Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Accepting them right now would be the acts of a saboteur. Open EU border with Russia.

War torn country needing billions and billions to rebuild.

Millions of Ukrainians fleeing to other EU countries.

EU country in a war with Russia in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

I'm aware of the Russian stance, and it has no basis in objective reality. It's a deeply held institutional paranoia within the Kremlin about the 'intentions of the West' that has a long tradition within Russian political thought. It has and had no basis in the late 20th century or early 21st century.

The only thing Nato threatened and continued to threaten was to stymie an unstable Russia's ability to coerce, bully and politically intimidate neighbouring states.

Who here would put their hand up now and say Poland / Estonia / Bulgaria / Latvia made a mistake by joining Nato? They didn't, they preserved their states and democracies from a paranoid crpto-fascist creep that would 100% be militarily and politically bullying them if they hadn't joined.

We on a windy rock on the Atlantic far away from Russia can maybe afford to do a Hyde Park speakers corner hand-wringing about Nato - Central and Eastern European states don't have that quaint luxury.

The number of nukes doesn't mean much. Once one is sent off, all hell breaks loose. We're all doomed then.

Nuclear plants could themselves be targeted sending radiation levels throughout Europe through the roof.

If they wanted a guarantee then sign a treaty (preferably with mutual nuclear reduction - which are treaties Russia welch on regularly btw). An en passant "guarantee" to the leader of a state that is now extinct is not a treaty.

The Russian account of the "guarantee" is a sexed-up exaggeration of events designed to buttress the Russian pity-party, and a blow by blow account of why the Russian stance is bullsh*t was posted earlier on in thread. If they were so damn concerned about Eastward expansion, sign a damn treaty with iron-clad security guarantees for your neighbours. Look at the Budapest memorandum and the joke the Russians made of that - so I have zero time for the Russian state tearing up the security of Europe off the back of puffed-up account of something that was allegedly said in a private meeting to the leader of an extinct state that is not the Russian Federation.

So why is the EU seen weak? We can destroy them aswell, even if they might be quicker use them.

Is it the EUs policies and very conservative political decisions that have us looking weak ?

Also, for all the talk of the Eu being a weak bloc (from divisions of opinions and army POV), is it not possible that this could actually galvanise the eu to step up its own deterrents? Certainly Putin appears to of provided a common enemy that’s uniting more then one would of thought.

I presume the worst in this and while you are correct that there’s savage propaganda going on, Putin definitely is feeling threatened. And this would imply that he really didn’t expect this response and he’s finding it difficult to accept. He’s doubling down with his dictator rhetoric and using language nobody has ever heard.

Some people are saying “Hes been saying this all along”. When did he last threaten nuclear retaliations?

Maybe the west has really underestimated his goals and ignored him, but maybe Putin underestimated the west and this is the only way to unite west. In many cases a common foe is the best think for a cause. This could potentially lead to a stronger Europe. I know the opposite could be the case but I’m just not sure how anybody (even those who know Putin really well) could say that Putin would of honoured any deal regarding the Baltic states.

I used to not mind RBB so much, but he's making an utter clown of himself on the Ukraine crisis.