I don't understand why NATO membership is still being discussed as if it was a real world possibility. This is literally the root cause of the war, and now that Russia is very clearly winning the war, there is zero chance they will agree to anything of the sort. The only options available are neutral Ukraine or no Ukraine at all. It's clear that the ghouls of the west would rather see the latter scenario and fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
17 points (68.1% liked)
World News
37346 readers
499 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
If neutrality would have worked, Ukraine would still have the Crimean peninsula.
Oh jeez, I wonder what Russian actions in Crimea could've possibly been a response to. 🤔
Rumer would contend that Russia’s actions in Crimea were driven by core strategic interests, not merely a response to Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation. He has noted that Russia felt "betrayed" by Western support for regime change in Kyiv and acted to protect its vital interests, which it saw as threatened by Ukraine's potential alignment with the West. Even if Ukraine had declared neutrality, Russia would likely have pursued annexation to secure its Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol and assert dominance over what it considers its historical sphere of influence. Neutrality would not have addressed Russia's perception of vulnerability or its ambition to reshape the regional order.
Rumer has highlighted that NATO enlargement, while not explicitly intended to threaten Russia, created a dynamic of hedging against Russian resurgence. Russia was never integrated into European security structures like Germany was after World War II, leading to a sense of exclusion and mistrust. He argues that the West lacked a coherent strategy for Russia after the Cold War, relying on hope rather than a realistic framework for engagement. Thus, Crimea’s annexation was a culmination of long-standing grievances, not a reaction to short-term provocations.
The author's analysis suggests that Russia views Ukraine as a critical buffer zone and a symbol of its great-power status. He notes that the competition between the EU and Russia over Ukraine’s economic alignment became a zero-sum game, with Russia willing to use force to prevent Ukraine’s Western integration. Even neutrality would likely have been insufficient unless it explicitly guaranteed Russia’s dominance, which would contradict Ukrainian sovereignty and popular aspirations.
If Ukraine can get invaded by countries for a strategic interest, then neutrality isn't a viable option for defense for Ukraine. You could even argue that Finlandization isn't even a viable option any more for Ukraine since given that accepting being in Russia's sphere of influence doesn't provide some diminished form of territorial sovereignty.
And Russia may feel threatened by Western encroachment into areas controlled by the former Soviet Union, but those peoples no longer under Soviet/Russian control appear to taking major steps as sovereign entities to resist Russian reestablishment of its former sphere of influence. If anything, increased Russian belligerence has caused formerly neutral countries to reject neutrality as neutrality no longer protects countries from being invaded due to strategic interest.
those peoples no longer under Soviet/Russian control appear to taking major steps as sovereign entities to resist Russian reestablishment of its former sphere
I hate this spheres of interest argument for exactly this reason: it logically follows that Eastern European, central Asian and Caucasian countries neither have nor deserve any sort of say in their future. If you're not a world power, you're not allowed to resist imperial expansion (yes, that's what they're doing). As an Eastern European, I refuse that denial of our autonomy out of hand.