|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On November 24 2025 16:50 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2025 16:44 spets1 wrote:
Russia can't do that and will not do that because they see NATO in Ukraine as an existential threat
There plenty EU diplomats saying it could be a basis for peace, you just listen to propaganda channels you're missing all the info
Can you explain how NATO is an existential threat exactly? I'm really wondering how Russia sees it that way.
From Moscow’s point of view, NATO on Ukraine’s territory is not “another alliance” or “defensive posture” — it is an existential threat for three concrete, non-negotiable reasons that any Russian leader would view the same way:
1. Loss of strategic depth
The European plain from the Polish border to Moscow is flat, featureless tank country. In 1941 the Wehrmacht covered the same distance in 5–6 months. With NATO bases in Kharkiv (400 km from Moscow) or with U.S. strike systems in Ukraine, Russia’s early-warning time collapses from weeks to minutes. Hypersonic or fractional-orbital systems stationed there could hit Russia’s command-and-control and nuclear forces before Moscow could reliably respond. That is not paranoia; that is basic physics and geography.
2. Decapitation / first-strike danger
Russia’s second-strike nuclear deterrent (mobile ICBMs, submarines, bombers) is concentrated west of the Urals. NATO deep-strike weapons (ATACMS, Storm Shadow, eventually U.S. intermediate-range missiles once the INF Treaty is dead) deployed in Ukraine put the entire western strategic rocket forces, the National Command Authority in Moscow, and the Northern Fleet’s ballistic-missile submarines within 5–10 minute flight time. In crisis, the Kremlin has to choose between “launch on warning” (risking accidental war) or losing its deterrent. No power accepts that vulnerability.
3. The ultimate buffer disappears
Ukraine is not Latvia or Estonia — tiny countries Russia can live with in NATO. Ukraine is 600,000 km² of land that, if hostile and NATO-armed, cuts Russia off from the Black Sea, blocks the land bridge to Crimea, and turns the entire southwest flank into one giant NATO front. Russia’s ability to survive a conventional war on its own territory collapses the moment NATO controls both the northern European plain (Poland/Baltics) and the southern European plain (Ukraine). Historically, every single invasion of Russia came across that plain. Lose it, and you lose the ability to trade space for time — the core of Russian military doctrine for 400 years.
Put differently: NATO in Ukraine is the military equivalent of a loaded pistol held to Russia’s temple, with someone else’s finger on the trigger. Defensive intent today does not matter; capabilities and geography do. Intentions change overnight; 400 km of flat land do not.
That is why every single Russian leader since 1991 has called Ukraine in NATO a red line, why Putin repeated it endlessly for 15 years, and why Russia finally used force when it concluded the West would never stop. From the Kremlin’s desk, this is not about “empire” or “sphere of influence” — it is about physical survival of the Russian state.
|
On November 24 2025 16:50 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2025 16:44 spets1 wrote:
Russia can't do that and will not do that because they see NATO in Ukraine as an existential threat
There plenty EU diplomats saying it could be a basis for peace, you just listen to propaganda channels you're missing all the info
Can you explain how NATO is an existential threat exactly? I'm really wondering how Russia sees it that way.
It's just a talking point. It has no basis in reality. Ukraine promised not to join NATO at the start of the war. Russia rejected that deal.
It's like the talking point about this war being supposedly orchestrated by the US. Suddenly they stopped talking about it after the US switched sides. How is it that the US is pulling the strings, forcing Ukraine to fight Russia, while Trump is in charge and is helping Russia?
