How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

2025-11-2112:12470504www.heise.de

Nicolas Guillou has been sanctioned by the USA as a judge of the International Criminal Court. He notices the effects primarily in the digital realm.

Digital sovereignty has been much discussed in Europe in recent weeks, most recently during a German-French summit in Berlin. The extent of dependence on the USA in the digital sector is currently being experienced by a French judge. Nicolas Guillou, one of six judges and three prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC), was sanctioned by the USA in August. He described his current situation as a digital time travel back to the 1990s, before the internet age, in a recent interview.

The reason for the US sanctions are the arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. They were indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the context of the destruction of the Gaza Strip. The USA condemned this decision by the court, whereupon the US Treasury Department sanctioned six judges and three prosecutors.

In Guillou's daily life, this means that he is excluded from digital life and much of what is considered standard today, he told the French newspaper Le Monde. All his accounts with US companies such as Amazon, Airbnb, or PayPal were immediately closed by the providers. Online bookings, such as through Expedia, are immediately canceled, even if they concern hotels in France. Participation in e-commerce is also practically no longer possible for him, as US companies always play a role in one way or another, and they are strictly forbidden to enter into any trade relationship with sanctioned individuals.

He also describes the impact on participating in banking as drastic. Payment systems are blocked for him, as US companies like American Express, Visa, and Mastercard have a virtual monopoly in Europe. He also describes the rest of banking as severely restricted. For example, accounts with non-US banks have also been partially closed. Transactions in US dollars or via dollar conversions are forbidden to him.

Guillou's case shows how strong the USA's influence in the tech sector is and how few options he has to circumvent it. And this at a time when an account with a US tech company is considered a matter of course in more and more places.

The French judge advocates for Europe to gain more sovereignty in the digital and banking sectors. Without this sovereignty, the rule of law cannot be guaranteed, he warns. At the same time, he calls on the EU to activate an existing blocking regulation (Regulation (EC) No 2271/96) for the International Criminal Court, which prevents third countries like the USA from enforcing sanctions in the EU. EU companies would then no longer be allowed to comply with US sanctions if they violate EU interests. Companies that violate this would then be liable for damages.

(mki)

Don't miss any news – follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn or Mastodon.

This article was originally published in German. It was translated with technical assistance and editorially reviewed before publication.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By general1465 2025-11-2117:365 reply

    The more USA is going to use this leaver, the likely they will make this leaver useless in the future. Like with China, when they overused chips leaver which stunted China for a while, but eventually gave them a way to establish their own chip industry. Now that leaver is becoming effectively useless. It will ends up same with EU.

    • By KK7NIL 2025-11-2117:479 reply

      The best China has is an internationally uncompetitive "7nm" fab and that's the best they'll have until they can manufacture EUV machines domestically.

      So the EUV blockade has absolutely been effective and the fact that the PRC is paying so many shills to convince westerners otherwise just shows how behind they are.

      • By TrainedMonkey 2025-11-2117:582 reply

        I noticed that people love pointing how far AI field has advanced in a few years and extrapolate next few years. While at the same time being dismissive of Chinese semiconductor manufacturing process. In similar vein I also remember claims that TSMC Fab in Arizona can never work, and yet it does. So I don't know man, I wouldn't underestimate what a billion of enterprising people can do. Especially when paired with the system that has a pipeline of funneling smart people into elite schools.

        • By op00to 2025-11-2118:094 reply

          Underestimating China seems like a really, really, really stupid thing to do.

          • By tracker1 2025-11-2119:331 reply

            I don't think the US is underestimating China... I do think that the US is preemptively shoring up a domestic posture against long term changes. It would be a pretty bad strategy to continue to outsource everything and continue to see a massive trade imbalance with the outside world for a prolonged period of time.

            • By judahmeek 2025-11-221:40

              > It would be a pretty bad strategy to continue to outsource everything and continue to see a massive trade imbalance with the outside world for a prolonged period of time.

              It's not actually a strategy at all. It's the organic result of being the global reserve currency. Foreigners want American dollars so that they can trade with everyone else and are incentivized to do whatever it takes to get it.

              Also, the "massive trade imbalance" is only an imbalance in goods. When you take services & the flow of foreign investments/loans into consideration as well, things don't look anywhere near as uneven as Donald Trump would like you to believe.

          • By 11101010001100 2025-11-2118:31

            Yes, we are doing a bad job of updating our priors.

          • By illiac786 2025-11-2118:472 reply

            Is that sarcastic? Isn’t underestimating by definition a bad thing?

            • By alwa 2025-11-2121:441 reply

              Taking this as an earnest question—no, I don’t get that sense from that word. To me it describes the direction of an error, not the error itself.

              It’s a thing you’d prefer to avoid, sure; but some degree of prognostic uncertainty is totally routine (in fact I would call that definitional: no predictions are truly certain until they’ve come to pass, and by the time that happens it’s usually too late to act). It’s not “bad” any more than mortality is “bad”—it just is, whether or not we wish it were; wisdom lies in managing it as best you can.

              In the sense that the gp used the word, I think they allude to a tradeoff: you can reduce the probability of an underestimate by increasing the probability of an overestimate. I took their comment to imply that it would be wiser to risk an overestimate than to risk an underestimate on questions of “can Chinese society achieve a massive goal on a tight timeframe if their leadership decides it’s important.”

              • By illiac786 2025-11-226:35

                No I get what the GP meant. Your comment sounded like a triviality from Lapalisse a bit, because I cannot think of any occurrence where underestimating something is a good thing. Bit like “15 min before my death I will be alive”. But Lapalisse too didn’t mean it literally, he just wanted it to sound like that, it seems it’s what you did.

