Hacker News Reader

Comment by petcat | Hacker News Reader

EU is in a very tough spot right now. They're getting squeezed on all sides economically by USA and China while simultaneously facing a Russian invasion on their eastern borders. The relationship with the American administration has deteriorated badly and any action seen as "retaliation", such as this policy blockade, would almost definitely result in USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war. I think, unfortunately, that will lead to a quick victory for Russia unless EU nations want to put boots on the ground.

It's a bad situation.

View on HN

It’s kind of hard to see how much more support the US could withdraw from Ukraine, judging by the last article I read that gave Ukraine until Thursday to accept the latest peace deal negotiated between USA and Russia.

If we are in the world you describe, EU might as well do as it wants - its downside has been capped.

> It’s kind of hard to see how much more support the US could withdraw from Ukraine

It would be a major blow to Ukraine if the US stops selling weapons to them via European buyers. There is a real threat of this if Trump feels the need to coerce Ukraine into supporting his peace plan.

I believe this is what is implied by the Thursday deadline. Article certainly implies this.

I'm very surprised the US doesn't seem to be taking the risk of Ukraine becoming a Nuclear Weapons state seriously. By now, they surely would have had time to develop get to the brink of weaponization as a backup plan - they've after all always had a nuclear industry. If they do so and offer cover to their neighbors who realize NATO may not be sufficient, we are in for interesting times.

Ukraine WAS a nuclear weapons state, until the US agreed to protect them from Russia with the US's nuclear weapons, if they gave up their own.

What actually happened to the nukes the Ukrainians had? Were they transferred to the US? Destroyed?

Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state.

The ones in Ukraine got moved into Russia, in exchange for Ukraine receiving money and security guarantees.

Thanks. Did that happen immediately after the USSR breakup, i.e., when Yeltsin was in charge, or more recently under Putin?

Still under Yeltsin, 1994 I think. If you've heard about the Budapest Memorandum, that's exactly what it was about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Signed 5 December 1994

1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).[10]

2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. (...)

The same article says the US itself claimed the Memorandum was not legally binding when it sanctioned Belarus. And the Analysis section starts with a clear:

The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and it does not confer any new legal obligations for signatory states.

It also states that many Ukrainians at the time considered that keeping the nukes was an unrealistic option since all maintenance and equipment required to maintain them were located in Russia, Ukraine was under a financial crisis at the time and had no means to develop those things itself. I just can’t understand people now claiming it was a mistake to give up the nukes. Russia might have reasonably invaded Ukraine as soon as it was clear they intended to keep them as they knew they didn’t really have the ability to use them and no Western government would support them using them and starting a war that would likely contaminate half of Europe and cause terrible loss of life. It was absolutely the right thing to do for Ukraine. Even if that didn’t save them from future aggression, which I think was mostly the fault of the West for not being prepared to really sign a binding document and put the lives of their own soldiers on the line.

> Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state

It's not quite the same, since Ukraine was part of the USSR, and Ukrainian scientists, engineers, and tradesmen contributed to the effort. Germany, on the other hand, was never part of the American federation, and didn't contribute to American weapons development...since Wernher von Braun/Operation Paperclip.

Indeed. There was even a question of whether they could legally be considered Ukrainian or Russian weapons, regardless of where the command centre was. To solve that while the talks were ongoing they set up a ‘joint’ command centre in Moscow with ex-SSR countries theoretically sharing joint control over the weapons with Moscow.

Ukraine at one point wanted to formally claim ownership over the weapons, as after all breaking the permissive action locks wasn’t that difficult. The US talked them out of it, as a lead up to the Budapest Memorandum.

We all know how much the security guarantees of that agreement were worth.

> We all know how much the security guarantees of that agreement were worth.

They were worth 30 years of peace. It wasn't a treaty. Everyone knew it was a handshake agreement without consequences for breaking it. It prevented an immediate war in eastern Europe after the fall of the USSR. A war that could have been much worse involving nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately the war came 30 years later.

20 years, not 30, and not even that. There were other clashes plus massive Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs just a few years after Budapest.

For something as serious as giving up a nuclear arsenal it’s reasonable to expect to get more than 20 years of peace and for the co-signers to actual fulfil their parts of the agreement, whether legally binding or not.

The end result is that no country will soon trust a Russian non-aggression promise and none will trust an American promise of support.

It was signed in 1994? That's 30 years. I guess you're counting Crimea? I was think just starting from the full Russian invasion.

Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and invaded eastern Ukraine in 2014. That’s 20 years later.

It is also widely believed to have had a hand in the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin in 2004, in order to give an edge to his pro-Russian opponent, Viktor Yanukovych.

But even if that’s not true there’s ample evidence of overt Russian influence campaigns to support Yanukovych in that election, which was just 10 years after the Budapest Memorandum.

> Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state.

This is not an accurate comparison.

It's not that Russia had nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them. Many of the Soviet soldiers manning them were Ukrainians and stayed behind. Much of the infrastructure for maintaining the Soviet arsenal was also in Ukraine and had to be rebuilt in Russia. The situation was more akin to if the US broke up and Louisiana (which has a lot of nuclear warheads stationed in it) is dealing with whether they are now a nuclear power, or if they need to hand them over to South Carolina or something.

> It's not that Russia had nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them.

Russia is the single legal successor of the USSR, so all Soviet nukes became Russian nukes, regardless where they were located. So after the USSR broke up, Russia did have nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them.

Legal succession is mostly irrelevant and more complicated than that. Russia had operational control because it had taken physical control of the ex-Soviet command and control systems which were in Russia, and hence had the launch codes, etc.

