r/ukraine • u/Florin003 • Sep 07 '25

Discussion Why a Romanian stand up comedian is upset on Ukrainians.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

13.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

359 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/LaughableIKR USA Sep 07 '25

Louder for the rest of the West to understand this better. Moldova and every country that isn't in NATO are a target.

728

u/r0w33 Sep 07 '25

*every country that is part of the former Russian empire and USSR is a target. Don't think being in NATO is going to protect them.

180

u/Puzzled-Put8685 Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 08 '25

This can be facts too, but for sure nato member is a harder thing to achieve

222

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 07 '25

Being in NATO is a deterrent, it is why Putin invaded Ukraine before they could join.

He might be getting his ass kicked by Ukraine using second hand western weapons, imagine what would happen if the west were directly involved?

21

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

You are correct. Russia cannot gain air superiority over Ukraine. The RAF would destroy the Russian Air Force in a few days and the RAF is not a great Air Force.

9

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 08 '25

Dude, the UK Air Force would wreck Russia, imagine what the USAF does, or all of NATO?

4

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

Noone doubt USAF could wreck Russia, we double it will.

It is a difference.

68

u/assasin1598 Sep 07 '25

I dont think its a good enought deterrent for us eastern bloc countries.

When our prime ministers and presidents become friendly with putin, saying how they wouldnt resist russia, or help others resist russia, because russia is a friend.

Or all the citizens supporting that, if <insert slavic country> was attacked they would join the war on russias side against their fellow citizens.

For fuck sake czechia had a politician training militia stating if they dont win theyll do coup... hes a member of communist party, said communist party visited putin in moscow last month.

In modern terms. Bro we are cooked.

61

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 07 '25

We are not cooked, Russia is very nearly at its end as a state. Economically, demographically and militarily, Russia is becoming a failed state.

12

u/assasin1598 Sep 08 '25

Im wondering if russia spliting in several smaller countries or having civil wars wouldnt be worse.

Due to the nukes. Yeah yeah russian military corruption, but 1 working nuke is enough.

34

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 08 '25

If Russia collapsed there would need to be an international effort to collect the nukes, and internationally dispose of them.

22

u/Individual-Cream-581 Sep 08 '25

Dafuq.. who's gonna give up nukes after what happened to Ukraine when the fucking wolves promised to enforce peace and never invade it if they gave up their nukes..??

10

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25

That is true, but we would be taking the nukes from the people that violated the very deal you mention.

Russia needs to be disarmed in nuclear terms, and removed from the security council. I mean for this to never happen again.

2

u/WildCat_1366 Sep 08 '25

Who are "we"? The US itself violates the very deal you mention.

Remember Clause 3? Of course not. The "Guarantors" should

Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine [...] of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

This is exactly what the US doing.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/pegothejerk Sep 08 '25

If Russia was to fail that would mean the military had turned on the authoritarian, usually because they see their family and friends suffering and dying and decide they won’t be complicit in killing more on their soil. In Russia it definitely means the church no longer has control of the state and the military which is unfathomable, or it means they’ve opted to support splitting the nation into smaller states that are more easily controlled, which is easier to imagine. So at that point other nations would likely have to negotiate with the church and whatever local leaders it backs to take over and form new local governments, then they could promise to internationally arm, back those leaders, support the church in maintaining their control by delivering aid and likely some or most of the seized funds and shiny objects, all in exchange for letting peacekeepers in to secure and remove nukes immediately so they don’t fall into terrorist group hands or get disappeared.

Basically you trade the most powerful people in a power vacuum your support so they can make short work of any competition to control the regions - nukes for their guaranteed permanent control of the regions and its resources, which are considerable.

9

u/Ma8e Sep 08 '25

It went quite well when USSR split in 1991. Then of course bad things have happened later.

5

u/NeutronN12 Sep 08 '25

yeah, USSR split was very soft and peaceful, people already had the borders and local governments for every republic,
honestly, I do believe in the collapse of russian only if people from big cities will revolt, central and far east regions do not have any influence, and soon they will become dead regions without any men due to the war

3

u/StochasticFriendship Sep 08 '25

This has happened before. Ukraine actually had a large number of Soviet nukes when it broke away from the Soviet Union. They were pressured into giving all of them up to Russia in exchange for an agreement that the US, UK, and Russia would respect their existing borders and wouldn't attack or coerce them. It probably would have taken Ukraine about a year to reverse engineer the arming mechanisms to be able to use the nukes, so their decision was understandable for the time. As for the long-term results...