                Much better than sarcasm then =)

            • By thfuran 2025-11-229:38

              It's definitionally non-ideal, but not definitionally really, really stupid.

          • By bell-cot 2025-11-2118:58

            Perhaps the USA feels that it has a reputation to downhold?

        • By NedF 2025-11-2120:57

          [dead]

      • By ayewo 2025-11-2120:282 reply

        You are ignoring the possibility of technological disruption.

        Apple disrupted Nokia and Blackberry. ARM is currently disrupting Intel.

        What if someone lands on a break-through using a completely different tech: what if X-ray lithography [1] becomes viable enough that they don’t have to acquire state-of-art EUV machines from ASML?

        [1] X-ray lithography was abandoned in the 80s but it is being revisited by Substrate https://substrate.com/our-purpose. They are an American company that hopes to make it commercially viable by being cheaper and far less complex than EUV.

        • By KK7NIL 2025-11-2121:46

          Substrate is a scam; their marketing is misleading and they have yet to answer to the fundamental reason why X-ray and e-beam failed over 40 years ago (despite it being generally agreed they were the future of litho and optical would soon be dead): writing one line at a time is extremely slow compared to optical which can scan a whole reticle in a fraction of a second.

          E-beam is still used for making DUV/EUV masks where the low write speed can be tolerated but no one in the industry thinks it will replace EUV in the silicon litho steps any time soon.

          But lay people eat this crap up and journalists turn a blind eye either because they're literally paid PRC shills or because clicks are everything now a days.

        • By impossiblefork 2025-11-2121:11

          I think you're general point is completely true, but Substrate is a bad example, since the people running it don't appear to be semiconductor experts and it's probably a fraud.

      • By immibis 2025-11-2119:112 reply

        Okay? There's a lot of chips you can make that aren't the cutting edge. You don't need a 4090 to do AI, as evidenced by all the AI we did before the 4090. You definitely don't need a (random Intel chip) 14900HX to do general-purpose computing, as evidenced by all the general-purpose computing we did before the 14900HX.

        • By tracker1 2025-11-2119:37

          For that matter, the 14900hx was already based on a refined 7nm production process, which China already has started using, though maybe not as effectively yet. As you mention, prior to the 4090's 3090 was on an 8nm node, already behind current China capabilities.

        • By KK7NIL 2025-11-2122:241 reply

          If each node provides a 10-15% improvement in power, performance and area, how many of those need to compound until your already uncompetitive 7 nm is 10x less efficient, slower and more expensive?

          • By immibis 2025-11-2122:261 reply

            Being behind doesn't mean they're permanently stuck where they are today - but aren't our processes running into the wall of soon trying to make transistors smaller than an atom?

            • By KK7NIL 2025-11-2122:582 reply

              > Being behind doesn't mean they're permanently stuck where they are today

              Without EUV, they very much are.

              > but aren't our processes running into the wall of soon trying to make transistors smaller than an atom?

              No, the finest pitches are still in the low double digit nanometers in 2 nm processes. The "2 nm" nomenclature hasn't denoted a physical dimension for decades.

              • By adrian_b 2025-11-228:24

                One should remember that EUV is necessary only for obtaining profit from the mass production of integrated circuits.

                For making a limited quantity of chips, for research purposes or for some special applications where the price is irrelevant, there would be no problem for China to make today ICs with e.g. a 2-nm CMOS process, by using electron-beam lithography. (Obviously, for developing a 2-nm process many other problems must be solved first, but lithography is not a roadblock, so the process can be developed before having EUV lithography, because test wafers can be made with e-beam lithography.)

                Moreover, they have enough money and people to ensure that an alternative EUV technology will be developed, eventually. I might take them 5 to 10 years, but not more than that.

                The attempts to sabotage China should have been started more than a decade earlier in order to have chances of success. Now it is too late and the cleverer way would have been to try to accelerate progress in USA, instead of trying to hinder progress in China, by using means that have totally discredited USA as a product supplier all over the world (i.e. by using the dubious legal theory that USA can dictate what to do to the owners of products that include components "made or designed in USA").

              • By immibis 2025-11-2210:56

                Not having something today doesn't mean they'll never have it.

      • By beej71 2025-11-2118:144 reply

        > that's the best they'll have until they can manufacture EUV machines domestically.

        And how far out is that?

        • By gusfoo 2025-11-2118:451 reply

          > And how far out is that?

          These guys have a 100% market share https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems at the 'extreme' end and, obviously, everyone else is trying but haven't really shown much promise.

          Here's a good background article on the topic: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/03/12/...

          • By Nextgrid 2025-11-2118:552 reply

            > everyone else is trying but haven't really shown much promise

            What was the incentive/funding for their attempts? In a non-national-security scenario it makes sense not to try too hard because you can just buy ASML's solution.

            With China it's a bit different, if they decide it's a matter of national security and pour Manhattan-project-levels of money/resources into it, they could make faster progress.

            • By dragontamer 2025-11-2120:102 reply

              Well yeah. No one is saying that China cannot do that. Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships.

              Force Chinas growth to be more expensive. It has nothing to do with not believing China can do it, it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do.

              • By SiempreViernes 2025-11-2121:052 reply

                > Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships.

                Note that this calculus only makes sense if you invade China while they are busy with the EUV machines, otherwise they catch up technologically and then build all the scary military.

                Of course, the the calculus doesn't make sense at all, because the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race.

                • By dragontamer 2025-11-2122:36

                  Their plan was to buy those chips and equipment and have the troops/ships/weapons sooner.

