to negotiate with russia on this, the only parties that we believe can credibly do this are russia and Ukraine and one of these believes that they should continue the war because they have something to gain from it.

> The money is the only topic where real conversation happens.

Indeed. And you won't be able to sell me on Ukraine's land being worth as much as russia is currently prepared to pay for it. Or rather, to be more precise, than russia is willing to make other parties pay for it because it isn't exactly the crowd from St. Petersburg and Moscow at the front lines. And if it ever should come to that the war would be over very quickly.

> What kind of voice are you expecting and why do you think I’m not using it?

I'm expecting you to speak up against Putin, and to donate as much as you can afford to the defense of Ukraine. If your comments in this thread are a sample of how you really feel about all this then I'm guessing you're not doing either until you provide proof otherwise. You are all but suggesting the EU or Ukraine are at fault here when clearly it is russia that is the aggressor, and which continues to commit one warcrime after another with complete disregard for human rights and what is considered civilized in general.

>You are not as well informed as you seem to think. As we speak 21.7% of russian oil refinery capacity is down, and it will remain down for another 3 to 6 months at a minimum

The numbers are wrong. It’s in 10-15% range, not all damage requires months of work and it’s within overcapacity that Russia had before the war. There exist temporary local shortages after strikes and it’s creating inflationary pressure, but it’s not dramatic yet. Also, 30% of capacity is beyond Ukrainian reach.

I don’t see any point to comment on anything else. Personal attacks are against the rules of this forum.

The money is the least of the problem for me, I'm more than happy to spend and do whatever it takes to ensure that this kind of idiocy ends here, once and for all.

> Well, good for you. Your taxpayer money aren’t going to be spent in this conflict, thanks to Trump.

You're quite wrong about that.

> What concerns me is that Eastern European nationalists are selling the big war narrative that will make Europe overspend on defense and American LNG when we have plenty of other problems.

Europe can not possibly overspend on defense at the moment, the way the situation has shifted in the last five years has made that abundantly clear. And if you live in Berlin, then your security too depends on this. It definitely isn't the 'Eastern European Nationalists' that are the problem.

> It doesn’t have to go this way, but that requires really good understanding of intentions and capabilities of either side, at least on the level of Cold War.

You are, I assume, aware of the various acts of espionage and sabotage of Russia in the West? And if you are then I assume that you realize that these are not just games but that they feel suspiciously like a prelude similar to what happened prior to Russia engaging in Ukraine for a second time. I don't need to see much more evidence beyond what I've already seen to believe that there may well be an operation already planned, either an attack on one of the Baltic countries to see if Europe can be further divided, or, if Putin is really reckless, one on Poland. The fact that 'Eastern European Nationalists' are selling that narrative is because they are actively under threat, not because they are making up funny stories for comedic effect.

> At the moment there’s no such understanding neither among public nor among politicians.

Why do you believe that to be the case? All I see is very measured responses and attempts to leave a backdoor to normalcy open. I also see the other side interpreting this structurally as weakness. But frankly, that is a massive mistake. Europe doesn't like to go to war, but if it has to it will.

> What’s worse, there’s no even attempts to understand - you are great example of such attitude.

That's not even close to the truth. Given my history, places where I've lived and people that I know I think I have a fair picture of what is going on. Putin bit off far more than he could chew and has found out the hard way that as long as his nukes are off the table that he does not have a way to resolve this in his favor. Every day Ukraine is getting stronger and every day Russia is set back further and further. The best that could happen to Russia at this point in time is a leadership change and a path to an off-ramp. Anything else will only lead to more of the same with China as the laughing party in the background.

Your characterization of me as someone who does not even try to understand is unfair and not worthy of discourse here, if you, given all of your unfettered access to media are unable to see the truth of what is going on then that's on you, not on me, I know enough Russians who see things dramatically different from how you position them to know that it is possible to do better than that.

> I don't need to see much more evidence beyond what I've already seen to believe that there may well be an operation already planned

In case of Ukraine there was at least plenty of strategic and political reasons. Why Russia should attack any NATO country? They were afraid even to respond to Turkey shooting down their planes. Hypothetical land bridge to Kaliningrad? It is not completely isolated - there’s a railway connection still operating for example. Well, maybe, but the stakes are much higher here and Moscow and St.Petersburg will be on the line of fire.

> Why do you believe that to be the case? All I see is very measured responses and attempts to leave a backdoor to normalcy open.

Do you see any plausible strategy communicated and executed by the West on how this war can end on favorable terms for Ukraine? I don’t.