To be fair, Russia becoming the single successor of the USSR wasn't a foregone conclusion in the early 1990s. There wasn't relevant precedent of a country dissolving I think -- Yugoslavia was still battling it out, Austria-Hungary was too long ago.

It was an explicit decision by both CIS and UN. Russia took USSR's seat on UNSC two weeks after USSR was dissolved, and that happened in 1991. Budapest Memorandum was negotiated 3 years later, by which time this was already a firmly established thing.

Ukraine had multiple Long-Range Aviation bases in it, Louisiana only has one (Barksdale near Shreveport)

Mearsheimer was right in 1993 (nukes).

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Mears...

He was right in 2014:

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...

And he is still right:

https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-wa...

Not really, went through the last post and its an utter pile of shit to be very polite. Basically russian propaganda, seen 1000 times.

It ignores that people should have their right to self-determination, don't want to live under russian oppression. As somebody whose family lives were ruined by exactly same oppression of exactly same russia (err soviet union but we all know who set the absolute tone of that 'union' and once possible everybody else run the fuck away as quickly as possible) I can fully understand anybody who wants to have basic freedom and some prospect of future for their children - russia takes that away, they subjugate, oppress, erase whole ethnicities, whoever sticks out and their close ones is dealt with brutally.

Not worth the electrical energy used to display that text. Unless you enjoy russian propaganda, then all is good.

I think this guy paints a difference in thought that is not really there. Putin sees Ukraine neutrality and impotence as vital to Russia's security. No, he probably does not want to actually annex Ukraine, that would be a ball ache he doesn't need, but he would like it to behave like Belarus.

I think the real difference lies in whether one believes Ukraine deserves to decide its own path, or if it's forever doomed to be a chess piece on the board between spheres of influence, which seems to be the mindset both Putin and Trump are stuck in.

The US did not agree to protect them. The signatures to the Budapest Memorandum agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Of the signatories, Russia is the only one that has violated the agreement.

Are you sure about that? Wikipedia says the following: "

3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

Both seems to not happen as stipulated.

Edit: I didn't read properly, 4 obviously didn't happen, my bad.

The actual memorandum is shorter than the Wikipedia article about it. The English-language portion is literally only three pages of double spaced text.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

But the quotes you seem to challenge are also part of the original document you just linked.

I didn't challenge anything. Just posting a link to the actual source documentation.

I guess you could argue the US is kinda violating 3, since I think the Trump administration tried to ask for future financial reparations in exchange for support during the war. But 4? This isn't a nuclear conflict yet right?

I don't think 3 has happened. 4 definitely has not happened. Did you miss the last 4 words you quoted?

Gladly not this condition: "in which nuclear weapons are used"

the US trying to coerce Ukraine into surrendering territory, and then having to pay the US to do it is a violation of their sovereignty

What's the threat? "Do this or we'll stop helping you" is not a violation of sovereignty, distasteful though it may be in this case.

Article 3 of the Budapest memorandum[1]:

> 3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the Republic of Belarus of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

the US regime is attempting to do this

[1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memorandum_on_Security_Assura...

Minerals deal that US pushed for was already against this.

That’s a hell of reply, and shame on the US.

I don’t know this. Thank you.

I don't see how this qualifies. Being given weapons isn't part of sovereignty, and putting conditions on the continued flow of weapons isn't a violation of it.

Economic coercion attempting to violate sovereignty would be something like the threatened (actual?) tariffs on Brazil for imprisoning Bolsonaro.

afaik Ukraine never got paid for nuclear disarmament as initially agreed - about $200 billions

I wonder where people get these ideas. The Budapest Memorandum is very short, it'll take five minutes to read if you want to know what was actually agreed. It seems like people just sort of imagine what they would have agreed to, and run with it.

thank you, will take a closer look. overheard it from whatever talk. ain't easy to fact check everything

It's pretty easy to avoid repeating unverified things, though.

They got paid mainly in nuclear fuel, there was some disagreement at the rate by which they got fuel in exchange for the weapons and maybe they didn't get quite all the fuel they should have, but for sure they did get paid at least partially.

It wasn't. It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow.

> It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow

In the 90s. Twenty years buys lots of time for code cracking, reverse engineering and—if that fails—bullshitting.

With the benefit of hindsight, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. (Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania should probably develop them.)

>Ukraine should have kept its nukes

They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles. [0]

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missi...

> They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles

Unclear. A nuclear Kyiv would have different security incentives than a non-nuclear one.

Unclear? They are busy stealing hundreds of millions dollars[0] while having security incentive in form of ongoing war.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/world/europe/ukraine-zele...

Are the nuclear capable missiles worth anything if you don't have nuclear warheads for them to deliver?

Oh, please, please, exclude Romania. I live close to our nuclear power plant. I'm scared of our incompetence as it is, without trying to make any nukes.

Right stealing nukes you cannot immediately operate as a 0-year old nation, to me it doesn't seems like an incredibly bright idea in a world where the existing nuclear states doesn't want anyone else to get nukes too.

And in any case it's was not simply removing the safety devices on the weapons, you need to be able to target the ICBMs at Russia, which Ukraine could not do:

> In fact, the presence of strategic nuclear missiles on its territory posed several dilemmas to a Ukraine hypothetically bent on keeping them to deter Russia. The SS-24s do not have the ability to strike targets at relatively short distances (that is, below about 2000 km); the variable-range SS- 19s are able, but Ukraine cannot properly maintain them. [...] the SS-19s were built in Russia and use a highly toxic and volatile liquid fuel. To complicate matters further, targeting programs and blocking devices for the SS-24 are Russian made. The retargeting of ICBM is probably impossible without geodetic data from satellites which are not available to Kiev.