                  Now China has to build EUV themselves, then mass produce chips. It slows them down regardless and costs them resources.

                  Cut off the market before it becomes a problem.

                  ---------

                  Militarily, delaying China into 2040s after the USA has stealth destroyers of our own (beginning production in late 2020s, mass production in the 2030s) means China has to fight vs 2030s era tech instead of our 1980s era Arleigh Burke DDGs.

                  What, do you want to have the fight in late 2020s or would you rather have the war in late 2030s? There is a huge difference and USAs production schedule cannot change. But we can change Chinas production schedule.

                • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-2122:031 reply

                  > the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race

                  Literally zero actual wars with a technological component have progressed like this. (The first tradeoff to be made is the one Russia is making: sacrificing consumption for military production and research. Guns and butter.)

                  • By mk89 2025-11-227:321 reply

                    That's not true. Mass/quantity can still resist/delay/push back until you're exhausted and done.

                    We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles. Still, all it takes is 1 dumb missile to pass through the defenses and an entire city can be wiped off. At the end of the day, they don't care if a missiles didn't reach the precise target. As you can see in Ukraine, Russia is bombing all types of buildings, they don't give a damn about schools, kindergarten or so.

                    The tech component is not everything.

                    • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-229:231 reply

                      > We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles

                      These are still hypotheticals. Every war since the Civil War has had a decisive technological component. If the model doesn't apply there, this time probably ain't different.

                      • By mk89 2025-11-229:501 reply

                        Like the Vietnam War? Or the wars in Afghanistan...?

                        • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-2220:08

                          > Like the Vietnam War?

                          Yes. Concern around Soviet space and missiles capabilities overtaking America’s directly lead to Kennedy changing his mind on no boots on the ground.

                          (The Vietnam War started with America betting on BVR, with the long-seeing but minimally-agile F-4 Phantom. Soviet MiG-21s, on the other hand, blended into civilian traffic. This lead to disaster. When the MiG-25 rolled out, we countered with the F-15 Eagle. But it came too late, which meant we couldn’t establish air superiority with long-range aircraft alone.)

                          Note: I’m not saying this was the decisive component. It was one among many, and not the most important. But if we had F-15s at the outset, when the Soviets had MiG-21s, there is a better chance the skirmish would have stayed in the skies and Vietnam would have stalemated like Korea.

              • By hearsathought 2025-11-2218:291 reply

                > it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do.

                But it's not slowing them down. It's forcing them to accelerate development ( aka investing more into the sector ). Has china invested more or less? It's amazing how blind people are to this counterintuitive fact.

                • By dragontamer 2025-11-2221:011 reply

                  Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly?

                  Of course investing into chip development is slowing China down. Its slower to build their own than for us to give them those chips.

                  • By beej71 2025-11-233:09

                    > Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly?

                    Yes! Remove the impetus for them to innovate and make them reliant on our exports.

            • By mtrovo 2025-11-2119:47

              Agree, especially given the track record of China outcompeting in other markets where they got blocked.

        • By KK7NIL 2025-11-2118:332 reply

          If you ask PRC shills, it's just around the corner because this one Chinese lab demonstrated a very small part of the system. And a surprising number of westerners fall for that crap.

          My guess is that it's at least 10 years away, but that could obviously change depending on what resources they're willing to commit. But even at that point they'll be 2 decades behind ASML's EUV tech so it probably won't be competitive.

          • By buran77 2025-11-2118:50

            > If you ask PRC shills

            GP must have been asking for the non-PRC shill opinion.

            > My guess is that it's at least 10 years away,

            That doesn't sound at all like a lot. China has a uniquely effective industrial espionage... industry, combined with a very thick geopolitical skin and disregard for international demands. This helps accelerate any process that others have already perfected.

            We'll start to see the real deal if/when China eventually catches up to the leaders in every field and the only way to pull ahead is to be entirely self propelled (you can't take advantage of someone else's draft when you're in front of the pack).

          • By tracker1 2025-11-2119:382 reply

            I think you may underestimate the ability of China to abuse industrial espionage at scale.

            • By ruszki 2025-11-2120:072 reply

              There are things which needs time, even with all or almost all the information at hand, just like with atomic bomb. I’m not sure whether this case similar to that, but that ASML in front for so much time indicates that their moot is probably not just information.

              • By arw0n 2025-11-2122:14

                The US finished developing a nuclear bomb in 1945, by 1949 the Soviet Union had their own. I agree that it is probably not the same, there are a lot more moving parts in modern chip design. In fact, I have no idea how close Chinese companies are to developing SotA chips. But I do see China being consistently underestimated in western media and think tanks, so my intuitive reaction would be to cut that timeline in half if it is what western experts believe to be plausible.

              • By aerostable_slug 2025-11-2120:171 reply

                See also: military jet engines. They can't replicate high end engines from Pratt & Whitney or GE even though I'm guessing Chinese intelligence services have a huge amount of relevant information. I don't know why that is.

                • By scheme271 2025-11-2122:28

                  It's probably hands on experience that's missing. Even with the all the technical details, often times there's practical details on using this machine or tiny tweaks that need to be made to get it working well.

            • By nomercy400 2025-11-2120:10

              You cannot lead if you only copy.

        • By stickfigure 2025-11-2118:25

          So far only one company in the world has successfully accomplished it, so the answer could be "a very very long time".

        • By general1465 2025-11-2119:402 reply

          According to this video (Asionometry - guy from Taiwan, hardly a PRC shill) Chinese EUV are now tested in Huawei factories and should come into production in 2026.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIR3wfZ-EV0

          • By KK7NIL 2025-11-2122:11

            I rewatched the whole video and did not find where he said that. Quite the opposite, he says Chinese EUV academic research is at 2005 levels and is rather unimpressive.

