Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries?

Take Kazakhstan. It's a country which is in several bloc-like agreements with Russia: СНГ, ОДКБ, ЕАЕС. How are you going to listen to it? I will tell you how the West do it every time:

You are going to find some opposition crackpot who will badmouth Russia and crap on Kazakhstan regime, and you will ignore all other voices.

The one who may as well be on some Western "free press" aid program and therefore not really speaking for themself but for you. You are only going to listen to yourself.

> Do you think you are capable of listening to those countries?

Honestly, no. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth listening to, it just means we need to find someone who is capable of listening to them.

And it's equally worth pointing out that listening to Kazakhstan through a Russian filter is as dangerously misguided as listening to it through a Western filter.

I don't have to understand those countries to believe they should have the right to make their own sovereign decisions. Let Russia try to influence by diplomatic means, let the west do the same, let the country decide what it wants. You just seem to be arguing that these countries should be Russian proxies instead of Western proxies, which is absurd. Let them be neither. Russia's problem is that it's primary mode of influence is force. The west focusses much more on economic influence. And yes, lest you try for a simplistic "what about", they do use force too, but the focus is overwhelmingly on economic and diplomatic influence first.

Almost all of the countries that you have listed depend on Russia economically to the same extent as on the West, or in greater fashion.

"Let them be neither" does not work, as demonstrated by the NATO expansion.

Countries can have a booming trade without being a client state. You are under the misapprehension that 1) A small country must make itself subservient to a larger more powerful one. And 2) It cannot have close ties with more than one large world power.

Germany for example has very strong economic interests with both the US & Russia, and until the Ukrainian invasion there wasn't too much of a problem with that. The US warned that Russia would use its fossil fuel exports as a political weapon (as it turns out, correctly, but the US wields economic influence in similar, if more subtle ways) but Germany was still free to enter into an agreement despite that, and it did so, along with many other European countries to a lesser extent.

Finland & Sweden were perfectly content to "be neither" for three quarters of a century! But now, faced with a belligerent Russian regime, they're driven to the extreme of knowing they could be next on Russia's list. Russia has brought this on itself, and if more countries are choosing a closer alliance to the west it is in no way through pressure or threats of violence by the west (or the US in particular) but instead due to fear of violence from a their neighbor to the east. Russia has created a situation where "we don't need to pick a side, we can be neither" is now a choice that risks annihilation of national sovereignty.

Kazakhstan has at least threeway close ties and it does not cause problems. They are also not subservient. They're just profiting from having stable relations with larger neighbours.

I think that supports what I'm saying? Countries do no have to pick a side, they can have have (or should be allowed to have) prosperous relationships with Russia, US, Europe, China, etc.

Ukraine got on the bad side of Russia because it was trying to do just that. It gained leadership that was willing to develop stronger ties with the West and Russia perceived it as a threat, annexing Crimea as stage-1 in their plan to eliminate Ukrainian sovereignty.

Instead they might simply have played nice, continue being the region's key supplier of natural gas/oil/etc., Used those proceeds to develop other areas of it's economy... You get the idea. Their leadership's nostalgia for empire building is, ironically, getting in the way of them building an economic empire. Their scientific tradition should have them at the forefront of new breakthroughs alongside other large nations. Instead, we get a fruitless invasion and another generation of isolation.

Ukraine tried to pick a side by dumping Russia. If they stayed reasonably multi-vectored and out of the discussions to join the EU/NATO, they'd be swimming in Russian money to that day.

"Continue being the region's key supplier of natural gas/oil/etc" is not enough for Russia.

It doesn't seem like they were trying to dump Russia. No, they were simply trying to also improve relationships with the West. Either way, it's their right to choose their economic partners. A military invasion by Russia is not an acceptable response.

Because Russia has 10k nuclear warheads that yankees are apparently ignoring, and the expansion of NATO is happening on european soil at european stability expenses, which apparently EU leaders are ignoring, you guys seem to think that I come here to say these things because I am a fan of Mister Putin, I am not, but I am aware that actions have consequences and if Hilary Clinton and Obama tell a guy that he is Hitler, when the guy is at the head of a state with 10k nuclear warheads, then Clinton and Obama need to fuck off a stay out of European soil affairs, because it is ultimately European states that border with this state. I understand this is not an issue for you, as you don't border with it and don't have business and energy and companies depending on it, but we are, the wellbeing and stability of the continent depends on talking and dealing with Putin at the moment, so we need EU leaders to stop being US puppet and start keeping in mind european interests and lives

You know, Eastern European leaders are even harder line against Russia right now than the US is, let alone Western Europe. I guess having living memory of having been invaded and occupied by Russia makes you especially eager to sign up to, and enforce, a pact that will commit a much, much larger power to go to war against Russia if you get invaded.

I'm not worried about nuclear weapons, and this is why: nuclear weapons are the last form of escalation possible. If Putin uses nuclear weapons, there is nothing he can do to further deter NATO from invading Russia, and I strongly suspect that public opinion would be in favor of NATO doing so. I don't see any scenario where the use of nuclear weapons wouldn't harm Russian positions, let alone a scenario where nuclear weapons are actually helpful.

The thing is, Russia invasion and occupation (again) is not in interest of European countries around Russia.

I don't know what you're talking about. Obama famously tried to reset the US relationship with Russia back to something more cordial and Vladimir Putin used that as an opportunity to spit at their feet, as if it were a sign of weakness. Because the only thing Putin seems to respect as a potential limit on his power are overt physical threats.