Overall, public sentiment around US-Russia relations and the Ukraine conflict is marked by deep frustration and anger towards both U.S. leadership and Russian actions in the region. Commenters express skepticism about the effectiveness of U.S. diplomatic efforts, criticize leadership, and voice concerns over the ongoing humanitarian toll and geopolitical implications of the war. There is a significant call for stronger action against Russia, alongside a desire for peaceful resolution while questioning the motivations behind U.S. involvement.

United States Government

Russia

Ukraine

Donald Trump

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

I think the U.S., particularly Trump and especially Elon Musk REALLY want those minerals. That’s why they all are outraged about Zelensky but still keep talking about the mineral deal. Not to be cynical, but I don’t buy that, “I don’t care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” JD Vance all of a sudden is heartbroken about Ukrainians, that’s just not how this administration operates. They see that the war costs money and they want to make money instead. They see that Ukraine is weak and they can squeeze out quite a bit out of Ukraine right now. 

From an “America first” perspective it makes sense. The U.S. gets hundreds of billions of dollars in minerals without having to commit anything to Ukrainian security, Trump can be the “peacemaker,” the U.S. can normalize relations with Russia and cooperate economically. Maybe even squeeze out of Europe something as they’ll be terrified about Russia and the U.S. being in friendly relations and will probably be trying everything to please Trump. Taking geopolitical consequences out of the equation, it really is a win-win-win.

Hot_Instruction_5318

This is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The reality is Ukraine is a small fish in a very very big pond right now.

ImmortalPoseidon

How could we not be in the middle of these negotiations? Zelenskyy has already stated they cannot win this war without US funding. Biden is no longer president, and Trump wants to stop throwing money at the problem and find a way to end it. There is no scenario where the US isn’t a main player in any kind of negotiation.

likeabuddha

Thank you! Let's just walk away and let Ukraine, Russia, and Europe sort it out themselves.

Gaxxz

Why does ukraine and the EU keep asking america for security guarantee's?

G0TouchGrass420

I’m going to be blunt and say that you have not thought this question through. US and EU are paying to keep Ukraine afloat. Thus, US and/or EU are the ones having negotiations with Russia. Then it will be either Russia that declines the ceasefire deal or Ukraine that declines the ceasefire deal. Then US and EU will decide what to do next when that time comes.

closing-the-thread

The US should absolutely help host peace talks between warring states as a neutral third party. 

The issue here is that we are not neutral and are trying to find a benefit for us.

TheGoldStandard35

Trump wants to end the war. Simple as that. It is clear that neither Putin nor Zelinsky have any interest in stopping it.

StedeBonnet1

Yes the true non interventionist position is just leaving the conflict. Heck, the continent.

ILoveMcKenna777

Every peace negotiation ever has had a somewhat neutral arbiter to proside over the negotiations, for the us revolution it was France, for ww2 it was it Switzerland

Gsomethepatient

We're already invovled because we've been funding the war since before it started, and nobody would be happy if we just stopped funding it. Since we're already invovled, it just makes sense to try and end the killing.

soulwind42

[deleted]

Because the US is the global hegemon and the world superpower. America alone as the global empire decides what happens

EsotericMysticism2

Because we allow the war to continue with our aid…

219MSP

We should indeed stop getting involved in other countries' wars.  But we're already involved in this one.  That's why we're involved in the negotiation to end it.  With that said, if Ukraine doesn't want peace and they want to keep fighting this thing until they get all their land back or whatever then as far as I'm concerned we should cut them off and walk away.

B_P_G

\- the US is funding Ukraine's defense, more than any other country

\- the US has a vested interest in the security of Europe and it has been that way ever since WWII ended

\- the US has defense treaties with European nations, has bases in the region, and so it also has major assets invested

\- the US is the only superpower that can really balance Russia, historically and currently

\- for these reasons and more, the US is the most appropriate party to negotiate with Russia

DruidWonder

Because every single peace deal needs a third party broker to oversee it. The USA was the one that oversaw the Good Friday Agreement, for example. It makes sense for the USA to be a broker over literally any country in the world

maximusj9

The Russo-Ukrainian war has been so defined by Ukraine's alignment with NATO, Russian fear of a NATO member or NATO ally on its border, and NATO assistance for Ukraine that it's inevitable for the USA to be involved. 