          • By igravious 2025-11-2121:38

            “Huawei has 208,000 employees and operates in over 170 countries and regions, serving more than three billion people around the world.”

            https://www.huawei.com/en/media-center/company-facts

            “The company's commitment to innovation is highlighted by its substantial investment of 179.7 billion yuan ($24.77 billion) in research and development (R&D), accounting for 20.8 percent of its annual revenue. Its total R&D investment over the past decade has reached 1.249 trillion yuan ($172.21 billion).”

            https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-03-31/Huawei-reports-solid-2...

            They have the incentive, the government backing, exist in a mature ecosystem of tech rivalled only by the US, … If any corp can do it, Huawei can

      • By hearsathought 2025-11-2218:23

        > the fact that the PRC is paying so many shills to convince westerners otherwise just shows how behind they are.

        And yet, it's anti-PRC shills that are all over social media. Go figure.

      • By gmerc 2025-11-2118:11

        They can just throw power at it, you're delusional if you think it's going to hamper them even mid term.

      • By pyuser583 2025-11-223:29

        My understanding, which is not complete, is China has done some amazing things optimizing training on slower chips.

        Which is cool, but there are limits to the number of times you can do that.

        At the end of the day, the little man has to flip the switch.

      • By einpoklum 2025-11-2121:151 reply

        So, you're saying that China has chip fabrication capabilities which are on par with the world cutting edge as of 2018:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process

        not too shabby of a fall-back.

        • By KK7NIL 2025-11-2121:48

          No, they don't.

          Their "7 nm" relied on multi patterning DUV which leads to restrictive design rules, more steps and masks and lower yields, which is why I put it in quotes and said it's uncompetitive.

          The last DUV node was 10 nm, that's the best logic node they have which is comparable to TSMC/Samsung/Intel's 10 nm.

      • By kakacik 2025-11-2119:07

        Apart from gaming and llms, most of the chip applications including all of military and consumer electronics is more than happy with 7nm process, whatever that means (proper nanometers those ain't).

        I know some people live in the IT bubble and measure whole reality by it, but that's not so much true for the world out there. They have ie roughly F-35 equivalent, minus some secret sauces (which may not be so secret at the end since it seems they stole all of it).

        You are making a mistake of thinking of them as yet another russia, utterly corrupt, dysfunctional at every level and living off some 'glorious past', when reality is exactly the opposite.

    • By beloch 2025-11-2119:242 reply

      It's directly analogous to China issuing export bans. They tried this with critical minerals. Critical minerals aren't actually all that uncommon. They just weren't being actively extracted in most places. Now many extraction projects are starting to roll around the globe because it has become clear China was willing to use access to them as leverage.

      My guess is that China will be highly reluctant to restrict exports of manufactured goods going forward. Doing so would directly threaten their own power base, just as the Trump administration's actions are currently taking a sledge hammer to the U.S.'s power base.

      Ultimately, this kind of power is illusory. If you ever use it, you lose it.

      • By arw0n 2025-11-2122:42

        It is not equivalent. Rare earths are, as you say, not actually that rare, but they are still a finite resource, and the CCP quite publicly discussed that it isn't a good idea to sell their domestic stockpile internationally while a significant amount of their economy runs on it. They raised prices to factor in that future availability might be more important than short-term profit.

        The chip ban on the other hand is about R&D and labor, both things that do not diminish over time. Instead, the ban seeks to slow down Chinese advancement in areas relying on those chips, AI in particular. Both measures will lead to short-term issues, long-term lost growth, and mid-term new industries in the respective countries/markets.

      • By marcosdumay 2025-11-2120:37

        > Now many extraction projects are starting to roll around the globe because it has become clear China was willing to use access to them as leverage.

        That happened in 2018 too. All the projects at that time broke because China does it cheaper.

        The thing that isn't available in most countries isn't the minerals.

    • By enaaem 2025-11-2123:22

      Tech is often a winner takes all market, but this will go out of the window if it is seen as a national security issue.

    • By paulddraper 2025-11-2118:401 reply

      s/leaver/lever/g

      (from context)

      • By general1465 2025-11-2119:342 reply

        I apologize, English is not my first language, so sometimes I am freestyling it.

        • By ben_w 2025-11-2120:12

          Don’t worry too much, most native speakers make mistakes like this every day.

        • By paulddraper 2025-11-2120:15

          And perhaps you've learned British English.

          It is spelled "lever."

          But British English pronounces it like "beaver."

          And American English pronounces it like "never."

    • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-2120:37

      > Like with China

      The best example with China is actually their rare earth wolf warrior bullshit. It’s taken a lever that could have been decisive in a war and neutered it.

  • By nmridul 2025-11-2113:033 reply

    > ..... he calls on the EU to activate an existing blocking regulation (Regulation (EC) No 2271/96) for the International Criminal Court, which prevents third countries like the USA from enforcing sanctions in the EU. EU companies would then no longer be allowed to comply with US sanctions if they violate EU interests. Companies that violate this would then be liable for damages.

    That is from that article..

    • By petcat 2025-11-2113:2716 reply

      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.

      • By hardlianotion 2025-11-2113:467 reply

        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.

        • By thinkcontext 2025-11-2117:511 reply

          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.

          • By pyrale 2025-11-2118:211 reply

            > 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.

            • By thinkcontext 2025-11-2120:01

              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.

        • By sfifs 2025-11-2115:092 reply

          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.

          • By immibis 2025-11-2115:154 reply

            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.