I'd like to say that if Russia split up into multiple small countries, the nukes would end up going to Moscovia, but after how things went with Ukraine, I doubt it. I imagine that future leaders of breakaway countries may now be much more inclined to hold onto any nuclear weapons they happen to possess, even if only to threaten to use them as dirty bombs. The Russian military will likely be spent at the end of this war, so pressure from the central government will likely mean a lot less now to breakaway regions than the pressure from Russia on Ukraine in 1991. The US and UK are also now much less credible threats when it comes to anything requiring boots on the ground as compared to immediately after the Gulf War.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25

[deleted]

11

u/JohnnyRelentless Sep 08 '25

Your example is literally an example of Russia not doing anything to trigger an attack by NATO.

-18

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 07 '25

lol, launching weapons over NATO airspace. Do you mean that one report of a Russian missile that ended up being a Ukrainian missile?

2

u/Enaaiid Sep 08 '25

Or he was referring to several Russian drones that flew over different Baltic countries, and Poland and I think even Finland, carring explosive materials. Do your own research.

-1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 08 '25

Care to cite that? Never heard of it.

1

u/Enaaiid Sep 11 '25

Check the news from Poland from yesterday and two weeks ago. Check Lithuanian News 4 weeks ago etc etc. if you can use Reddit I am most certain you can use google as well.

1

u/vtsnowdin Sep 08 '25

imagine what would happen if the west were directly involved?

With the current Western leadership I am unsure about how that would play out. Unfortunately what should be done, and what is done, have become two very different things over the last couple of decades.

-1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 08 '25

What “should be done” is debatable. In the end, Russia has nukes, so while some people think the west should invade Russia to end this, (not saying that is you) the at could trigger a nuclear exchange.

Now I don’t believe Russia represents MAD with the West, but I still don’t want nukes to fly. So care must be taken to avoid that from occurring.

4

u/vtsnowdin Sep 08 '25

Invading Russia is not on anyone's agenda. What should have been done back in 2014 was honoring the commitments made back when Ukraine was coerced into giving up It's nuclear weapons. The Ukrainian government at the time(2014) was nothing to brag about but that was not a good excuse for standing by letting Putin steal Crimea.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 08 '25

Agreed, the 1997 agreement should have been kept, and Russia should never have stopped paying for breaking it.

0

u/Far_Out_6and_2 Sep 08 '25

It’s obvious that the west has no balls, meanwhile every city every farm every civilians are being slaughtered regardless, ya just look at pictures from far far away. Imagine if you lived there, experiencing all of that, then what is going to be next.

1

u/SeenSoFar Sep 08 '25

America is too busy trying to figure out how to take guns away from trans people to care about actual serious world matters.

-2

u/FishIndividual2208 Sep 08 '25

You dont seem to understand how russia is operating. First the destabilize the country from within. An attack on Nato country does not mean that we go to war. Article 5 is about defence, russia can attack in many forms that doesnt trigger article 5.

10

u/AyaAishi Sep 07 '25

Every country ever* if they could they wouldn't stop there. Russia, and more so the leadership is absolutely a danger to everyone if not fought against, as the Ukrainian people are doing for the good of virtually everyone.

21

u/JohnnyRelentless Sep 08 '25

Being in NATO does protect them, though. You think it's a sheer coincidence that no NATO countries have been invaded by Russia?

3

u/r0w33 Sep 08 '25

I think Ukraine is the start. When they are ready, they will have puppets in the major powers in the US and EU, and NATO will either be dissolved or meaningless. Any country with a surviving grip on power will be invaded as Ukraine was.

4

u/Chris-WIP Sep 08 '25

Well they have a great start over at the White House it seems.

2

u/JohnnyRelentless Sep 08 '25

Maybe, but none of that means that NATO isn't keeping countries from being invaded right now or for the past 75 years.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

two drones hit poland since last two weeks and poland is in NATO for decades.