> Cruise missiles for strategic bombers stored in Ukraine have long been 'disabled in place'.[...] As with ICBMs, however, retargeting them would be impossible for Ukraine, which does not have access to data from geodetic satellites; the same goes for computer maintenance.

From SIPRI research report 10; The Soviet Nuclear Weapon Legacy

So Ukraine did not have usable weapons at hand. But it did, and does, certainly have the capacity to build entirely new weapons, if given time.

> stealing nukes you cannot immediately operate as a 0-year old nation

Agreed. But nobody was invading Ukraine in 1994.

The weapons were seen as a security liability. In reality, they were bargaining chips.

> to me it doesn't seems like an incredibly bright idea in a world where the existing nuclear states doesn't want anyone else to get nukes too

To be clear, Kyiv made the right decision given what they knew in 1994. Non-proliferation was in vogue. America and British security guarantees meant something.

If Kyiv knew what we know today, that the Budapest security guarantees were worthless from each of Washington, London and Moscow; that wars of conquest would be back; and that non-proliferation would be seen through the lens of regional versus global security, it would have been a bright idea to demand more before letting them go, or at least to drag out negotiations so Ukraine could study the weapons and maybe even extract some samples.

> SS-24s do not have the ability to strike targets at relatively short distances (that is, below about 2000 km)

Again, having the nukes would give Kyiv leverage. At a minimum they'd have HEU and a proven design to study.

And again, don't undervalue bullshitting in geopolitics. If Kyiv said they have a short-range nuclear missile, it would not be credible. But would it be incredible enough to green light an invasion?

The US and Russia would have done a joint invasion under UN flag if Ukraine tried to steal the nukes dude, it's downright embarrassing to pretend that's the sort of thing you can do unpunished.

And doing that for some design info is really not worth the risk: just recruit some soviet weapons designers, for sure there are Ukrainians in that project already.

Like they did in North Korea when they obtained nukes. Of wait...

You think North Korea stole its nukes?

What's the difference for non proliferation treaty?

I could be wrong, but I don't think that nuclear warheads have such a long shelf life.

> I don't think that nuclear warheads have such a long shelf life

We literally don't know. A large part of stockpile stewardship programmes at the Sandia national labs is aimed at answering this question.

The Senate never ratified that treaty, so no the US never agreed to so that. And the Budapest Memorandum doesn't say that anyway.

The ideal scenario would have been if Ukraine had secretly retained 30-100 warheads. Everyone likes to prattle on about how they couldn't even have used them: those people are mentally retarded. A sophisticated government with nuclear and aerospace scientists could have easily dismantled interlocks and installed their own. Maybe not in a hurry, but they had 3 decades more or less. And if they didn't have the expertise, they might have outsourced it to Taiwan for the fee of a few nukes to keep.

Ukraine *desperately* needs to be a nuclear weapons state. Nothing else will suffice. They need more than one bomb, really more than three or four. Putin has to be terrified that no matter how many nuclear strikes he endures, another waits to follow. When he fears that, the war will end.

The war might end in Ukraine being flattened by Russian nuclear weapons if that happened. Putin would be backed into a corner. End the invasion after suffering a nuclear strike (or just the threat of one) and he'll risk being deposed and meet a gruesome end. Retaliate overwhelmingly and risk escalation from other nuclear powers. It's not clear to me that the second risk would be worse, and definitely not clear to me that Putin wouldn't see that as the better of two bad options.

As has been illustrated so well over the past few years, the power of nuclear weapons is a paradox. It allows you to make the ultimate threat. But that threat isn't credible unless people believe you'll use them. Because the consequences of using them are so severe, they're only credible if used in response to a correspondingly severe threat. Russia's arsenal hasn't allowed it to stop a constant flow of weapons to its enemy, an enemy which has invaded and still controls a small bit of Russian territory, and which frequently carries out aerial attacks on Russian territory. Ukraine faces much more of an existential threat (Ukraine has no prospect of conquering Russia, but the reverse is a serious possibility) so a nuclear threat from Ukraine would be more credible, but it could easily still not be enough. Certainly they're not an automatic "leave me alone" card.

>Putin would be backed into a corner.

He'd be backed into the door marked "exit". There is no corner to trap him here.

>End the invasion after suffering a nuclear strike

And why do you believe that Zelensky or whoever is in charge would nuke Moscow first? Do you think that, if they had say 30 nukes (plenty for a few relatively harmless demonstrations) that this would be the first target? Obviously they'd pick something that he could decide to de-escalate afterwards.

>they're only credible if used in response to a correspondingly severe threat.

You mean such as the severe threat that Ukraine has endured for a decade at this point? The war now threatens to make them functionally extinct. Many have fled and will never return, their population is reduced to something absurdly low, many of their children have been forcibly abducted to be indoctrinated or tormented/tortured.

That condition you impose was pre-satisfied.

>Certainly they're not an automatic "leave me alone" card.

Of course not. They'd have to be used intelligently (readers: "used" does not imply detonated). It's not entirely clear to me that this would be the case with Ukraine/Zelensky. But nothing less at this point will suffice. Even if the US promised to put 150,000 troops on the ground, this wouldn't end. It would only escalate. Perhaps to that nuclear war you seem to fear.

I don't think Putin would have an exit. Losing the war would result in a major risk to his continued rule, and thus to his person, from a collapse of domestic support. A Ukrainian nuclear strike would present him with a choice: risk internal revolt, or risk the consequences of nuclear retaliation. I'm not remotely confident he'd choose the first. And, to be very clear, the second would make Ukraine (and likely the rest of the world) a lot worse off than they are today.

