Comment by derelicta

  > Since when is it OK for governments to sanction people when they are lawfully expressing disagreement with Govt policies or views?

When it stops being a disagreement over policy and becomes a paid job for a foreign government to spread as much malicious FUD as possible.

The former commander of Russian ground forces recently gave a long interview in which he said that the Russian army was on the verge of total collapse in the fall of 2022, when Ukrainian forces were pushing them back during the highly successful Kharkiv counteroffensive. Mearsheimer, Sachs, et al played a vital role in spreading FUD and unfounded fears that led to less military support for Ukraine than was needed. As a result, hundreds of thousands more people are dead than might have been had Ukraine been supported properly.

Mearsheimer alone has done more to deny modern weapons to Ukraine than the entire Russian air force could. In terms of ROI, he has been a spectacularly cost-effective propaganda asset. He has the blood of countless people on his hands and deserves to be hanged. But instead, he will kick the bucket due to natural causes in old age, a luxury not afforded to the children who died in their bedrooms under Russian missile attacks that Mearsheimer twisted himself into a pretzel to enable and justify.

If the people who attacked Ukraine without provocation - just as they attacked other neighbours in other regions - are attempting to bring down a democratically elected regimes across the region, so they can replace them with weak compliant puppets, the "thought crime" becomes straightforward self defence.

Here are some facts for you:

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, they were officially neutral (law from 2010, pushed by Russia). At the time of the invasion, there was neither political nor public will to join NATO.

Another fact: Maidan was not about joining NATO, but having equal economic ties to both Russia and EU.

So can you acknowledge that Russia didn't invade Ukraine because of NATO expansion?

Does it sound weird to you that after Russia's invasion in 2014, Ukraine cancelled their neutral status and wanted to join NATO?

It's not remotely dangerous to the European leadership.

It is dangerous to EU citizens who are on the receiving end of a campaign to radicalise national governments with far-right Russian-funded puppet regimes which will - clearly, as we can see in the US - be absolutely hostile to existing freedoms.

[flagged]

Aren't all SWIFT transactions over a certain amount routed to the US for approval?

You can't just hold a referendum to decide the relations between Switzerland and the EU -- the EU also gets to have a say. We have been incredibly patient with Switzerland in this regard but it can't continue. You must respect the agreements we already have with you and you cannot dictate the terms of new agreements with us.

(Background: some of the agreements with Switzerland have run out and we need new ones to replace them. Both sides continue as if the old agreements are still valid, Switzerland because it would hurt the country enormously if we didn't, the EU because it avoids antagonizing Switzerland and because it would slightly annoying if we didn't. We can literally take our marbles and go home without breaking any treaties with Switzerland. Many Swiss don't seem to understand that.)

Gun ownership is legal in France, why would EU care about it in Switzerland? Are you sure this information is from a trustworthy source? The rest I see where you're coming from, but this particular bit sounds like propaganda to me.

>If we don't comply, they will impose sanctions. They are even trying to make gun ownership illegal in Switzerland...

UK is the proof that nobody is forced to be part of EU or have good relations with EU. EU also forces food not contain excrements, where is your freedom to buy food with exfements? As you can see I can also say ridiculous things.