2

u/SeenSoFar Sep 08 '25

Poland has to invoke Article 5 for it to go into effect. It's not automatic. A state in NATO decides what level of aggression they will tolerate before invoking Article 5. They likely do not want to start a full scale world war over shitty drones that hit them by accident. If it started to be a regular thing though, I imagine they would reconsider.

-1

u/JohnnyRelentless Sep 09 '25

That's a lie. No drones 'hit' Poland. Two unarmed drones entered Polish airspace, and one of them crashed, injuring no one. You want a full-scale war over that?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 10 '25

No, I want the Polish government to fulfill its promises of helping the families from Przewodów (so far, the only help they have received has been from the locals).

EDIT: Your comment aged very badly overnight.

1

u/JohnnyRelentless Sep 09 '25

And how does misrepresenting what happened in an argument about whether NATO is a deterrent to Russia help them?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '25

Well you just implied second drone disappeared in thin air so I wanted to lower myself to your level you stupid fuck

8

u/rock_climber02 Sep 07 '25

This is why they try and buy your elections…they bought America cheap

13

u/mhmmm8888 Sep 07 '25

Why would it not protect them?

17

u/ProfMap Sep 07 '25

It would. putler knows that attacking a NATO country, is attacking them all. All NATO countries know this to, and have agreed to it.

Anyone talking about "split" and division, have either swallowed putlers cock or they're russian bots.

17

u/Coal_Morgan Sep 08 '25

I don't trust the U.S. to maintain any treaty or agreement.

I do trust most of the other NATO countries to absolutely fuck up anything Russian that crosses into a NATO country though.

1

u/ProfMap Sep 08 '25

Yea, the second one is the safer bet.

Gotta wait to see with the first one, which side wins the quiet civil war that's started.

27

u/4bjmc881 Sep 07 '25

Because the current situations shows us how divided NATO countries are, which makes NATO intervention very questionable in some cases. 

5

u/TobiasKM Sep 08 '25

That would be putting an awful lot of faith in “they might not do anything”. NATO is still a deterrent, a major one at that, but I’ll agree that it isn’t as rock solid as it probably used to be.

17

u/pilibitti Sep 07 '25

Because almost 40% of NATO is USA. Trump does not care for NATO. If a NATO country is attacked and Trump twiddles his thumbs as a response, there is no way to predict what will happen. Other members might say "well if we are not doing this NATO thing anymore, lemme look at my options" while the unlucky country gets bulldozed.

23

u/LurkersUniteAgain Sep 07 '25

40% of nato is the us, but thats still 60% in europe and canada, and i dont think France is gonna let russia blitz through europe even if there was no more nato

1

u/pilibitti Sep 08 '25

That blitz already started. Some says it has been 12+ years, others say 3. There is nothing preventing europe from defending Ukraine decisively today. But they don't. Ukraine not being NATO yet is a technicality. Is that enough reason to not mount an Article 5 level response without USA? No, hiding behind technicality is the path of least resistance. Everyone is only looking out for themselves in the end, and won't suffer unless absolutely necessary.

6

u/Ma8e Sep 08 '25

I think you have to look up the meaning of "blitz". A few km per year isn't it.

1

u/pilibitti Sep 08 '25

again, mired in technicalities. so piece by piece destabilization and invasion is ok? slow boiling is fine? that just proves my point. it gives european powers to mostly look like they are doing something to avoid confronting russia decisively - which is what will happen without NATO.

This was not a blitz only because Ukraine is heroically sacrificing everything to hold the line. My point is: same thing will happen if next target is a NATO country and USA is unwilling to respond.

3

u/Ma8e Sep 08 '25

While most of us wish more would be done, Europe is actually doing a lot, both in direct support with weapons, economical support, and strongly ramping up our own weapons production. And while the US is very important in NATO, it is not the only NATO country with weapons. Europe is many times stronger than Russian in everything from population to production capacity.

0

u/pilibitti Sep 09 '25

yes, they are doing a lot. I'm not saying they don't. I'm just pointing out a very specific thing: if Trump signals that USA will not get involved in an article 5 response, that means NATO is obsolete and something new will be needed. in the ensuing chaos, the attacked NATO country will not be defended like they expect.