I agree with most of what you said but there’s zero possibility Russia will take over all of Ukraine. Even Putin never claimed they would, this seems like a fantasy some people like to propagate to instigate fear in Europe or something. They spent three years on a gruesome fight to take less than a fifth of the territory and the rest is much harder as the further West you go, the more nationalist Ukrainians are. Check the maps of political opinion on Russia before the war started. Looks pretty close to the current frontline where the divide between pro and against Russia lies. Attacking a NATO country would mean the end for Russia and both sides know it perfectly well even if they may say otherwise publicly to either scare people into supporting their militarism or to gain political points.

I don't think it's likely, but I do think it's possible. If the US and EU get tired of helping Ukraine, they'll have a much harder time resisting Russian attacks. Once they do, why would Russia stop? Maybe they would. Maybe they'd pause, declare peace, and take the rest a year or three later. Maybe they'd just keep going. Putin saying he doesn't want it doesn't convince me in the slightest. He's a Soviet Union revanchist in terms of territory if not political system, and they owned the place before.

Not sure what the consequences of attacking NATO has to do with this.

Russia would still stop because controlling the rest of Ukraine would be more trouble than it is worth for them. And they might gain some concessions from the West. Attacking NATO is a common talk point in the West about what happens after Russia takes over Ukraine and Zelenskyy is more than happy to suggest that is to be expected as he says they are fighting for all of Europe.

Invading Ukraine in the first place appears to have been far more trouble than it was worth, and it didn’t stop them.

On the contrary they seem to be doing much better than anyone expected, maybe even themselves, and they appear to have successfully stopped Ukraine from ever joining NATO which was absolutely their main objective, just see what they have been saying since 1992.

The initial expectation was for Ukraine to fall in weeks. The convoys that were headed for Kyiv had Rosgvardia in them - that's basically riot police, not military troops, and they were equipped as such. So no, they were absolutely going for the whole Ukraine (as a puppet state in the west and probably annexations in the east) and instead got stuck in the worst meat grinder Russia has seen since WW2.

I dunno if I agree with them being nuclear. It just ups the possibility of a thermonuclear war instead of a conventional war. Just as I’d prefer that IN or PK or both not having those weapons.

The only historical examples we have of nuclear war occurred when the capability was unilateral. MAD actually works. The fear you have of a thermonuclear war is a good thing, and that fear can exist in Putin as well... but only if Ukraine has the weapons to instill such fear.

> Just as I’d prefer that IN or PK or both not having those weapons.

The only reason we haven't seen a Ukraine-like invasion in that region is that they both have nukes. MAD works.

Mini nukes change the equation. If you get two crazy hot-heads making decisions where no-one can overrule their decisions; things could go in unexpected ways. MAD presumes rational actors. If Iraq and Iran would have had nukes in the mid 80s I’m not sure that they wouldn’t have used them.

While US weapons aid has basically been cut off, then somewhat restored through European purchases, US intel sharing has been relatively consistent and continuous throughout, and Ukraine is very dependent on it. When intel sharing was suspended for several weeks, Ukraine lost almost half the ground it had taken in Kursk. At a minimum, satellite intel is key to monitoring Russian dispositions, and Ukraine has no way to replace that.

US also authorized the use of their own ballistic missiles in Russia proper this past week which was a big deal.

They also have another $1B budgeted in defense spending for Ukraine next year https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-committee-backs-m...

Intelligence, targeting info and selling (no longer giving) weapons are all important support but sanctions is the really big one. The most recent round in particular has really bit into Russia's oil revenue.

Of course it would be absolutely disgraceful for the US to drop sanctions on Russia and have normal relations with it while it continued its invasion. But that's what the US voted for.

> Of course it would be absolutely disgraceful for the US to drop sanctions on Russia and have normal relations with it while it continued its invasion. But that's what the US voted for.

The reason US sanctions Russia is because the US has been pushing its oil insustry in Europe. For instance, EU tariff deals included buying a minimum amount of hydrocarbon products:

> As part of this effort, the European Union intends to procure US liquified natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy products with an expected offtake valued at $750 billion through 2028.

In that context, US sanctions on Russia serve a purpose which isn't solely helping Ukraine ; I don't see the US lifting these sanctions anytime soon.

I personally think Trump loves Russia and Putin and generally wants to do business with them. He has wanted a Trump Tower in Moscow for decades and probably still wants that to happen.

Wants to be bribed by them. But to him, bribe = business, I guess.

“Peace deal”

The latest demand for Ukraine to just completely surrender.

Perhaps Ukraine could spare a few troops for a quick invasion of the West Bank?

Maybe the most impactful thing they could do would not be withdrawing support for Ukraine, but removing sanctions on Russia and thus boosting Russian economy.

I've been to Kyiv five times to deliver aid via help99.co, and I've spent many, many hours with Europeans driving trucks from Tallinn to Kyiv.

The people volunteering and driving know Europe is at war. They all say nobody else where they live realizes this.

It's frustrating.

EU got itself a Cuba

too bad that Cuba is right on its own border :)

So literally just like Cuba? The distance between US and Cuba is like 150km, if you're in Donetsk you can't even leave Donetsk Oblast if you travel 150km, and the shortest distance you can take from Ukraine<>Russia to closest EU/NATO member would be something like 600km if you don't take shortcuts via Belarus.

For all intents and purposes, Ukraine's border with Russia is way further away (like magnitude) from EU/NATO than US<>Russia (who are neighbors) or US<>Cuba (who are also neighbors).

