Skiluros

In most cases the state is a reflection of society at large (examples such occupation governments or North Korea notwithstanding).

The economic model of russia changes with time (Tsarism/aristocracy, socialism and central planning, plutocratic oligarchy), but socio-political structure remains the same for some reason.

I will note that several of the brave souls who came out to protest the invasion of Czechoslovakia on the Red Square in 1968 also got sent to psychiatric institutions. And yet if you look at russian society more broadly, they continue to tolerate such behaviour from their government.

Mind you, I am in no way implying that there is something inherent to russians that leads to these sort of outcomes. This is a ridiculous idea. This a matter of the choices that the russians make (for which they are responsible). Who could have thought voting for a KGB goon in 2000 would lead to such outcomes? Or supporting him again in 2004 when he shut down all independent TV?

Building out NS2 after the annexation of Crimea is not support for Russian imperialism?

Refusing to recognize in any practical manner (not thoughts and prayers) the russian occupation of Moldova and Georgia is not de facto support for russian imperialism?

Claiming that "the west" forced putin to invade Ukraine is not parroting russian propaganda?

In the interview, Merkel stated that Vladimir Putin, at the beginning of his presidency, had no intention of attacking Ukraine, and his plan gradually took shape over the years, partly due to the behaviour of the West.

Russia already had a direct border with NATO, right by their 2nd largest city. The entrance of Finland and Sweden to NATO was not an issue at all for russia. Because the russians of course know that "threat to our security from NATO" is a beautiful scapegoat for imperialism expansion. And Merkel explicitly gives cover to this claim.

Full tolerance of multiple high-profile assassinations and even combat activity by the russians on EU soil is not support for russian imperialism?

Putting Navanlniy, a known supporter of the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Georgia, on the metaphorical pedestal should not under any condition be interpreted as support for russian imperialism?

Full acceptance of banning of Ukrainian passports and Ukrainian culture in the occupied Donetsk/Lugansk (pre full scale invasion) is not support for russian genocidal imperialism?

A new era in Europe’s relations with Russia "regrettably" began following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, says Mrs Merkel.

What is this even supposed to mean? I am assuming this is a direct quote.

Whenever I hear anything from Merkel these days, for some reason I get that image from Dr. Strangelove in the war room.

Some of this is likely to be grandstanding, no?

Either way, even if he goes through with this, it's not like this will have any noticeable impact on his support.

She enabled putin and promoted russian imperialism. Even to this day she refuses to speak clearly about this.

Putin didn't attack the Baltic nations, even though they have even less capability to fight back against the russians.

Russia invaded Moldova and Georgia in the early 90s under Yeltsin.

This is not a putin matter per se. This is a russia issue.

In the interview, Merkel stated that Vladimir Putin, at the beginning of his presidency, had no intention of attacking Ukraine, and his plan gradually took shape over the years, partly due to the behaviour of the West.

Did he also have no intention of continuing to occupy Georgia and Moldova and the West forced him to continue the occupation and then invade Georgia in 2008?

This is not an act of war and no one sees it this way.

An act of war is ballistic missiles falling on your cities and tanks rolling in. It's honestly pathetic of you to trivialize this.

You probably recognize this on same level, but you see too self-absorbed to be willing to publicly admit this.

You should stick to ruminations about how "Poles and Ukrainian are unfit" and "they are like the russians, anyway!" I think we will both agree that this is a good reflection of your character.

I am done here.

Because you were saying that "Poland and Ukraine are not ready for EU", yet you don't take the same maximalist, hyper critical attitude to the Germany leadership.

Did I not say bombing NS was a mistake?

I am just pointing out you have no right to pretend to be noble when you're own leadership de defacto supported and enabled russian imperialism.

What exactly do you want me to say?

No I don't support torturing russian POWs. I agree with you that bombing NS was a bad idea. I disagree with you that it was "EU infrastructure", it was owned by the russians I believe and Germany explicitly told other EU members to "bugger off" with their concerns.

What bothers me is your moralizing attitude. The last two German leader were some of the biggest enablers of russian genocidal imperialism in the last ~30 years. There is nothing to discuss with Schroeder. Merkel as a bit sneaky. Nominally she said she opposed it, but all her actions de facto always supported russian imperialism.

And then you come along saying "Poland and Ukraine" shouldn't be in the EU because they don't uphold moral standards. You don't see how this could be seen as hypocritical!?