            • By Mikhail_Edoshin 2025-11-2120:122 reply

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

              • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-2120:404 reply

                > 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.)

                • By SiempreViernes 2025-11-2121:461 reply

                  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.

                  • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-2122:082 reply

                    > 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?

                    • By SiempreViernes 2025-11-229:351 reply

                      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.

                • By Yoric 2025-11-2121:541 reply

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

                  • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-229:24

                    > 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.

                • By M95D 2025-11-2121:121 reply

                  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.

                • By drysine 2025-11-2121:062 reply

                  >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...

                  • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-2122:001 reply

                    > 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.

                  • By immibis 2025-11-2122:27

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

            • By insane_dreamer 2025-11-2115:261 reply

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

              • By throw-the-towel 2025-11-2115:334 reply

                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.

                • By Tuna-Fish 2025-11-2117:232 reply

                  > 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.

                  • By selimthegrim 2025-11-2119:22

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

                  • By nwellnhof 2025-11-2118:053 reply

                    > 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.

                    • By dragonwriter 2025-11-2118:09

                      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.

                    • By throw-the-towel 2025-11-2118:19

                      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.

                • By overfeed 2025-11-2116:381 reply

                  > 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.

                  • By _djo_ 2025-11-2116:441 reply

                    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.

                    • By VWWHFSfQ 2025-11-2116:481 reply

                      > 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.

                      • By _djo_ 2025-11-2116:522 reply

                        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.

                        • By VWWHFSfQ 2025-11-2116:531 reply

                          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.

                          • By _djo_ 2025-11-2117:00

                            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.

                        • By quotz 2025-11-2117:491 reply

                          [flagged]

                          • By _djo_ 2025-11-2117:542 reply

                            There was no such promise. Everyone who was actually in the room during those talks, including Premier Gorbachev, has denied it.

                            Nor was Ukraine anywhere close to joining NATO. It’s application had effectively been frozen in 2008, and it was not even being offered a MAP which is about step 1 on a 20 step ladder of actions to take before joining.

                            It’s a red herring being used to justify Russia’s territorial and imperial ambitions.

                            https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e...

                            https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-en...

                            • By saalweachter 2025-11-2119:132 reply

                              Even if Ukraine were about to join NATO, why would joining a mutual defense pact be threatening, unless, you know, you were planning to invade them?

                              • By _djo_ 2025-11-2119:312 reply

                                Excellent point. Ukraine, like any sovereign country, can join whatever alliances it wants too.

                                There is no right in international law that allows its neighbours to invade if it picks one they don’t like.

                                Add to that that it’s a mutual defence pact and the argument becomes more absurd.

                                • By insane_dreamer 2025-11-222:552 reply

                                  > any sovereign country, can join whatever alliances it wants too

                                  unless you're Cuba, or Vietnam, or Nicaragua, or Chile, and the list goes on

                                  but yes, in theory you're right; in practice history shows that if they are small and powerless then they cannot, not without consequences

                                  • By _djo_ 2025-11-2214:25

                                    Cuba I have addressed.

                                    The US was invited into South Vietnam to help defend them against an invasion from North Vietnam. We can debate the morality of the resulting war, which was questionable, but it was not a US invasion.

                                    The US invasion of Nicaragua was in 1912, long before the modern post-WWII era of stronger international law.

                                    Chile was not invaded by the US.

                                    If these are the examples you have, you don’t have a strong argument.

                                  • By saalweachter 2025-11-2213:23

                                    So you're saying another country would only find mutual defense pact threatening if they wanted to invade them?

                                • By quotz 2025-11-2120:322 reply

                                  What would happen if Canada joined a mutual defense pact with Russia? Or Mexico? Think about this scenario, would the US invade immediately?. Something similar actually happened with Cuba in the 60s, and the US invaded them, doing a total naval siege [1]

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

                                  • By _djo_ 2025-11-2120:552 reply

                                    Nothing should or would happen.

                                    The issue with Cuba was the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba, not merely its membership of a pact with the USSR.

                                    The US didn’t invade Cuba, it assisted Cuban exiles to do so in the embarrassing Bay of Pigs disaster which took place before the naval blockade as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Naturally, Bay of Pigs should never have happened, and it’s one of the things that led to the CIA’s powers and freedom from oversight being drastically curtailed the following decade.

                                    Furthermore, the world and international law has moved on since the 1960s. That sort of brinkmanship has been much reduced.

                                    • By quotz 2025-11-2214:091 reply

                                      Please read about the Monroe Doctrine

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

                                      • By _djo_ 2025-11-2214:26

                                        The Monroe Doctrine from 1823?

                                    • By insane_dreamer 2025-11-223:002 reply

                                      > Nothing should or would happen.

                                      "nothing should" is correct; "nothing would" is fantasy

                                      > The issue with Cuba was the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba, not merely its membership of a pact with the USSR.

                                      Yes, putting nukes there brought things to a serious crisis, but the issue with Cuba

                                      > The US didn’t invade Cuba, it assisted Cuban exiles to do so

                                      Come on, let's be real here. Sure, _technically_ the US didn't invade Cuba. But it funded and assisted a mercenary force in a (very poor) attempt to do so. And that wasn't the only time the US tried to force regime change in Cuba, just like it did in Chile.

                                      • By _djo_ 2025-11-2214:28

                                        If we’re talking about funding and supporting local groups, activists, and insurgents, then we’re going to have to cast the net far wider and include many similar actions by the USSR and then Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Israel, and many others.

                                        That might be a worthwhile discussion to have, but it’s categorically not the same thing as invasion, occupation, and annexation.

