Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Good jaysus, if an attempt at some form of peace talks means the Russians attempt a poisoning, there is no chance

Erh where was it said he didn't do those things?

More dangerous in that and to use his own analogy- a cornered rat will do just about anything. Hopefully someone will take him out before we get to that.

BASF warning of immediate consequences of a Russian gas sanctions this morning.

Well it pales into comparison with what Russia is doing, murdering civilians deliberately whilst the talks are going on.

I highly doubt it but I'd be sure the yanks and others have been working on assets in Putin's inner circle so if anything happens it will happen from that direction and it may not be obvious. Putin might slip on his lovely expensive marble tiles or fall out a window or have a stroke....etc etc

What does Russia consider to be a threat of existence though?

The part that stands out to me is "Medvedev said Russia's nuclear doctrine did not require an adversary to use such weapons first".

I am a Pole, so I can tell you that it is a b*****t. No-one "accepts" autocrats. They stay in power because after chaos and change new democratic rules are often too weak and full of mistakes to defend the country against such attempts. And such cronies group using old checked rules and terror stays in power.

Also the most important things is, that there is a big amount of people in such newly changed countries, who adapt to change slower and need help with it, which is often forgotten. If such people had survival guaranteed, there would be no need for autocrats, which give that protection. Communism guaranteed this: the right for work. It gave enough money to survive. Most people were very poor but they didn't die of famine. Communisim collapsed (or Socialism in Poland), because there was only vinegar on our shelves at shops at the end.

You don't have far right groups in Ireland because welfare money here is good, so any populist wouldn't be listened here. So maybe it is good solution to pay this price and be free from such risks.

Usually old people vote for autocrats. Here noncontributory pension is almost the same as contributory pension, so people don't feel like second category citizen, so no-one needs to promise them dignity etc.

I mean they are also the only country I can think of that had two successful revolutions in a single year. If you want to be technical you could argue 3 since the communists came to power, held elections, lost and took over by military means again. A large chunk of what spurned on both of these revolutions, or at least gave both of them enough public support was a failed war (WW1). Certainly they may end up with other issues again but that does not mean it will be Putin in charge.

But we are almost back there with our right wing government destroying our courts and leading us to autocracy (why people don't see it in the West, I don't know). We are still surviving thanks to UE. Russians didn't have such help.

Look at Ukraine. If Zelensky didn't win last election (and in my opinion his win was partially a result of his show and a big part of people voting for him treated it like voting for Dustin the Turkey in Eurovision at one stage) it would be a Russian puppet there surrendering Ukraine at the spot. And it all be done and dusted now. But as we see, Ukrainians are not like that and are fighting for survival. While, if election went other way, you would sum them up as you summed Russians.

Russians are the same people as everywhere.

Putin's administration has a long and rich history of poisonings. It's the perfect warning shot to Abramovich (and by extension other oligarchs) not to side with the Ukrainians (which is what he was doing), also a clear message they can be reached anywhere.

Says the guy who continually fakes being in the warzone and leads a loyalists who shoot into Ukrainian apartment blocks for Tiktok videos