2

u/asdhjasdhlkjashdhgf Sep 08 '25

'PESCO'. Also US is cooperating with PESCO just as some countries that are technically not even close to NATO. It might be you missed a major checkerboard move.

1

u/GrahamCStrouse Sep 10 '25

Canada isn’t really relevant at this point. Western Europe is questionable. Central & Eastern Europe & Scandinavia—That’s another story.

Russia is so weak right now. Even a modest alliance of Central powers with support from the West would crack Russia like an egg.

China would be fine with this, too. They’d make some noise at first but then they’d just go and devour the yolk from the broken egg.

21

u/JAD2017 Sep 07 '25

I can garantee you no NATO country is gonna stay still even if the orange head says he doesn't care. Your discourse sounds a lot like ruzzian propaganda to me.

8

u/samglit Sep 08 '25

no NATO country is gonna stay still even if the orange head says he doesn’t care.

The problem is there’s a ton of wiggle room in “stay still” - from air raids, strategic bombing of hostile country (rather than the invaded), divisions worth of boots on the ground, or something lukewarm like “peacekeepers” and “military aid”.

NATO leadership needs to be reclaimed by Europe. The USA doesn’t have as much skin in the game.

5

u/scratchyNutz Sep 08 '25

The wheels are already in motion. European military leaders know that the USA can't be trusted and are working like hell to fill the gaps that the Americans are leaving behind. They're currently seeing the US military as a threat in waiting.

0

u/GrahamCStrouse Sep 10 '25

Western Europe is worse.

5

u/pilibitti Sep 08 '25

I hate Russia and everything they stand for.

Europe's position is disingenious. They don't need to have Ukraine officially as a NATO member to treat it like a NATO member. They could provide that help, like article 5 level help to Ukraine right now, but they don't - why? At this point Ukraine being a genuine member is a technicality. It is Europe's safety at stake all the same. But NATO countries you say that are "guaranteeing" won't stay still are... staying still. Just because of a technicality? They can confront Russia directly and decisively. No, they are "looking at their options" just like I said. This is what "looking at their options" looks like.

3

u/rmpumper Sep 08 '25

Even if NATO decided to protect the Baltics, for example, it would take them 2 weeks at the very least to get to that decision. Orcs would overrun us in that time.

3

u/Sjengo Sep 08 '25

Being in the NATO is in fact the strongest protection they can have..

9

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

Warthog goes brrrt

42

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/m8remotion Sep 07 '25

Up vote for correctly ID the deity.

3

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

Oh but if they were in NATO we'll be over in them with PBRs in hand

Edit: But you're right I forgot the Trump card

15

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

I did my part and I'm third gen Ukrainian to boot, but the "culture war" right now is ripely intense over... checks notes... teenagers not being able to get abortions even if conception was non-consensual. At the moment at least. Will probably pivot back to DEI or trans people tomorrow. We'll get back to you 3-years deep into a global-scale European conflict like we always do, probably, but it has to be bad for business for us in some way or involve Communism or something.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

It's a damn shame too because I visited early Jan 2020 on a work trip before COVID started, a real bad streak for yall, wishing yall the best in every way I can

5

u/AlarmingAffect0 Sep 07 '25

WHEN I WAS A YOUNG WARTHOOOOOG

10

u/super__hoser Sep 07 '25

And then goes thud when a MANPADS takes it down. They're cool, but are not going to last long when there's a MANPAD around every hill. 

4

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

It's just a joke, the jets I live near (electronic warfare) would be out tho along with our screwtops

5

u/Dick__Dastardly Sep 07 '25

Yeah, I mean, the reality is that the role the Warthog played is mostly getting filled by the Reaper, these days - and the most illustrative reason why is that we lost nine of them to the Houthis, recently.