|
On November 24 2025 16:55 spets1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2025 16:50 Uldridge wrote:On November 24 2025 16:44 spets1 wrote:
Russia can't do that and will not do that because they see NATO in Ukraine as an existential threat
There plenty EU diplomats saying it could be a basis for peace, you just listen to propaganda channels you're missing all the info
Can you explain how NATO is an existential threat exactly? I'm really wondering how Russia sees it that way. From Moscow’s point of view, NATO on Ukraine’s territory is not “another alliance” or “defensive posture” — it is an existential threat for three concrete, non-negotiable reasons that any Russian leader would view the same way: 1. Loss of strategic depth The European plain from the Polish border to Moscow is flat, featureless tank country. In 1941 the Wehrmacht covered the same distance in 5–6 months. With NATO bases in Kharkiv (400 km from Moscow) or with U.S. strike systems in Ukraine, Russia’s early-warning time collapses from weeks to minutes. Hypersonic or fractional-orbital systems stationed there could hit Russia’s command-and-control and nuclear forces before Moscow could reliably respond. That is not paranoia; that is basic physics and geography. 2. Decapitation / first-strike danger Russia’s second-strike nuclear deterrent (mobile ICBMs, submarines, bombers) is concentrated west of the Urals. NATO deep-strike weapons (ATACMS, Storm Shadow, eventually U.S. intermediate-range missiles once the INF Treaty is dead) deployed in Ukraine put the entire western strategic rocket forces, the National Command Authority in Moscow, and the Northern Fleet’s ballistic-missile submarines within 5–10 minute flight time. In crisis, the Kremlin has to choose between “launch on warning” (risking accidental war) or losing its deterrent. No power accepts that vulnerability. 3. The ultimate buffer disappears Ukraine is not Latvia or Estonia — tiny countries Russia can live with in NATO. Ukraine is 600,000 km² of land that, if hostile and NATO-armed, cuts Russia off from the Black Sea, blocks the land bridge to Crimea, and turns the entire southwest flank into one giant NATO front. Russia’s ability to survive a conventional war on its own territory collapses the moment NATO controls both the northern European plain (Poland/Baltics) and the southern European plain (Ukraine). Historically, every single invasion of Russia came across that plain. Lose it, and you lose the ability to trade space for time — the core of Russian military doctrine for 400 years. Put differently: NATO in Ukraine is the military equivalent of a loaded pistol held to Russia’s temple, with someone else’s finger on the trigger. Defensive intent today does not matter; capabilities and geography do. Intentions change overnight; 400 km of flat land do not. That is why every single Russian leader since 1991 has called Ukraine in NATO a red line, why Putin repeated it endlessly for 15 years, and why Russia finally used force when it concluded the West would never stop. From the Kremlin’s desk, this is not about “empire” or “sphere of influence” — it is about physical survival of the Russian state.
Again with the AI slop. When are you going to address my counterarguments?
|
im gonna stop to reply to maybenexttime because he is clueless and i dont want to educate him on everything, that would be like writing an essay but this 5 year old would still not get it
|
On November 24 2025 16:55 spets1 wrote:
Thanks for that, but you also know that Russia can/could have join(ed) NATO right?
All the explanation is for naught when you become allies and suddenly every threat of "invasion" is gone.
|
On November 24 2025 17:02 Uldridge wrote:Thanks for that, but you also know that Russia can/could have join(ed) NATO right? All the explanation is for naught when you become allies and suddenly every threat of "invasion" is gone.
Actually Russia asked to join NATO and was rejected ufortunately
Here is Putin talking about it that even USSR asked to join nato in 1954 and he asked again to join NATO in 2000s
https://x.com/MonitorX99800/status/1992220501586911688
Also Yeltsin asked in 1991: Boris Yeltsin's Letter
Following the Soviet Union's dissolution, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner, echoing earlier Soviet-era ideas from Mikhail Gorbachev (who had floated joining in 1990–1991). Yeltsin called NATO membership a "long-term political aim" for Russia, aligning with former Warsaw Pact states like Hungary.
|
On November 24 2025 16:46 spets1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2025 16:44 maybenexttime wrote:On November 24 2025 16:39 spets1 wrote:On November 24 2025 16:30 maybenexttime wrote:On November 24 2025 14:25 spets1 wrote:On November 24 2025 13:55 Doublemint wrote:
this deep state you are talking about, is there something like it in Russia too or is this a western thing? or government corruption on every level...
or being brainwashed?
if calling the last - almost - 4 years of "special operation" winning... I genuinely wonder what it means to lose Tavarish?
also, the last word has not been spoken on any sort of peace deal. don't make Trump's mistake of declaring victory prematurely. based on lies, wishful thinking and delusions of grandeur.