Romania shares a border with Ukraine and is a member of both NATO and the EU.

Indeed, and how far would you wager it is between the border of Ukraine<>Romania and Ukraine<>Russia, at the shortest point? I'd wager around a lot longer than US<>Cuba.

I imagine the shortest path Russia->Ukraine->EU Members Romania/Hungary/Slovakia/Poland is far shorter than the shortest path Russia->Cuba->Any US State or territory.

Both Cuba and Russia are literal neighbors to the US, it doesn't get closer than that. Cuba is like 150km from the coast of Florida, and Russia is even closer than that to the US!

You're just randomly creating new positions to argue about because why? There is no factual way in which whatever point you are trying to make holds true re. Russia/Cuba to the US is less than Russia/Ukraine to the EU & NATO.

Kaliningrad literally shares borders with Poland and Lithuania. 0 km is the smallest distance possible. Russia and Ukraine both border EU and NATO countries.

Russia shares borders with Norway, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland which are NATO.

What an absurd argument. If Ukraine falls, the Russians will marshal Ukrainian manpower and resources against the EU.

> What an absurd argument

What argument did I even make? Are you saying it's absurd that Russia's border to Ukraine is further away to the closest EU/NATO member than Cuba is to the US? Because if so, I think you need to open up a world map.

The idea that the size of Ukraine and the distance to Russia’s border through Ukraine diminishes the Russian threat. For two reasons:

1. Russia aims to either capture Ukraine outright or exert influence over it, which puts eastern EU states at grave risk. Note that Belarus, a Russian vassal, already borders the EU and was used by the Russians to launch the Ukraine invasion.

2. Russia already borders — and menaces - the EU in the Baltics.

In my eyes it's more so that we don't care in that sense. My friend group is mostly just keeping in mind that they might have to dip to another country/continent at some point, maybe, unlikely though.

I'm pretty sure everyone I know would rather get imprisoned than go die in the mud to protect property they don't own, on the orders of a government that doesn't care about the same things they care about.

When we talk about it, it always boils down to a discussion on how to best desert/escape at different stages.

If the relationship with America deteriorates, which countries do you think will accept European refugees? Your friends may have to stay and fight not out of patriotism, but necessity. In a total-war scenario, even prisoners will find themselves contributing to thr war effort.

Since europeans are quite wealthy, many will be happy to accept them (as long as they still have money and qualifications).

But leaving all moral questions aside, where to go?

South america might turn into a war zone as well. Africa partly is already. Asia similar.

New Zealand sounds good, but even Peter Thiel found out, that money will get you only so far in buying a safe haven.

So personally I would opt for fixing the problems in europe. And am on it within my abilities. But .. with limits. I do not trust my politicians either and I am multilingual and traveled the world a lot. So in the end I would also rather take my family and leave, then being ordered to go fight in a war with half working equipment, because corruption and proud incompetence prevented preparation. (Many in the german military for instance hold the opinion, that they don't need to learn from the incompetent ukrainians, because they are all fighting wrong)

Luckily for whole Europe russia is very incompetent at doing anything serious, and complex projects like war are as serious as it gets. They routinely fail at logistics even now, corruption and nepotism is how puttin' built his whole empire, you don't suddenly get competent people at key positions of power just because it would make sense.

So whatever happens (apart from nuclear holocaust everywhere around the world) will be so slow we will have time to react. Already biggest arming of whole european continent since WWII is happening, and any bad news is pushing more money and focus into building more and more.

I know it sounds gloomy, but only if you have your head too close to the screens daily. Worse had come and gone than incompetent russians.

"I know it sounds gloomy, but only if you have your head too close to the screens daily. Worse had come and gone than incompetent russians."

Depends where you live I suppose. The baltic states are rightfully worried and take it a bit more serious.

And yes, russia on its own is not that dangerous to whole Europe. But russia in combination with north korean soldiers and supported by china .. and some european states that switch sides (Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia, ..), that would be dangerous. Lot's of things can happen. Also the EU can transform into an evil empire if we don't watch out. So no, I am not too worried about immediate war, but the traction right now is bad.

I don’t fully understand that bit about the EU turning evil. Care to elaborate?

Italy has already a Mussolini (who invented fascism) admiring government. Biggest opposition in france is pretty right wing. The german right wing opposition is pretty strong, ... etc.

Was your point that europe is immune to fascism and imperialism somehow?

We all have relatives all over the place, many have multiple passports/citizenships, most are well educated and/or make good money, most speak 3+ languages.. It'll work out. Countries take in refugees with much different cultures and lower education in the hopes of adding to their workforce. Someone will gladly take us.

I'm guessing in the worst case South America/AU/NZ/JP/UAE/Canada would be the goals.

The only real risk I see is essentially waiting too long and getting detained right as they begin to close off the borders for people of fighting age.

We are not at war. No bombs are falling in our cities. Our children are not being drafted and coming back in coffins. No one is bombing our ships and railways, so we have plenty of food on the table. If you think we are at war you have no idea what you’re talking about.

That is not the only kind of war. Russia has totally pwned the USA in the realm of information.

> No one is bombing our ships and railways

Uh, nuh https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/polish-pm-says-two-resp...

By the way, most material support by the US is actually purchased by other NATO members. The US recycles the facade of support, there is very little actionable support.

From the Russia POV invading Ukraine was a response to NATO expanding there. An imminent invasion of Europe seems outside of Russia’s geopolitical goals.

But Europe’s leaders on the other hand do seem invested in escalating this conflict, a lack of finances notwithstanding.

