So the same organization that Russia said was its red line is going to protect Ukraine while maintaining peace? Makes no sense. This is just an attempt to keep a proxy war. Ukraine needs security guarantees, but any claims of NATO in the region will only escalate the conflict. It that is what they want to do then by all means.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
52 points (100.0% liked)
Europa / Europe and the EU + EEA
1229 readers
53 users here now
A community for all things to do with Europe as well as the EU/EEA.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
red line
I'm dying to hear your explanation for this.
I'd encourage you pickup a history book. Almost all conflicts in the Middle East since the 1950s have have been proxy wars between the US & Russia. I'm not defending Putin at all. You have to determine though if you're ready to send your own kids to war to take on a world power with the largest nuclear arsenal. I assume you think Ukraine is going to defeat Russia by itself?
I wasn't arguing the proxy war point, I'm more curious why you think Russia gets to dictate who joins what organization.
That’s the core of the issue. The question shouldn't just why Russia gets to dictate who joins what—it’s why the U.S. gets to dictate that, too.
This isn’t a new conflict; it’s a modern iteration of a decades-long power struggle. Since the Cold War began, the U.S. has been engaged in a series of proxy wars and conflicts with Russia, often to avoid a direct confrontation but always to expand its influence.
Korea, Vietnam, Soviet-Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua. The U.S. supplied and funded one side to fight the other, turning local conflicts into deadly battlefields for geopolitical gain.
This was all part of the U.S. anti-communism agenda, which led to the overthrow of democratically elected governments and the creation of humanitarian disasters abroad. The U.S. overthrew elected leaders in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile because their policies weren't aligned with American interests, replacing them with brutal dictators.
At home, this same paranoia led to the McCarthy era, where the U.S. government persecuted its own citizens, blacklisting academics and artists in a nationwide campaign to stifle dissent.
So when a NATO chief advocates for providing protection guarantees to Ukraine, Russia sees that as the continuation of a hostile pattern. Given that Russia possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, that is a legitimate security concern. In this dangerous game, the U.S. and NATO are risking a far larger conflict to win a proxy war, and in the process, they are prioritizing a geopolitical struggle over a peaceful solution for the Ukrainian people.
Hey genius, if Russia invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO expansion, why are there 2 more NATO countries than before the war started? Why doesn't Russia threaten to nuke them? Is it genuinely inconceivable that the neighbors of an imperialist power would want protection guarantees against said power? While we're at it, look up the fucking Budapest memorandum.
And literally what the fuck is putin afraid of? A NATO invasion? That's a brain damaged take for a number of reasons, but even if so, the best thing would be to hold tight and secure their own territory, NOT PISS AWAY THEIR ENTIRE MILITARY. But now the world factually knows that Russia is a paper tiger that is borderline incapable of operating in modern combat, instead still relying on soviet tactics like artillery and meat waves.
That is not what I stated. I am against what Putin has done. I can be against that while also pointing to historical evidence that the US has been involved in similar projects throughout the world, usually with catastrophic consequences for civilian populations. Are you then to claim the US is a paper tiger as well since it has failed to succeed in small countries? Of course it isn't, because there is more context. To pretend Russia is on its knees is ignorance. Only people spoon fed pro-war propaganda believe such things. Just like the US, Russia doesn't expend its most advanced & expensive weaponey in conflicts like this because those are reserved for conflict with the likes of the US. What Ukraine has done well though is make Putin weaker in terms of the opinion of the Russian people, like Iraq & Afghanistan did in the US for those politicians.
You should think about what the actual result of this war escalating looks like though, not just for Ukraine but for the US and other nuclear powers. It isn't pretty & maybe that is something you're willing to move forward with. That doesn't mean there aren't strategies for helping Ukraine, or that Russia shouldn't face consequences, but if you think pushing NATO next to Russia is a good idea then I hope you fully understand what the consequences likely are. It won't make them weaker, but will only give people like Putin more power in the future.
Are you then to claim the US is a paper tiger as well since it has failed to succeed in small countries?
5k military deaths in 20 years of bullshit in Afghanistan. How many Russians dead after 3 in Ukraine? Yeah, totally the same. The US failed on metrics other than military might.
Just like the US, Russia doesn't expend its most advanced & expensive weaponey in conflicts like this because those are reserved for conflict with the likes of the US.
Lolwat. The US uses its own wars as an excuse to show off the latest and greatest. Russia doesn't use the latest and greatest because they can't mass produce it. How many fucking SU-57s do they have? How many T-14s? They're pulling out mothballed soviet vehicles.
but if you think pushing NATO next to Russia is a good idea
HEY IVAN, CAN YOU THINK OF ANY REASONS WHY A COUNTRY NEXT TO RUSSIA MIGHT WANT DEFENSIVE ALLIANCES AGAINST RUSSIA? Maybe if they didn't invade basically every country next to them, they wouldn't be so worried eh? I'm trying to get the point through your thick skull but you dodge it like your life depends on it. Sure, the US has done fucked up shit, but literally no sane interpretation of the relationship between the US, NATO, and Ukraine justify an invasion. Like you keep talking about NATO like that means anything. Why does putin give a shit if they're next door if he isn't expecting an invasion?
And again, GOOGLE. BUDAPEST. MEMORANDUM.
5k military deaths in 20 years of bullshit in Afghanistan. How many Russians dead after 3 in Ukraine? Yeah, totally the same. The US failed on metrics other than military might.
