There were some stickers that appeared in public places in Romania saying "Russia is a friend". After this incursion, how exactly is Russia a friend? Although, I'm sure many Romanians are too distracted and hypnotised on Tiktok by pro-Russian politicians to see that Russia itself is destabilising the country. I'm not kidding, pro-Russian candidates were somehow propelled into being viable opponents in the last general election, despite previously being unknown in traditional media and never took part in any debates. Turns out these candidates were making waves and appearances in social media.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
192 points (100.0% liked)
World News
665 readers
898 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Why doesn't NATO preemptively shoot drones out of the sky above Ukraine?
I mean, if a part of them are reaching NATO airspace, it's valid to intercept them as soon as they're detected.
People tend to forget that NATO is a defensive pact and even though it's extremely strong, it doesn't want a war because in a war there's losses for everybody.
NATO is like the adult in the room that doesn't want to escalate further.
So useless then just like the league of nations. And look where their inactivity ended up.
That also capitulates to Russias acts of war like sabotaging critical infrastructure (undersea cables), being organized crimes "cyber warfare as a service", waging global psychological warfare, financing fascism, murdering people with chemical and biological weapons.
I am not convinced NATO would ever actually do anything, because they've let every act of war slide. Probably just launch nukes if Russia does...
Russia's infrastructure is coming down around their ears, they've been humiliated, their global influence (non-propaganda) has been reduced to nearly nothing and they're making desperate deals with north korea to maintain the semblance of their army, and europe is rearming.
And that's without NATO getting brought in directly. I know it's not glamorous, but there is huge investment of resources and material in the Ukraine conflict, so much so that the conceit you've presented is bordering on being dishonest. Boots on ground no, but Ukraine sure as hell isn't fighting this alone.
This is true, but still: Ukraine is losing ground and we, the NATO member states and Europe, don't do enough to help them defend themselves and us by extension.
NATO is like the adult in the room that doesn't want to escalate further.
That's bullshit, they're a toddler hiding behind closed eyes going "la la la" and hoping "the bad man" goes away.
The EU is already at war with Russia.
The US has been in that same war since WW2, but it never came to direct blows, and likely won't come to any time soon.
NATO is a defense pact to deter war, not to go looking for one, so have a sit and eat something.
greetings from Serbia and Libya!
I’d love to hear the problem with stopping Melosivec.
valid to intercept them as soon as they’re detected
Realllllly gonna need a citation on that one. Pretty sure there's no actual rules to declare things like this valid or invalid, and the reason they haven't intercepted anything above ukraine itself is that would be direct NATO involvement in the conflict and thus an escalation with a power that can, lets remember, end the world if it gets too mad.
Pretty sure there's no actual rules to declare things like this valid or invalid,
The what now ?
Like the rules Russia is following ? Tjerr are no rules, that myth explpded when Putin invaded Crimea.and the promised defence never occured. There was an actual ruke that Russia, the US and Europe agreed to for Ukrine to give uo its nukes that if Russia invaded those counties would come to its defence.
Waiting... FFS!
he US and Europe agreed to for Ukrine to give uo its nukes that if Russia invaded those counties would come to its defence
It's not quite that simple. The wording (at least in English) was very carefully ambiguous, promising "assistance" if something happens but not quite a security guarantee, but it kind of sounds like a security guarantee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members), while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.[18] In the Ukrainian and Russian version of the document, the wording "security guarantees" was used though.[20][21]
#justclintonthings
A power that already escalated things by doing drone attacks against two NATO countries (and don't try to justify it with it was accidental, because negligence is not a defense against any crime). What happens when someone in Romania or Poland dies because of a Russian drone?
And NATO is responding by strictly enforcing their airspace (and casually swatting down russia's drones in a serious flex), instead of allowing minor intrusions to pass harmlessly (like they were, what, two weeks ago?). It's a slow escalation, that's been NATO's approach to the entire conflict, and the fact Ukraine still hasn't fallen and we all haven't died in nuclear hellfire lends quite a bit of credibility to their approach thus far.
If someone in a NATO country is killed by a russian strike, that will be addressed when it happens. I'm sure there's broad contingencies, but the specifics of the circumstances that happens in are too diverse to allow meaningful speculation on how they'll respond. It's just too unpredictable - it could be anything from an escalation of material reinforcement for Ukraine, to actual troop commitments, to the wholesale opening of a second front. Neither of us have anything like the information needed to make an accurate prediction about what would happen.
Yah maybe they'll do more sanctions but still purchase oil and gas from them. Because they're stupid and made themselves dependent on Russia.
Are you perhaps confusing the EU with NATO? Most NATO countries aren't dependent at all on russian oil - afaik it's only Turkey, Hungary and Slovokia that are even notable importers ~~the problem children of NATO~~. The rest are all hooked on their own energy or import it from baltic or arabian (?) fields (or the US? The sources got confusing fast, it seems to all get mingled and then get really speculative-investment-y).
(and casually swatting down russia's drones in a serious flex)
They got 4 out of 19 in the first major incursion over Poland. Not a serious flex at all.
If the polish military is to be believed, and there's no real evidence they shouldn't be given where the drones wound up landing, the drones they neutralized were the only ones that posed a significant threat. Sure, big swig from the mug full of salt grains, it was a surprise attack and I doubt they wouldn't have gotten more if they had had the chance. Scrambling an effective defense from a multinational coalition to down selected targets in a fairly large-scale attack like this though? That is a huge flex of NATO's logistical muscle. Arguably the largest one we've seen directly from NATO countries since the initial supply of material to Ukraine.
(K/D isn't even a meaningful stat in a COD game. Why are we applying it to real life?)
Yeah I agree with pretty much everything there and they'll be better prepared next time but if I was Russia I'd be considering it a win. Ukraine deals with 10x that and more nightly.
I'd personally prefer NATO to extend a no fly zone well inside Ukraine with Ukrainian consent and down any Russian drones or missiles that breach it. The cause is there now and it would free up Ukrainian air defence kit in that area to be moved elsewhere. God knows they would benefit from that
I'd sure cheer to see that happen, though I'd be surprised. My speculation on what we'll most likely see is either:
- Nothing, except heightened alert in NATO countries (because Russia stops the drone attacks on NATO)
- Direct coordination between AFU's air defense directorate and NATO countries to identify targets that are likely to encroach on NATO airspace and then NATO will interdict those targets, possibly while still over Ukraine proper (but more likely only over Ukraine on close approach to the border).
I don't know that I'm right, I'm just some mook on the internet, and if I had to bet I'd say it's much more likely that there needs to be still greater escalation from Russia before we see direct interdiction over Ukraine. But we can hope.
(And if Russia considers this a win, who knows. They're big on their "Just according to keikaku" spins over there, and at this point they're not exactly renowned for their tactical or strategic planning abilities)
Russia like,"Hey, we just said we wouldn't violate Poland's airspace again. ¯\(ツ)/¯"