And NATO is expanding because Russia keeps attacking its neighbors. It is not like it expands on its own, countries are literally begging to be let in.

This is a fake news from Russia... Both Germany and France said no for Ukraine to join NATO several times, exactly to avoid poking the bear and starting a war.

First off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer, not just a view you (also) can find in Russian propaganda.

Second my point is understanding the Russian POV, regardless of the correctness of that POV.

Third, your comment is off base historically. The timeline is:

2007 Putin’s Munich speech warning against NATO expansion to Eastern Europe.

Feb 2008 US ambassador warning that NATO expansion to Ukraine was a red line for Russia.

April 2008 Bucharest summit Ukraine and Georgia were not given MAPs due to France and Germany objections but were promised NATO accession over their objections.

August 2008 invasion of Georgia.

Nov 2013-Feb 2014 Euromaidan protests overthrowing Russia-sympathetic Yanukovych

2014 invasion of Crimea

Feb 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Besides this Putin has argued for the invasion of Ukraine as restoration of historical Russia as part of his nationalist ideology. And other examples of NATO expansion such as Baltics, Poland and Finland have not led to Russian attacks.

Overall the concerns many European leaders have about Russia need to be tempered by a better understanding of Russia’s actual perspective (as I said not the same as advocating for that perspective).

  > First off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer, not just a view you (also) can find in Russian propaganda.

They are Russian propaganda, Mearsheimer most notably. His books are financed by the Russian government. If these people are your primary sources, you will end up believing that the Holocaust is a lie, the Americans never landed on the Moon, 5G is for mind control, and vaccines cause autism.

  > Overall the concerns many European leaders have about Russia need to be tempered by a better understanding of Russia’s actual perspective

Who do you think has a better understanding of Russia: those who had the misfortune of being born and raised in the USSR and saw Russian imperialism from the inside (this generation currently fills the top leadership positions in Eastern Europe), or "reputable scholars" from the other side of the world who cannot speak or read a word of Russian and know nothing about the country beyond what their handlers showed them during a conference visit? Do you think that Kaja Kallas, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, whose mother was deported as a six-month-old baby to Siberian labor camp after the Soviet invasion of Estonia, and whose father later became one of the four architects of the Estonian independence movement, needs to be lectured by Mearsheimers and Chomskys?

If anything, the Anglo-American world has lived for too long in a fantasy land constructed by reputable and disreputable scholars from afar, instead of listening to those with lived experience and knowledge accumulated over a lifetime.

> They are Russian propaganda, Mearsheimer most notably. His books are financed by the Russian government.

The closest thing I could find about this was that in one of his books he acknowledges partial financing of this one book from a small prize from a Russian internet forum. That’s all I could find. Chomsky and Sachs supposedly fall under this umbrella too, according to you. Presumably criticizing American foreign policy is equivalent to Russian propaganda in your view.

Nor are any of the conspiracy theories you attribute to them something I could find evidence of.

My point there in my comment about these three holding these views was that this isn’t simply Russian fake news. It’s held by some reputable scholars as well. Your response is to claim these scholars too are Russian propagandists, bolstering your case with outright fabrications.

The US leadership openly refers to Ukraine as a proxy war. I do think it’s worth listening to critics of US foreign policy in that context, and not limiting our information diet to European politicians.

  > ... from a small prize from a Russian internet forum.

The Valdai forum[1] is not "a small internet forum" but the most prominent event run by the Russian government to bring Western politicians, scholars and other notable figures to Russia, treat them like royalty, surround them with agents of influence, and manipulate them into adopting Russian propaganda narratives, which they then repeat in their essays and articles once they return home.

No meaningful discussion takes place there. You can assume that all organizers and domestic attendees are acting under FSB instructions. It is solely an operation by the security services to manipulate Western visitors and turn them into useful idiots. Thus, at least in Eastern Europe, where these tricks are well understood, anyone attending such events is automatically considered suspicious: they must be either utterly clueless or working for Russia. Mearsheimer, somehow, has fallen even deeper and started accepting money.

And it shows. You can look up on YouTube his attempt to debate the Polish foreign minister, completely misrepresenting certain diplomatic events, unaware that Sikorski had been there in person, leading an official delegation. How anyone can take such a buffoon seriously remains a mystery to me. To Russians, he has been one of their best investments. Tens of millions of people have been exposed, through him, to the ideas instilled in him at places like Valdai, believing them to be high-quality expertise from a reputable scholar, when in reality they are nothing more than laundered propaganda.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdai_Discussion_Club

I didn’t say it’s a small forum but a small financial contribution - to one book. This is the totality of actual evidence you have of Mearsheimer, Chomsky, and Sachs being Russian propagandists. Your argument is paper-thin.

Criticizing American foreign policy doesn’t make someone a Russian propagandist.

> First off, what I stated is a view held by reputable scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sachs, and John Mearsheimer

You have named 3 people out of 8 billion alive, so 0.00000004%. That doesn't sound like a consensus, or even a majority. It sounds like 3 dudes saying a thing.

> The timeline is: 2007 Putin’s Munich speech warning against NATO expansion to Eastern Europe...

So as far back as 2007, we have recordings of putin threatening other countries against exercising their sovereign rights, in violation of international law. Not great for russia.

Unfortunately for the world, the timeline starts far before that, with russian invasions and annexations of their neighbors. If we look further back, we see russian genocide of Ukrainians during the holodomor. If we look even further back, we see russian ethnic cleansing of Ukrainian Tatars.

Based on this history, and the admissions of russian officials, we can conclude that russia just wants what Ukraine has, and hates Ukrainians for saying no.

