Unacceptable behaviour


So there's a country which 

  • has nuclear weapons,
  • practically by government policy discriminates against its minorities,
  • is known for committing war crimes,
  • has way too often attacked its neighbours,
  • eludes sanctions by the United Nations Security Council,
  • kept territories of neighbours illegally occupied for a long time,
  • is known for extensive hacking and illegal eavesdropping on private communications,
  • wants more "strategic depth" at the expense of neighbours,
  • is known for economic espionage and generally disproportionate intelligence service aggressiveness,
  • is known for corruption of top politicians,
  • has a censored news media,
  • for a long time already pursued a grand strategy that involves conquest,
  • is destabilising neighbours, 
  • is known for assassinations abroad,
  • calls everyone "nazis" who says something against its actions and
  • once again decided to become an aggressor against a weaker neighbour that does not enjoy alliance protection.

We should find ways to do something decisive about it, maybe a total communications & travel & transportation embargo and blockade, with exceptions only for food and medical goods imports.


THIS is unacceptable behaviour.





  1. They live in a neighbourhood where almost everybody dreams of exterminating them.

    1. Which is a lie.

      Aside from this being a lie, this analogy fits:

      55 years ago they started a schoolyard brawl to steal stuff, won it, and ever since have kept kicking the defeated children as they lie on the ground.

      'They hate me.' is jack shit of an excuse for such behaviour. They have to withdraw from ALL occupied territories and stop assassinating and bombing and shelling people. After ten years of peaceful behaviour they re-earn the right to point fingers at others.

  2. I was thinking in Russia or Israel, but the former it has yet several conditions to check.


    1. No, the list is designed to match both. I merely took some liberty at writing "nazis" instead of "antisemites".

    2. As I dissed some time ago with a colleague from Israel, they are following a losing strategy at long place by not reaching some kind of permanent peace with their neighbors.

      In maybe 40, 50, 100 years or more Israel can lose its allies, or have some internal turmoil or some neighbor can advance economically and be strong enough to defeat Israel.

      When that time arrives, and it will sooner or later, nobody will help Israel due to its behaviour.

      So it is a losing strategy.


    3. Yes, I said something similar for years. They should make wise use of their temporary relative strength.
      The parallels with the crusader states in regard to territory, being Western outsiders and being dependent on Western support are striking.
      The state of Israel is also running out of Jewish people to call into Israel from abroad. Immigration has been low for years.

  3. I really didn't believe this would happen. As a long time Putin hater, even I didn't think he'd launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, threaten Sweden and Finland, and alert nuclear forces over sanctions.
    What he thought? Did he really think the continental Europe would just slap some symbolic sanctions here and there and accept the situation? Is invading another country and then threatening nuclear war just another ordinary diplomatic crisis in his eyes?
    These sanctions will cost Europe trillions in long run too. Though Europe can shoulder that burden much better since its economy is 11 times larger than Russia's. Europe will also have to look after up to 10 m refugees.
    Even just the last one is a big enough reason for severing all economic and cultural ties with Russia.
    Also, Europe needs more political and military integration. The UK and USA utterly failed at averting the crisis. Biden's bilateral talks with Putin without any Europeans accompanying him were embarrassing.

    1. Our politicians are unimaginative wimps. More integration wouldn't matter at all. Their repertoire is very limited and devoid of creative solutions (save for erratic outliers like the lying moron and Sarkozy, who failed with all their ideas).

      Western politicians want think security policy is about bullying small powers and playing games.

      There's not a hint of grand strategic thinking evident other than staying the course set by grand strategic thinking done 40 or more years ago.

    2. What would you consider a creative solution or grand strategic thinking?
      Maybe you could do a post on that.
      I recently thought to myself that best strategy for post WW1 Germany would have been forming an alliance (similar to NATO/EU) with the small eastern European states and pose as their protector against the soviet threat. The presence of German speaking minorities in these states like the Baltic-Germans and the Siebenbürger would have made this quite natural.

    3. see https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-western-great-power-gaming-wasnt-so.html
      for this specific case at hand

      One might also ask why no Western great power concluded a bilateral alliance with Ukraine. That would have been possible within a few days, unlike North Atlantic Treaty accession protocol, which requires many parties ratifying (including Hungary, where Orban is Putin's poodle).

    4. About your InterWar Years scenario; Germany had practically nothing to offer in terms of military power until 1935/37. France was considered the premier European land power till at least 1938.

      Hungary and Romania were uniquely at odds (Hitler won Hungary by giving it Siebenbürgen and Romania by letting the Soviets take Bessarabia and thus driving the rest of Romania into his arms for protection). And then there was the lacking land link until Germany had Austria and Czechoslovakia.

    5. >>>One might also ask why no Western great power concluded a bilateral alliance with Ukraine. That would have been possible within a few days, >>>

      Which would lead immediatly to war with russia, which would then escalate to an nuclear war. And for what?

    6. That's what you claim, but there's no supporting evidence.
      I see supporting evidence that no ally-by-treaty of a nuclear power ever got attacked.

    7. @BK: “The UK and USA utterly failed at averting the crisis. Biden's bilateral talks with Putin without any Europeans accompanying him were embarrassing.”

      Wrong. Putin could give the Mafia lessons, and Biden is a corrupt, lying, incompetent, but do not bleat to the world like bewildered sheep: the Ukraine fiasco never would have happened except for European political, economic, and military weakness. In fact, many pointed out this state of affairs for years and you Europeans remained smug and dismissive.

      The EU has almost three-times the population and five times the GDP as Russia so stop pooping your pants. Get your collective houses in order instead of blaming others.

      On second thought, keep whining about the USA not sorting your affairs for you. Hopefully it will drive home how worthless the EU is to America and get us to quit NATO.


  4. But which European country would have been strong enough to actually stand up to Russia if it called the bluff?
    Also what would you consider to have been a better post-WW1 strategy for Germany?

    1. The Social Democrats attempted reconciliation with France in the 1920's but hadn't enough time before the conservatives won the election (the Great Depression had hit while the Social Democrats were in power).

      The material strength of European NATO is superior to what Russia has against Ukraine, despite all the inefficiencies. A single salvo of RN cruise missiles could wipe out 20 km of convoy and road NW of Kyiv, for example. The attack axis would crumble after that one strike.