                                      • By quotz 2025-11-2214:09

                                        And just like it tries to still do in Venezuela. They also did something similar in Nicaragua. Latin America has suffered tremendously from the US's Monroe Doctrine. [1]

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

                                  • By quotz 2025-11-2120:48

                                    I love that whenever I mention this exact argument, no one actually wants to refute it :D just downvoting

                                    Its a simple question, would the US tolerate Canada or Mexico being a military alliance with Russia or China? Or any other country really, say Nigeria :D

                              • By quotz 2025-11-2120:32

                                What would happen if Canada joined a mutual defense pact with Russia? Or Mexico? Think about this scenario, would the US invade immediately?. Something similar actually happened with Cuba in the 60s, and the US invaded them, doing a total naval siege [1]

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

                            • By quotz 2025-11-2120:431 reply

                              The assurances made by western leaders were made verbally, but not codified into treaties or agreements, as per the famous line "not one inch eastward". Does that make western leaders lying twofaces?

                              At the 2008 NATO meeting in Bucharest, NATO gave open invitation to both Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO sometime in the future, without any MAPs. Not that MAPs are very important here on a timescale basis, since both Montenegro and Macedonia joined NATO in matter of months, without the consent of the population, but by corruption of the leadership. What is an open invitation stated publicly, also consists of thousands of conversations in private.

                              Hence, Russia would not allow this to happen at any cost. Would the US tolerate Russia meeting up with Canada and Mexico behind closed doors and offering them nuclear protection, first covertly, then even publicly?

                              • By _djo_ 2025-11-2120:49

                                ‘Not one inch eastward’, as Gorbachev himself made clear, was only about stationing troops in East Germany during the immediate Soviet withdrawal. It did not constrain the future unified Germany or NATO.

                                There was no such open invitation to Georgia and Ukraine, only vague promises. MAPs were still required.

                                The US would have no right to invade either Canada or Mexico if they were discussing joining a mutual defence pact with Russia, yes.

                • By insane_dreamer 2025-11-2115:351 reply

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

                  • By throw-the-towel 2025-11-2115:391 reply

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

                    • By guerby 2025-11-2116:292 reply

                      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. (...)

                      • By brabel 2025-11-2117:45

                        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.

                  • By lkramer 2025-11-2119:24

                    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.

                  • By kakacik 2025-11-2119:16

                    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.

            • By wat10000 2025-11-2116:433 reply

              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.

              • By blibble 2025-11-2117:501 reply

                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

                • By wat10000 2025-11-2118:131 reply

                  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.

                  • By blibble 2025-11-2118:463 reply

                    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...

                    • By lostlogin 2025-11-2119:34

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

                      I don’t know this. Thank you.

                    • By timeon 2025-11-2119:29

                      Minerals deal that US pushed for was already against this.

                    • By wat10000 2025-11-2122:21

                      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.

              • By HappyPanacea 2025-11-2117:104 reply

                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.

                • By floxy 2025-11-2117:281 reply

                  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...

                  • By lukan 2025-11-2117:341 reply

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

                    • By floxy 2025-11-2117:35

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

                • By Fraterkes 2025-11-2117:49

                  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?

                • By adolph 2025-11-2118:38

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

                • By wat10000 2025-11-2118:12

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

              • By selivanovp 2025-11-2118:55

                [flagged]

            • By Lapsa 2025-11-2118:022 reply

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

              • By SiempreViernes 2025-11-2210:48

                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.

              • By wat10000 2025-11-2119:561 reply

                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.

                • By Lapsa 2025-11-2121:341 reply

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

                  • By mh- 2025-11-2123:02

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

          • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2025-11-2116:362 reply

            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.

            • By wat10000 2025-11-2116:522 reply

              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.

              • By brabel 2025-11-2118:041 reply

                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.

                • By wat10000 2025-11-2119:551 reply

                  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.

                  • By brabel 2025-11-2210:171 reply

                    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.

                    • By wat10000 2025-11-2215:19

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

              • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2025-11-2117:161 reply

                >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.

                • By wat10000 2025-11-2118:17

                  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.

            • By mc32 2025-11-2116:541 reply

              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.

              • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2025-11-2117:081 reply

                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.

                • By mc32 2025-11-2118:18

                  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.

        • By delichon 2025-11-2114:031 reply

          > 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.

          • By hardlianotion 2025-11-2114:08

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

        • By dybber 2025-11-2118:34

          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.

        • By fatbird 2025-11-2116:541 reply

          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.

        • By Y_Y 2025-11-2118:28

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

        • By anthem2025 2025-11-2118:17

          “Peace deal”

          The latest demand for Ukraine to just completely surrender.

      • By RyJones 2025-11-2113:513 reply

        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.

        • By lan321 2025-11-2114:481 reply

          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.

          • By overfeed 2025-11-2116:291 reply

            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.

            • By lukan 2025-11-2117:461 reply

              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)

              • By kakacik 2025-11-2119:241 reply

                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.

                • By lukan 2025-11-2119:331 reply

                  "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.

                  • By earthnail 2025-11-2120:121 reply

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

                    • By lukan 2025-11-2120:26

                      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?

        • By brabel 2025-11-2117:523 reply

          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.

        • By NooneAtAll3 2025-11-2113:591 reply

          EU got itself a Cuba

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

          • By embedding-shape 2025-11-2114:413 reply

            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).

            • By wang_li 2025-11-2116:531 reply

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

              • By embedding-shape 2025-11-2117:001 reply

                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.

                • By wang_li 2025-11-2118:161 reply

                  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.

                  • By embedding-shape 2025-11-2120:101 reply

                    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!

                    • By wang_li 2025-11-2121:001 reply

                      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.