From the Russia POV invading Ukraine was a consequence of a deeply entrenched belief that Ukrainians "aren't a real people" and that Ukrainian is "not a real language", and that Ukraine is basically Russian territory that was forcibly separated and "derussified". Putin pretty much spelled it out in the open before the invasion.

Ukraine is not and was never part of EU, FWIW

Ukrainians voted to align themselves more closely with the EU and are now effectively a march. Ukraine is very much within the sphere of EU concern.

Russians would like to have Ukraine in their sphere of influence, but after bungled invasion in 2022 and subsequent grinding war, Ukrainians will go out of their way to be outside of this Russian world. I think we are talking about decades before normalization of relationship between Ukraine and Russia.

>and China

That's the biggest question of the century. Imagine that EU and China make a deal, and they backstab US and Russia respectively. EU and China are physically so far away from each other that there's no way they'd actually run into direct conflict, meanwhile by backstabbing, both of them could easily get what they want. What I'm trying to say is that if you flipped the alliances and aligned EU with China and US with Russia, Russia would collapse within one battle maximum while EU's support would be just enough to push the 50/50 chance of Taiwan invasion towards decisive Chinese victory. Everyone happy - China becomes the world's #1 superpower, while EU remains undisputable #2 and US gets sent back to lick its wounds. Sure, EU might suffer from severing its ties with the US, but if the alternative scenario is US abandoning EU and the latter facing Russia alone, then this stops being such a crazy idea.

> China becomes the world's #1 superpower, while EU remains undisputable #2

How does EU even remotely benefit from this bizarre fantasy scenario where it flips alliances toward China? The fundamentals don't change. EU has no tech and doesn't produce anything. China would only exploit the partnership even more than they already do.

> EU has no tech and doesn't produce anything.

What a poor attempt at trolling!

Yes it was an exaggeration. Withdrawn.

But the point is still that the economic fundamentals don't change by shifting alliances. EU would still be under the same pressure.

I dont think its trolling.

Ive heard the same sentiment locally and at some conventions with low/no European representation.

Its also a corrolary to "china steals tech"... Except for all the tech they're innovating and creating.

Europe has higher industrial output than the US, its either trolling or misinformed beyond belief.

I would be curious if the volume of domestically produced goods exceeds the quantity of Chinese-produced goods in Europe. If one excludes food and automobiles, then I suspect very strongly that this is not the case at all, regardless of how you measure the quantity (euro value, volume, weight, etc).

It benefits by not sending its people to war in case of conflict with Russia. China can pretty much disable Russian army by banning exports of military and dual-use goods. Meanwhile US security guarantees are becoming weaker by the day, especially in the context of potential war US vs China.

> USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war

USA all but openly support Russia by now.

>USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war

I thought the only way USA was supporting Ukraine was by no longer refusing to sell them extraordinarily expensive weapons. So, no longer [openly] hampering them.

> unless EU nations want to put boots on the ground.

Is such a thing even possible in the EU? I understand that it's an economic and policy bloc. Does Brussels have the authority to raise an army from EU members?

No nor does it have logistical capability to deliver even half of the equipment currently being promised/discussed within a time-frame of less then 5-10year.

It's all dependent on the national government voluntarily following the advice of Brussels, and in most cases they don't really have the resources the EU wants them to commit to "The Ukrainian nationalist Cause".

EU has enough logistical capacity, but Russian nationalists like to dismiss EU like some kind of temporary group while they are riding donkeys to battle.

Lets talk numbers, rather then just sling cheap unfounded allegations

The problem with the way they talk at the big conferences is that there is almost no link between the rhetoric of existential crisis and the bills being passed at the national level.

The last numbers from Ukraine was a army of maybe 900k uniformed troops(thats up there with America) and as a response to that army's failure to drive Russia back Germany is talking about raising their armed forces less then a 3rd of that by 2030 thats just not real mobilization and thats my point about not taking the logistics serious.

Were the EU to mobilize as if it mattered to the actual population of the EU it could raise several time the army Ukraine have but nobody is actually suggesting that because the people in charge of the actual policy making don't really believe that Russia is a threat to any of the NATO member states.

> Lets talk numbers, rather then just sling cheap unfounded allegations

> Ukraine was a army of maybe 900k uniformed troops

you have provided only 1 number and it was not about EU.

Read again "EU nations" not the "EU", If some subset of the nations that are members of the EU decide to act cooperatively outside of economic policy that is with in their propagative, and wouldn't be too surprising outside of the sheer volume of politics involved.

This is quite a romantic way to describe EU shooting itself in the foot with corrupt politicians and myopic policies.

It's more the US that has corrupt politicians and myopic policies. Trump changes his mind every few days He takes bribes from the Swiss.

The sooner the EU rids itself of the US the better

It's a bad situation allright, but sucking up to Trump even more isn't going to make things better. Europe needs to grow a pair, help Ukraine way more, and be prepared to fight Russia sooner rather than later.

In France recently the army chief-of-staff declared that we must be prepared to "lose its children" in a war, if it wants to avoid it. Of course we should. The resulting outcry may be a sign we've already lost.

Depends on the point of view.

I see it as a great opportunity, that we in the EU get our shit together, to not be dependant on the US anymore. Nor russia. Nor china.

So far we still can afford the luxory of moving the european parliament around once a month, because we cannot agree on one place. Lots of nationalistic idiotic things going on and yes, if those forces win, the EU will fall apart.

If russia graps most of Ukraine, this would be really bad(see the annexion of chzech republic 1938, that gave Hitler lots of weapons he did not had), but it is totally preventable without boots on the ground (russia struggles hard as well). Just not if too many people fall for the russian fueled nationalistic propaganda.