come to think of it, that's something Russia did way before Trump. The deep state is only in US and the West. In Russia you don't need a deep state because Putin is basically a dictator. All is pretty much in the open. The war that the Russians and Ukrainian are fighting tactically is called war of attrition, which is different. So you can't really tell who's winning by looking at territorial gain. You gotta dig a bit deeper. And that's why propaganda tailored to the west is so easily able to push the narrative as if Ukraine is winning, or is about to win, or even doing well. Yes there's no last word yet. But you can already see that the US has basically given up and want to cut their losses. You can see it from the way they are actually discussing this 28 point peace plan. Maybe they even smartened up and realised that they need to save their resources for countering china cos the biggest winner from this war is China and they are the one US has to worry about. Russia's Soviet stock is nearly gone. The manpower shortages are so bad that you need North Koreans, Cubans, Africans, and who knows who else to bail you out, yet several regions are cutting their sign-on bonuses because they're running out of money. The Kremlin is also running out of money, it started selling its gold reserves. Soon enough they might start rounding up cowards like you as they run out of their current bullet sponges. On November 24 2025 15:54 spets1 wrote:
But if Ukraine is doing so well, if Europe is so much stronger than Russia, why is the proposal for peace is basically a surrender? Why is it even being entertained by the Ukraine and the EU? Because having the US engaged on the Ukrainian side, selling weapons and providing intel is better than not having that. It's called diplomacy. They were flaunting early on that their goals is to destabilize Russia so much it falls and breaks into smaller parts. That Ukraine will retake all territory and maybe even get into russia and take some. And now they are on board with such horrible proposal? What changed? Who was doing that? Where did you hear that? Ah yes the name-calling returns, a good sign as you have nothing to say worth considering Are you not a cowards? Cheerleading a genocidal war from the safety of your home? No it's actually what you're doing,.you want the war to go on
They even have a word for people like you. A peacemongerer
|
On November 24 2025 17:06 spets1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2025 17:02 Uldridge wrote:On November 24 2025 16:55 spets1 wrote: Thanks for that, but you also know that Russia can/could have join(ed) NATO right? All the explanation is for naught when you become allies and suddenly every threat of "invasion" is gone. Actually Russia asked to join NATO and was rejected ufortunately Here is Putin talking about it that even USSR asked to join nato in 1954 and he asked again to join NATO in 2000s https://x.com/MonitorX99800/status/1992220501586911688Also Yeltsin asked in 1991: Boris Yeltsin's Letter Following the Soviet Union's dissolution, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote to NATO Secretary General Manfred Wörner, echoing earlier Soviet-era ideas from Mikhail Gorbachev (who had floated joining in 1990–1991). Yeltsin called NATO membership a "long-term political aim" for Russia, aligning with former Warsaw Pact states like Hungary.
You know of course that NATO was created to protect from the USSR? Would be weird if they let them join without question. Still, Russia got invited to sit on the council, and there was closer cooperation in 2002 but it all went to hell during Putin's second term when Russia invaded Georgia and Putin started assassinating his political rivals.
Also, I don't know why now Russia is bringing up issues with Ukraine joining NATO. To quote their great leader:
Russian president Putin said in May 2005,
"I do not really understand exactly how ... the expansion of NATO to take in our Baltic neighbors can bring greater security. If other former Soviet republics want to join NATO, our attitude will remain the same. But I want to stress that we will respect their choice because it is their sovereign right to decide their own defense policy and this will not worsen relations between our countries"
So, in 2005 Putin had nothing against former USSR republics joining NATO and making sovereign decisions. Now it's a problem for him?
|
I don't know why he said that, but my guess would be because russia was weak post-Cold War. He was trying to play nice, Russia was cooperating with NATO via the 2002 Founding Act and the NATO-Russia Council. The Baltics—tiny, non-nuclear, and geographically peripheral—didn't fundamentally threaten Russia's core security (like ukraine does, read my post above why Ukraine in NATO is life threatening to Russia). In 2004–2005 Russia still believed the West might stop at the Baltic states and treat further expansion as negotiable. By 2007–2008 (Munich speech, Georgia war, Bucharest “Ukraine and Georgia will become members” declaration) it became clear the West was not stopping.
|
On November 24 2025 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2025 16:04 pmp10 wrote:On November 24 2025 13:23 spets1 wrote:
The problem is that you guys have been brainwashed into believing that Ukraine can somehow win or even sustain this war. Russia is winning the war and this is why the conditions of the peace on the table are basically the same as surrender. The conditions are not even close to surrender. Even under this deal Ukraine will continue to align westwards, which makes further wars inevitable. When you look at the terms only giving up Donbass would be really hard to stomach, the rest is down to Zelensky resisting the end of his political career. You are clueless. If Ukraine accepts this deal, they have to decrease their army by half and disarm, and give up key strongholds in Donbas. After that happens, Russia can fake a rocket attack on Moscow, giving Trump the green light to bail, while Russia resumes its invasion from a much better position, against a much weaker enemy.
The latest draft terms allowed for far bigger peace-time army than Ukraine can afford to field and no weaponry limitations.
Also Donbas fortifications are irrelevant, they weren't made with a drone war in mind and Ukraine no longer has the troops to man them anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