First, there is no accurate reporting of how many Russians have died. Some estimates are 1 million, while others are 1/4 of that total. It doesn't matter though because if Russia launches its 5,000+ nukes, then you will no longer be questioning if it has a strong military.
Lolwat. The US uses its own wars as an excuse to show off the latest and greatest. Russia doesn’t use the latest and greatest because they can’t mass produce it. How many fucking SU-57s do they have? How many T-14s? They’re pulling out mothballed soviet vehicles.
You clearly have no understanding of how US military projects work then because its latest & greatest are always under secrecy to prevent other countries from trying to replicate its technology, just like most countries developing their own weaponry. Really, it would do you wonders to maybe just watch a little history lesson about the cold war.
HEY IVAN, CAN YOU THINK OF ANY REASONS WHY A COUNTRY NEXT TO RUSSIA MIGHT WANT DEFENSIVE ALLIANCES AGAINST RUSSIA? Maybe if they didn’t invade basically every country next to them, they wouldn’t be so worried eh? I’m trying to get the point through your thick skull but you dodge it like your life depends on it. Sure, the US has done fucked up shit, but literally no sane interpretation of the relationship between the US, NATO, and Ukraine justify an invasion.
There you go with trying to claim my name is Ivan, which to you may feel like a burn but only shows me the weakness of your argument. It is clear you took the bait like a good messenger for the MIC. I already said, if you want escalation then go for it. I already condemned Putin, but you're not satisfied with that. No, everyone must beat the same war drum as you for you to claim they're not a Russian agent, the same war drum that despite what Putin did being wrong, still risks a major nuclear conflict that you seem to think we should ignore.
Like you keep talking about NATO like that means anything. Why does putin give a shit if they’re next door if he isn’t expecting an invasion?
You mean the same memorandum that the US argued in 2013 is "not legally binding?" The one that the US broke according to your standards, before Russia?
Nobody smart actually thinks a million Russians are dead. That's a misinterpreted casualty number. The number is in the hundreds of thousands, yes, but you shifted focus to avoid my point.
When I said latest and greatest, then referred to the SU-57, that was a context clue that I'm referring to unclassified stuff, not secret stuff. But again, pivot to avoid the point.
Also completely avoiding NATO expanding as a direct result of Russian imperialism several times.
I already condemned Putin, but you're not satisfied with that.
Saying "I don't like what Russia is doing BUT" followed by paragraphs of why everything is the fault of the US and NATO and why Ukraine should roll over is not a condemnation. It's just disguised russian apologia. You don't have to cheer on decades of war in Ukraine, you just have to stop laying the fault at the feet of everyone except Russia.
All that in conjunction with you dodging the actual points like neo dodging bullets is... Weird. Nitpicking and pivoting like you do is classic tankie shit, but I'm not sure that's you. Either way, stop literally justifying imperialism because nukes. He won't push the button because Russia will cease to exist if he does.
Saying “I don’t like what Russia is doing BUT” followed by paragraphs of why everything is the fault of the US and NATO and why Ukraine should roll over is not a condemnation.
According to your standards the entire US is North Korea apologists. I never once made an excuse for Putin, and consistently condemn his actions, all I'm saying is that the risk of a major nuclear confrontation is a major factor when considering what options the US should respond with. There are other means to protect Ukrainians & to hurt Russian interests. It doesn't exactly look good when you have a country that has consistently advocated for & funded a genocide in one region (Gaza), telling another country what it is doing is morally wrong. If you want to win over the basic & inherent interests of people all over the world, like those in Russia to stand up to Putin, then how about stop giving them hypocritical inconsistencies to point out.
He won’t push the button because Russia will cease to exist if he does.
And so would much of the US. Do you really think NATO is just about defense? NATO is I'd argue equally an offensive agency, which is fine from my perspective, but if a anti-American, pro-Russian offense agency was talking about providing defense in Mexico, you can't argue that it would not be a substantial risk of escalating tensions & engagement. Look at what happened in Cuba for example. America has been engaged in proxy wars against Russia for almost a century. To act like there isn't a possibility of him pushing the button when they're on his border is ridiculous.
You need some nuts to gargle on?
Don't you understand? """"Peace""""" is worth any price. You have to stop the fighting!!! Even if that means you have to give up any thoughts of ruling yourselves or any self respect that the people might have. Just swallow up all those feelings of loss and grief for the dead, they died for nothing. Now we get to lose territory because John Richard over here thinks that being able to defend yourself would hurt putins fee fees.
Oh well.
You're assuming a lot about me. Like I said, if you want to keep the war going by all means go ahead. I think it is abhorrent what Putin has done.
I can also think it is abhorrent what the US has been doing since the 1950s. For example, the so called "weapons of mass destruction" program that was actually discontinued, was about biological weapons that America had helped supply & fund for Saddam Hussein to engage in proxy wars against the Soviet Russia at the time.
The US funded terrorists in the 80s as part of Operation Cyclone to engage in a proxy war, which many of the fighters it helped train later became Al-Qaeda & fighters for Osama Bin Laden .
Ukraine is not going to defeat a world power with the largest nuclear arsenal by itself. Sanctions with Russia haven't worked. About the only thing that would actually end the war & reclaim the land is for the US & other powers to take on Russia themself, risking a major nuclear escalation. If you think the proxy war is merely about protecting Ukrainians, you're wrong.
No, but if you want someone to gargle on your nuts go ask the military industrial complex. I'm sure they'd love to suck them while you tell them how you want to spread America's democracy around the globe. Maybe the people in Gaza can tell you how great American democracy has been both under Biden & Trump.