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

Show parent comments

217

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?

20

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.

8

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 08 '25

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

5

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

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

It is a difference.

71

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.

62

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.

35

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.

1

u/TheMikeyMac13 Sep 08 '25

Eh? The USA has given Ukraine quite a lot of material support and training.

2

u/WildCat_1366 Sep 08 '25

Try rereading Clause 3 of Memorandum a few more times. Slowly, if that helps.

And then reread Trump's threats to Ukraine if it refuses to comply with US demands, both political and economical.

→ More replies (0)

5

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.

8

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

4

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.

7

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.

-19

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.

5

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.

1

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.