> Putin bit off far more than he could chew and has found out the hard way that as long as his nukes are off the table that he does not have a way to resolve this in his favor. Every day Ukraine is getting stronger and every day Russia is set back further and further.

Russia is making steady gains in territory over quite long period of time now and is on track to achieve it’s current military goals that were outlined in their peace proposal (full control of Donbas and land bridge securing logistics for Crimea). It’s hard to understand what are you talking about.

>Your characterization of me as someone who does not even try to understand is unfair

You literally told that in previous comment, dismissing the understanding of differences as unimportant.

> unable to see the truth of what is going on then that's on you, not on me

What makes you think that I’m less informed and understand it less than you? Just the fact that I disagree?

The strategy on how this war can end on favorable terms for Ukraine is the same as most other wars of attrition: kill more Russians steadily over a period of several more years. Their population is large but not infinite. With a sufficient arsenal of advanced weapons from allied countries this is potentially achievable. This is a horrible situation and I take no delight in it but now millions of Russians will have to die to resolve a problem caused by their leaders.

The other strategy is to cut off Russia's war funding through a combination of sanctions and (more importantly) Ukrainian long-range strikes on fossil fuel export infrastructure. This is more of a long shot but it could work.

In an attrition war where Ukraine has less than 30M people (25% population decline since start of war) and Russia has around 140M, who do you think can win? What advanced weapons and in which volume can West supply that can change the course of war given population constraints?

> In case of Ukraine there was at least plenty of strategic and political reasons.

And all of them illegal. But never mind that, right?

> Why Russia should attack any NATO country?

Well, that's a good question but I'm the wrong person to ask. Clearly, sending a wave of drones into Poland is inviting some kind of response and unless you believe this was just for shits and giggles you too should be worried. Because if and when Russia decides that NATO is an alliance they'd like to go up against your position will rapidly become very difficult.

Of course you are donating as much as you can to Ukraine to stop that from happening, right?

> They were afraid even to respond to Turkey shooting down their planes.

Yes. And that's because Turkey is part of NATO and because at that time there was no benefit to Putin from any escalation. But today there just might be. It does not have to be rational, if that were the case then Ukraine would have never been invaded in the first place.

> Hypothetical land bridge to Kaliningrad? It is not completely isolated - there’s a railway connection still operating for example. Well, maybe, but the stakes are much higher here and Moscow and St.Petersburg will be on the line of fire.

That railway connection is one of those little proof points that it isn't Poland, the EU or NATO that seems to be hell-bent on escalating this. It's not Poland that flies waves of drones into Russia.

> Do you see any plausible strategy communicated and executed by the West on how this war can end on favorable terms for Ukraine? I don’t.

I do. Because with every passing day Russia is getting weaker to the point that even the most die-hard Putin supporters are going to have to question whether or not they are better off with or without him. True, that may not happen tomorrow. But dictators like Putin don't go quietly, they go out with a bang. The question is more one of how large of a bang it will be, and how many more people he wants to take with him into his grave. But his legacy will forever be the little man that overstepped his boundaries, not the person that brought Russia back to greatness.

> Russia is making steady gains in territory over quite long period of time now and is on track to achieve it’s current military goals that were outlined in their peace proposal (full control of Donbas and land bridge securing logistics for Crimea).

Yes, sure, 'steady gains' at absolutely massive expense of territory that will never be recognized and which eventually will be given back. That's where this will end. There is no way the developed world will recognize the gains during this war as legitimate.

> It’s hard to understand what are you talking about.

Maybe that is because you don't want to understand?

How hard is it to understand that the days of gaining ground by conquest in Europe are - as far as the rest of Europe is concerned - over. And that any attempt to revive that sentiment is going to be met with resistance? Merkel got it wrong, we know that much now. So that changes the equation considerably.

> You literally told that in previous comment, dismissing the understanding of differences as unimportant.

Yes, I'm trying to get you to understand that the Russian point-of-view in this whole discussion is utterly irrelevant, we're talking about the victims, not about the aggressors and I honestly don't give a fuck about what justification Russia feels it needs to do whatever it is that it is doing: it is wrong. And you are perfectly positioned to see that it is wrong.

> What makes you think that I’m less informed and understand it less than you? Just the fact that I disagree?

The fact that in spite of living in the West you seem to insist on carrying water for Putin and company. That makes you a liability rather than an asset. If that's not your position now would be an excellent time to correct the record. There is no way that you can legitimize the Russian aggression against Ukraine, it doesn't matter if Russia wins territory or not, it doesn't matter whether Russia ends up victorious or not. What matters is that they are the aggressors and that they are wrong in doing so. What matters is that they indiscriminately bomb civilians. What matters is that even Russians living abroad who could know better are still somehow closing their eyes to the truth: Russia was wrong to start this war, Russia is wrong to continue this war and Russia is making a massive miscalculation about the degree of resolve in other countries about this.

