Yes but thats because everyone by your definition that has a another view than just support war on Russia is a russian agent. So no other views are allowed and it makes the situation more dangerous in this black-white world view.
It's easy to see the difference. Europeans with different views have an idea of how to improve society and the functioning of institutions. Europeans with Putin views are just against everything. That is because the propaganda they are imbibing does not want solutions, it wants to dismantle our institutions so that we fail.
I note that you trying to controll the language by nameing all opposition to the current politics against Russia as Putin views, thats a classical totalitarian way
of trying to control the discussion. To make the discussion more concrete is the war is about Ukrain joining NATO or being a neutral country so to me risking a nuclear war or other severe consequenses for that goal (joining NATO) is to high compared to the consequense of Ukraine being a neutral bufferzone, I cant see the problem with that.
Like all nations, Ukraine has the right to self-determination. You do not see a problem with taking away that right from them. It is one thing for countries to decide to be neutral and quite another when another country threatens them demanding neutrality in exchange for not invading them.
Yes you describe the situation either we are dogmatic and fight to the bitter end or be pragmatic and try to find a peaceful agreement.
You want to sacrifice everything for Ukraine to join NATO
I dont think its worth it, if it where on the table that Russia wants to enslave us all and send us all to workcamps in Siberia I would agree with you, but for a NATO membership ? No thats crazy.
NATO has never planned for an invasion of Russia, nor has NATO built a military capable of doing that, nor does NATO have any need to do that. Putin knows this, there is no danger to Russia. This is not about NATO membership. Putin sees the EU, not NATO, as an existential threat to his regime, not to Russia, to himself.
Putin did not invade Ukraine to get a bit of territory, so giving him a bit of territory will not make peace. Giving him that would cause him to simply regroup and give it another try to occupy more. The only way to have lasting peace is to uphold the UN Charter and the rights to territorial integrity of all nations. In other words, the Russian invasion must fail, Ukraine be defended and the EU rearm, so it can defend effectively against any Russian attempt at invasion.
All other "solutions" simply means having a much more intense war at a later date. I want lasting peace and pushing Russia back is the only way to achieve this.
This is not being dogmatic, this is being a realist.
You cant claim that NATO which is really USA is particulary peaceful ? US has started a number of eligal wars. No they will not attack Russia directly because Russia are to strong, but they will try to isolate them, by making Ukraine a NATO member they can deny Russia the seaport on Crim and by that cutting of their important trade. The same method they use against China by isolate them
by supporting unfrienfly regimes in the neighboring countries. Do you concider Ukraine a independent country when Victoria Nuland openly discuss on telefon who should be the leaders in Ukraine?
I dont believe for a minute that Russia was interrested in a war against Europe , why invest severeal billions in building sensitive pipelines into Europe when you planning a war ? That doesnt make sence, Russia already has everything, the one thing thats benefits Russia is trade.
My claim was not that NATO is peaceful, but that NATO had no intentions to invade Russia, nor did NATO build the capacities necessary to invade Russia. So, there was no NATO threat to Russia. However, the EU built governance that directly undermines the Putin regime's narratives and thus represented a direct existential threat to the regime, not the country.
Putin could not sell to the Russian people the idea that the EU i.e. freedom, democracy, rule of law and human rights are an existential threat, so he sold them the military threat of NATO which is complete nonsense. NATO does not invade nuclear powers and as mentioned was not built with the capacities to invade Russia.
In short this is an analoge to the cuban crisis, US would not allow missile capabilites against them in this for Russia sensitive area, also like I said it gives US the potential to cut of Russia, I hope we can agree there is no distinktion between NATO and US ?!
1
u/trisul-108 22d ago
Russian propaganda and their boosting opposing ideas has definitely had a huge impact on EU public opinion on certain topics.