                      • By jenadine 2025-11-2122:42

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

            • By trzy 2025-11-2117:081 reply

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

              • By embedding-shape 2025-11-2117:161 reply

                > 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.

                • By trzy 2025-11-220:48

                  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.

      • By isodev 2025-11-2117:53

        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.

      • By grafmax 2025-11-2210:192 reply

        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.

        • By cthe 2025-11-2220:541 reply

          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.

          • By grafmax 2025-11-235:541 reply

            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).

            • By mopsi 2025-11-236:28

                > 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.

        • By general1465 2025-11-2214:07

          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.

      • By aubanel 2025-11-2116:562 reply

        Ukraine is not and was never part of EU, FWIW

        • By trzy 2025-11-2117:03

          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.

        • By general1465 2025-11-2214:11

          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.

      • By pbhjpbhj 2025-11-2119:59

        >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.

      • By Exoristos 2025-11-2119:421 reply

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

        • By mfuzzey 2025-11-2120:20

          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

      • By bambax 2025-11-2119:30

        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.

      • By watwut 2025-11-2113:48

        > USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war

        USA all but openly support Russia by now.

      • By VWWHFSfQ 2025-11-2113:463 reply

        > 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?

        • By stonemetal12 2025-11-2117:15

          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.

        • By Stranger43 2025-11-2116:101 reply

          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".

          • By general1465 2025-11-2214:132 reply

            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.

            • By Stranger43 2025-11-2218:571 reply

              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.

              • By general1465 2025-11-2221:13

                > 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.

      • By anal_reactor 2025-11-2114:281 reply

        >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.

        • By petcat 2025-11-2115:003 reply

          > 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.

          • By GJim 2025-11-2115:343 reply

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

            What a poor attempt at trolling!

            • By petcat 2025-11-2115:59

              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.

            • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2025-11-2116:40

              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).

            • By mystraline 2025-11-2116:021 reply

              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.

              • By bootsmann 2025-11-2116:22

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

          • By anal_reactor 2025-11-2115:34

            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.

          • By immibis 2025-11-2115:17

            Every nation "exploited" by China says their "exploitation" consists of building hospitals, schools and roads, while the "help" coming from the US is mostly lectures about fiscal responsibility. Which side would you rather be on?

      • By lukan 2025-11-2113:47

        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.

      • By PeterStuer 2025-11-2116:354 reply

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

        • By dmix 2025-11-2117:021 reply

          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...

          • By tokai 2025-11-2117:591 reply

            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.

        • By dxdm 2025-11-2116:511 reply

          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.)

          • By PeterStuer 2025-11-2116:556 reply

            [flagged]

            • By dragonwriter 2025-11-2117:57

              > As a European, who created this situation? Russia?

              Russia. After the US completely rolled over for their demands not to provide NATO membership action plans to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008, because, as Russia claimed, that would be destabilizing. Which Russia followed immediately with an invasion of Georgia in 2008. Then, as soon as Ukraine threw off the Russian-aligned government that had taken power while that was going on, Ukraine in 2014, taking Crimea and invading parts of Eastern Ukraine with both Russian reular forces and Russia-paid mercenaries, which is what turned Ukraine back to seeking NATO membership.

            • By dxdm 2025-11-2117:14

              > Problem is. As a European, who created this situation? Russia? Or the US?

              I'm not going to argue with you about how Russia was forced to invade Ukraine and commit atrocities there or whatever you're hinting at, my dear fellow European.

              Also, stop shifting the discussion and leave your apologetic narratives where they belong.

            • By usea 2025-11-2117:13

              Russia.

            • By HappyPanacea 2025-11-2117:12

              Russia failed to create a convincing casus belli to the rest of the world and seen as the indisputable aggressor pretty much everywhere.

            • By kevin_thibedeau 2025-11-2119:28

              Imagine if Europe hadn't compromised itself with energy dependency on a dictator and was able to stand up against the 2014 invasion. The situation was created at home.

            • By immibis 2025-11-2119:17

              Reversal: The US created it by not nuking Russia off the face of the planet decades ago.

        • By atoav 2025-11-2116:442 reply

          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.

          • By dmix 2025-11-2117:031 reply

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

            So invasion means a full war with NATO?

            • By trzy 2025-11-2117:161 reply

              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.

              • By dmix 2025-11-2117:351 reply

                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.

                • By trzy 2025-11-220:531 reply

                  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.

          • By PeterStuer 2025-11-2116:591 reply

            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?

        • By pessimizer 2025-11-2118:133 reply

          [flagged]

          • By dragonwriter 2025-11-2118:171 reply

            > Russia didn't even want to be in Ukraine at all

            Then it should have chosen not to invade and occupy large parts of Ukraine in 2014. And then escalate with an even bigger invasion in 2022. Not launching a war of aggression is, like, the easiest thing in the world to do.

            • By selivanovp 2025-11-2119:052 reply

              [flagged]

              • By dxdm 2025-11-2121:16

                "I didn't want to hurt you, baby, but what can I do? You divorced me, you looked at other men. Your friends poisoned your mind against me. What can a man do in this situation? You see how my hands are tied, and now your hands are tied. Has it crossed your mind to not provoke me by trying to defend yourself?"

                Disgusting.

              • By immibis 2025-11-2119:24

                It crossed my mind that Morocco and Algeria shouldn't have organized a coup in New York City in 2025. Fortunately, none of these things happened.

          • By petcat 2025-11-2119:03

            > instead of the slow, safe, low-casualty taking of territory

            I don't know what is considered "low-casualty" for Russia, but the last reports I saw they were approaching 250,000 dead soldiers in Ukraine since 2022. That is just an astronomical number.