This reminds me of American voting on Gaza resolutions in UN. Apparently I have not condemned Putin enough and must be helping him, just because I say that further military escalation leads nowhere. What a nonsense. But if you wish so, I do fully agree that Russia was wrong to start this war and Russia is wrong to continue this war. As for resolve, time will tell. I don’t see a lot of resolve now in practice.

> There is no way that you can legitimize the Russian aggression against Ukraine

I did not legitimize the Russian aggression. Understanding the logic and legitimizing are not synonymous. Whether the reasons were legal or not, it doesn’t change the fact that they serve as a basis for starting negotiating position.

> I'm trying to get you to understand that the Russian point-of-view in this whole discussion is utterly irrelevant

If it’s irrelevant to you, this is fine. It’s absolutely relevant to EU foreign policy and the negotiations and as such worth talking about, because it may actually save lives.

I understand the direction of this conversation, so maybe it doesn’t make sense to continue. We are looking at it from very different angles and while agreeing in principle that the war is bad, have very different perspectives on the future of it. Time will tell who is right.

> just because I say that further military escalation leads nowhere.

Yes, but only the russian side is escalating. And seems to want to escalate much further still.

> But if you wish so, I do fully agree that Russia was wrong to start this war and Russia is wrong to continue this war.

Good. Thank you for clearing that up.

> As for resolve, time will tell. I don’t see a lot of resolve now in practice.

There are a lot of Ukrainians dying every day and it is certainly not their fault that this is so. Only russia can stop this war, the alternatives that Ukraine has are to capitulate, be roped into russia's armed forces and to see their people further murdered and used, just like what russia is doing to the other parties that they've roped into this fight.

So if you want the EU and Ukraine to stop this you are barking up the wrong tree, they do not have agency other than to give up and that isn't going to happen.

> I did not legitimize the Russian aggression. Understanding the logic and legitimizing are not synonymous. Whether the reasons were legal or not, it doesn’t change the fact that they serve as a basis for starting negotiating position.

No, they do not. A negotiation position is only believable if the parties in the negotiations have previously shown that they can be trusted. Russia has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that they can not be trusted and that if there is any kind of peace agreement it will just be used to re-arm and try again from a stronger position.

> If it’s irrelevant to you, this is fine. It’s absolutely relevant to EU foreign policy and the negotiations and as such worth talking about, because it may actually save lives.

It won't save lives in the longer term. The only thing that will save lives in the longer term is the ultimate defeat of russia a-la Germany and to take away their nuclear toys. Then they can figure out at what point they want to re-join the developed world, it is clear that as long as they can hide behind their nukes that they will keep trying to expand their territory at the expense of their neighbors.

> I understand the direction of this conversation, so maybe it doesn’t make sense to continue. We are looking at it from very different angles and while agreeing in principle that the war is bad, have very different perspectives on the future of it. Time will tell who is right.

The idea that there is a 'right' here in itself is one that I disagree with, and if you are truthful in that you believe that this war should have never started then you already know the answer to what really is right.

But that's not a future that I think is viable with the current russian leadership, they've decided that their own wealth is more important than the lives of their citizenry. It will take a sea change for that to no longer be the case and I don't have much hope that the tide will turn. But maybe it will.

> Simple question: in 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and there was peaceful “annexation” of GDR into FRG, in which West Germany effectively took over, with its constitution taking into effect in new federal states, the GDR assets being taken over by western economic structures etc. Was it imperial by its nature?

> From Russian perspective it’s kind of the same (except the war part of course). Same language spoken, shared history etc. [...]

This is a truly bizarre piece of mental gymnastics. You list superficial similarities and casually gloss over the only thing that is substantial as if it were some inconsequential detail. By your "logic", rape is indistinguishable from making love. The same organs involved, the same movements (except the consent part, of course).

What's interesting to me is that this is an educated russian living in Berlin. So full access to all of the news, CTO of a company, so somewhat influential, not directly influenced by things happening inside russia and yet, all of the idiocy that you see on display with russians that are interviewed inside of russia, including copium, irrational reasoning and russian talking points interspersed with confused personal takes.

It is fascinating in a pathological way, but it also makes me wonder to what degree there is a rational pathway out of this. If this is the best then the people inside the russian propaganda machine don't stand a chance. Fortunately I know some russians outside of russia that have their eyes wide open but they too are scared of the long arm of putin.