As a European I can agree with the US and China stuff. But a Russian Invasion? Seriously?

As another European: Yes?

Invasion doesn't have to mean they plan to roll tanks all the way to Paris.

Have you realized Russian agents blew up a train in Poland this week, after some weeks prior flying planes and drones into NATO airspace and disrupting air travel in Denmark with drones started from shadow fleet tankers. The grounds for further action are being tested as we speak.

Invasion just means Russian soldiers enter Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finnland. Countries parts of which Putin painted rightfully Russian territories in his speeches. I wouldn't bet a lot on that not happening, especially if the geopolitical situation deteriorates in favor of Putin.

What would Russia hope to gain? How does this compare to alternative naratives? Assuming we both lack real insider infirmatiin, whixh reasonably is more credible?

> What would Russia hope to gain?

Reversal of what Russia sees as a great injustice. The 2021 ultimatum[1] issued on the eve of the war can be summed up as a return to the Europe of 1989 with everything that it entails.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO

> Invasion just means Russian soldiers enter Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finnland.

So invasion means a full war with NATO?

Given the pained debate here by Western Europeans over the semantics of “Europe” and Ukraine’s relationship therewith, it’s very unlikely NATO would act and that’s precisely what the Russians would bet on.

Russia's best case scenario atm is they take more of eastern Ukraine and the west establishes a DMZ not far from the current frontlines. Pushing up anywhere close to Lviv/Polish border would be like winning the lottery given their current track record.

These sorts of wars are very rare in the modern era. They gambled entirely because they faced an army they were 10x the size and they got embarrassed. There's near zero strategic logic in trying again vs NATO after they lost most of their fancy gear.

Slowly then suddenly. Movements in the frontline are gradual until one side is exhausted and collapses. With Trump’s ludicrous “peace” plan, Ukraine would be barred access to US weapons, the size of its military restricted, and Russia would simply rearm and try again.

And despite how things have fared in Ukraine thus far, the Baltics are a much softer target. If Ukraine does end up falling to the Russians, it’ll be used as a springboard by the Russians, potentially supported by Ukrainians disillusioned with the West’s betrayal. It would certainly not be the first time that Russia has annexed Ukraine and mobilized its people against Russia’s foes.

Ukraine has a severe manpower problem, while Russia hasn't even implemented full mobilization yet. They can keep grinding down the existing defenses until there are simply not enough Ukrainians in uniform left to hold the tide, and then things would break down pretty quickly in the absence of external support.

They would still have to contend with an insurgency on occupied territory, but that is something Russia has considerable experience with, including Ukraine in the past (mopping up the remaining nationalist resistance after WW2).

GP is talking about the invasion of Ukraine, taking place just beyond the EU eastern border, and very much shaking up the European security situation, and the EU and its member states are visibly having to "deal with it", diplomatically, economically and in terms of their practical defense postures. That's what they meant with "at the border", and not a literal invasion of the EU.

(Edited for a less confrontational beginning of the first sentence.)

As poor of a state that is Europe's various armies, I'd be very surprised if EU couldn't take on Russia even without the US (who FWIW recently reiterated their commitment to the defense of Europe). Russia's advanced SAMs, radars, and Navy have seriously deteriorated. Their main capability left is submarines and mass Shahed drones whose range can't reach much of Europe.

If Russia's jets can't operate over Ukraine they won't do much in Europe except self-defense of their own homeland.

China on the other hand is a very very serious opponent...

Russia's advanced SAMs and radars are getting clapped by one of the poorest nations in Europe. We're at almost four years of full scale war and the worlds no. 2 military has not been able to get air superiority over a small airforce of cold war left overs. Just the airforces of the Nordic countries alone would run rings around the russian airforce and their air defence.

Yeah it's all very dumb. The rest of Europe is protected by no less then three state nuclear triads. Ukraine was not.

Both USA and China are having much worse systemic economical issues than EU.

The EU is not facing a Russian invasion on their Eastern border. It (or perhaps we should say NATO) is participating in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.

Sharing intel is another big thing. Without US satellite imagery and gps coordinates Ukraine soldiers would not know what to shoot at.

A referendum about whether the EU should "put boots on the ground" seems like a good idea to me as long as only those who vote yes get deployed.

> A referendum about whether the EU should "put boots on the ground" seems like a good idea to me as long as only those who vote yes get deployed.

Politics (almost) never works like this. In a secret vote, you don't even know who voted yes or no or at all.

Given the demographics of Europe, what this means is that old people will vote for young people to be fed into a meat mincer just so they can keep collecting their pensions for a couple decades more. Let's call a spade a spade then. This guy is doing just that: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2025/11/20/outcry-a...

I think you are misreading the article. The general is warning that if we do not show preparedness and willingness now, in the long run it will cost more.

Si vis pacem para bellum

That sounds to me like a bunch of individual countries deciding to independently put boots on the ground. At that point what are they voting on as a group? (Though maybe that’s just what you’re suggesting should be done and I’m missing it)

I also wonder what good any sort of military/defensive pact is if any country can unilaterally decide when or when not to participate. It means you can’t depend on it and you may as well not have it then right? To be clear I am not saying military pacts are a good thing, but they do currently exist and participating counties can’t (at least shouldn’t) just pretend they aren’t part of one when it’s inconvenient.

And the people who vote yes should have to actually go themselves and lead from the front, not pull a Putin and simply declare war (er, special operation) while hiding under a bunker.

And all those who vote no get sold into slavery to Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com