            USA only had 60,000 killed in Vietnam and that is considered a national catastrophe.

          • By sjsdaiuasgdia 2025-11-2118:46

            > The Ukrainians can always jut bail out of this fight

            Putin can end the war immediately whenever he wants.

      • By einpoklum 2025-11-2121:201 reply

        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.

        • By Detrytus 2025-11-221:33

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

      • By tokai 2025-11-2117:54

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

      • By jdibs 2025-11-2113:374 reply

        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.

        • By eru 2025-11-2113:441 reply

          > 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.

          • By jdibs 2025-11-2113:481 reply

            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...

            • By ArnoVW 2025-11-2115:561 reply

              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

        • By weregiraffe 2025-11-2116:25

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

        • By Forgeties79 2025-11-2113:441 reply

          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.

        • By mothballed 2025-11-2113:50

          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.

    • By yohannparis 2025-11-2113:59

      I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Could you please explain it?

    • By rzerowan 2025-11-2114:141 reply

      Im going to go ahead and predict that the EU will not risk it.If it were China ? maybe they would pull the lever to activate this counter.

      Previously when the US reneged on the JCPOA viz Iran , they had a similar law/faclity that theoreticall could have been used but never was.

      As an addition the EU Commission is currently imposing pretty similar sanction on a Journalist [1] so yeah i dont see much movement on that law being used.Most likely they will try to wait it out.

      [1] https://www.public.news/p/eu-travel-ban-on-three-journalists

      • By goobatrooba 2025-11-2217:33

        Thanks for promoting russian propaganda (I mean the framing and source). Unfortunately tolerance has to stop with the intolerant. For anyone actually interested in the substance of why she is banned it seems rather clear and reasonable from the official EU Council decision. These decisions always end in front of the courts, so they only can list things for which they have direct evidence; presumably there is this much more - e.g. a good chance that in the background she is being funded by Russia for this work:

        > Alina Lipp runs the blog “Neues aus Russland”, in which she systematically disseminates misinformation about Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and delegitimises the Ukrainian government, especially with a view to manipulating German public sentiment as regards support for Ukraine.

        > Furthermore, she is using her role as a war correspondent with the Russian armed forces in eastern Ukraine to spread Russian war propaganda. She regularly appears in troop entertainment and propaganda shows on the Russian military TV channel Zvezda.

        > Thus, Alina Lipp is engaging in and supporting actions by the Government of the Russian Federation which undermine or threaten security and stability in the Union and in a third country (Ukraine) through the use of coordinated information manipulation and interference, and through facilitating an armed conflict in a third country.

        https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202...

  • By Stranger43 2025-11-2114:203 reply

    The reluctance of the EU leadership to so anything materially significant about anything they claim to care about is kind of telling.

    It's either that the leadership is so caught up in their own ivory tower bubble of pure rhetoric to realize they havent really put in the logistics to actually affect reality or that they somehow don't really want the consequences of actually changing things.

    For this is pretty clear what they need to do to create any real digital sovereignty and yet the seem to not really be willing to take the obvious step of just banning the use of any technology that have any dependency of foreign owned/managed cloud services or closed source products, and ordering their technical staff to start making changes even if it makes stakeholders annoyed, and yet the keep letting companies like IBM/RedHat and Microsoft pretend they can and should be a part of the digital sovereignty transformation project.

    We saw the same when safe harbour collapsed and with the cookie directive where rather then doing something effective they found some way to fix it by changing a few words in an mostly unenforced set of click wrap contracts/licenses. .

    • By heisenbit 2025-11-2117:141 reply

      The discussions shifts across the board but it takes time to shift due to momentum. The EU has many nations and many more companies all making strategic purchasing decisions. US dependence skeptics belittled earlier have now concrete examples and more weight. The shift can already observed in weapons system purchasing but won‘t be limited to those. For better or worse the US has lost its position of trust and is sadly working on cementing distrust for the next decades.

      • By Stranger43 2025-11-2219:13

        We saw how fast and decisively modern states can move doing covid, so what is being suggested here is that at the end of the day the current leadership of the EU(especially some of the more US loyal smaller states) is not really ready to believe the US wont restore that trust at the next election.

        I am from Denmark and it's been interesting seeing our politicians dance around the very plausible direct invasion threats made by the current US president against Greenland, where our PM made strong declaration while her ministry of defense kept increasing it's dependency on American planes ect.

        And it's the same story almost everywhere for the digital sovereignty stuff, yes they claim to want it but when the legislation arrives it's nothing and there is no urgency within the technical departments actually running government it to change anything.

    • By thrance 2025-11-2123:51

      Creating digital sovereignty requires economic protectionism, which directly contradicts a core value of the European Union: bringing down trade barriers.

      > contribute to solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights [0]

      Notably absent from these values are wishes to make the EU more resilient against foreign threats to the global supply chain.

      [0] https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...

    • By vfclists 2025-11-2114:401 reply

      The EU leadership are a very corrupt group who set themselves up to be open to the highest bidders from day one, and those are mostly US corporations and those of other countries when the US hasn't place sanctions on them.

      The antitrust fines they impose on those American companies may simply be regarded as a cost of doing business.

      When it comes to being indifferent to the welfare of the general populace, they are just as bad as anything else.

      • By nalekberov 2025-11-2116:551 reply

        > The antitrust fines they impose on those American companies may simply be regarded as a cost of doing business.

        You nailed it right on the head. Those fines are peanuts for big corporations.

        • By general1465 2025-11-2117:32

          But even then they are big enough for these corporations to run and complain to Trump that that big bad EU is punishing them.

HackerNews