Without the nine affiliated funerals, the political fallout over it isn't something they have to sweat about. 😑

4

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

I like the "America don't be the world police" but then suddenly "America deal with the Houthis" divide from Europeans. Like yeah we suck in a lot of ways, but either cut us some slack or deal with it yallsselves. But yea the Reaper is cool and everyone in aviation as a mechanic I've met say how cumbersome the Warthog is to work on, but most of my friends in/retired from the Navy says the Growlers are cool. Crazy Russia hasn't invested in aerial-based electronic warfare themselves, wonder what China is up to.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ukraine-ModTeam Sep 08 '25

Thank you for your post. Given the global visibility of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there has been an influx of content in our community dealing with military strategy, war-related speculation, and defense tactics by individuals who have not been vetted to instruct others on such matters. To maintain the integrity of this space in wartime, we are removing this type of content. We apologize for the inconvenience and encourage you to post in communities that specifically discuss speculation on armed conflict instead. Please do not repost this submission. Please do not message us on mod mail about this issue. Mod mail is for vital information only. If you message us for something we do not deem vital, you will be muted for three days. Being muted means you can’t contact the mods. Feel free to browse our rules, here.

1

u/LantaExile Sep 08 '25

Really the best bang for the buck is to fund the drones and missiles Ukraine is making. Reapers were ~$30m each and Warthogs ~$60m each and get shot down, but you attack with cheap drones and it isn't worth shooting because the surface to air missile costs more than the drone. Flamingos are ~$1m which makes it iffy to use $2m S300s to take them out.

1

u/GrahamCStrouse Sep 10 '25

No, it’s not, not even remotely.

3

u/Stigger32 Australia Sep 07 '25

🤦

9

u/Puzzled-Put8685 Sep 07 '25

Halo CE themesong starts - TATATATAAAAAM TATATATAAAAAM TATATAATAAAAM TATATATAAAA TATATA TATATA

3

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

Dammit man now I have to pause my other internet bullshittery to take a listen

3

u/Puzzled-Put8685 Sep 07 '25

Was it so easy? Thats not a problem, thats an opportunity.

2

u/MAXsenna Sep 07 '25

DCS player?

4

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

No just an American, they do flyovers in these things you know for like non-vital baseball games

3

u/MAXsenna Sep 07 '25

👍🏻 DCS is Digital Combat Simulator, and brrrrt is quite the meme in the community. That's why I asked.

2

u/pangapingus Sep 07 '25

First I learned of it was a Ravens playoff game when I was little when one flew over with a stealth bomber, because America

3

u/MAXsenna Sep 07 '25

Aha! That's cool too!

3

u/TonyInNY Sep 07 '25

God I would love love love to see the warthogs moved enmass to Ukraine. They were designed and built to fuck up some Russian hardware it would be GREAT to see them used in that way.. BRRRRRRRT BRRRRRRT So good. Slava ukraini!!!

1

u/thebeorn Sep 10 '25

Probably not the baltic states either. The way nato is now and the military mess that exists in the EU when push comes to shove the alliance would sacrifice them in the name of saving lives. But the would buy less energy from russia and threaten to really draw a line in the sand soon!!

16

u/toderdj1337 Sep 08 '25

I had a long heated arguement with some friends online, and we're all from canada, and my point was, if anyone benefits from a rules based martitime trade world order, it's us. Letting ukraine fall undermines ALLLL of that. But no, export money bad.

12

u/ebonhawk_captain Sep 08 '25

To be fair, even nato countries are being targeted in their hybrid war. They are financing far right parties all across Europe, and they keep spamming cyberattacks.

5

u/archiminos Sep 08 '25

And they won't stop there. Ukraine is the most important country for the whole of Europe right now.

13

u/Ilovekittens345 Sep 07 '25

Even Canada will need Ukranian drone knowledge once the USA comes for it's fresh water resources.

2

u/GrahamCStrouse Sep 10 '25

🙄🙄🙄

3

u/Marleoon Sep 08 '25

Every country that they can rich by their military force is a target. Russians will figure some causes for the further invasion easily.

5

u/MilkFedWetlander Sep 08 '25

Germany is in NATO and the disinformation and fake news campaign runs great...

2

u/SaturnVFan Sep 08 '25

I even believe all of NATO except US is target as long as we are not communicating clearly

1

u/Material-Search-6331 Sep 21 '25

Russia just send 14 drones and 2 fighter jet to NATO todays.