SnooFloofs1778

Because the reality of the situation is we are involved, actions we took helped lead to the war, and we are the biggest supporter of Ukraine. 

&gt;Wouldn’t a true non-interventionist stance mean withdrawing aid from Ukraine and stepping back to let Ukraine and Russia negotiate directly, while the US tends to its own interests at home?

If the previous admin made horrible policy decisions that screwed the Ukrainians, I do think the current president has an obligation to at least TRY not to straight up dump them on their ass. 

If zelensky decides he'd rather fight it alone then so be it. But we should try not to just hang them out to dry since the last admin did set them up for failure

just_shy_of_perfect

don't you want the war to end? or would you rather see it go on rather than having had trump play a hand in ending it?

tnic73

Because Ukraine collapses without US support.   

It's pointless though, because Zelensky has no interest in peace.

JoeCensored

So Ukraine is okay with taking our money and our weapons but if we want to help end the war its fuck us? And we're the bad "ally" in this story?

Inksd4y

Someone has to be a mediator and who else other than the leader of the free world. It's almost our obligation to try to broker peace. Stepping away and focusing on America does not mean abdicating our responsibilities in the world.

GreatSoulLord

&gt;Why is the US involved in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

The Ukraine/Russia war is a major foreign policy f-up by the Biden and Obama admins. On top of that, in 2022 it became Biden's proxy war by pumping so much money into the conflict and even encouraging escalation at times. 

Does Trump want out? Yes, of course - that aligns squarely with America First. Trump attempting to negotiate peace is the right thing to do in order to clean up Biden's mess.  It's not about any affinity for Zelensky or Putin - clearly Trump distrusts both.  What has happened has been cruel and unfair especially to the citizens of Ukraine - and that is what you repeatedly hear Trump talking about.

Otherwise, people would be on here asking about why our President is so irresponsible to cut off funding without attempting to negotiate peace.

montross-zero

\&gt;So why is the Trump administration playing a key role in brokering peace between Russia and Ukraine?

Because we have played a key role in arming Ukraine and thereby allowing them to take a far more aggressive posture against Russia than they would otherwise be capable of doing.

\&gt; Wouldn’t a true non-interventionist stance mean withdrawing aid from Ukraine and stepping back to let Ukraine and Russia negotiate directly

Pretty certain that is exactly what he is doing.  Meanwhile it looks like he is going to attempt rapprochement with Russia to prevent more conflicts in the future.

metoo77432

Its because we spent the most on military aid by far and are the sole reason there is still a war, and at the same time are probably one of the few countries that can actually spook russia into behaving (at least for a time).

I personally think if we cannot get the mineral deal or a ceasefire we should just cold turkey from the whole situation and actually give the middle finger to the EU's whining about us "letting russia win" or whatever their spoiled opinion is

Mr-Zarbear

Putin's speech at the Munich security conference in 2007 is usually seen as one of the key milestones

LivingAsparagus91

Yes in definitely sure calling Russia a petrol station with Nuke was a great show on how he wanted to reset relationship

Myself-io

Who isn't? After USSR collapsed, the Russian government genuinely thought that the US would treat it as an equal and would be a fair partner. Then the first NATO expansions came, and already the Russian government voiced concerns - even Gorbachev, so despised in Russia for his pro-American views, [spoke negatively](https://youtu.be/3wB9uL2lKaw) about this to the US Congress. 

Then the bombings of Yugoslavia took place. And even the Yeltsin government, much derided for their seeming kowtowing to Americans, started to take a very cautious stance. Primakov turned his plane around when hearing of this, cancelling a diplomatic visit to the US. The Russian military mission in Yugoslavia nearly got to blows with NATO forces, and through Yeltsin government's diplomatic efforts managed to get its own authority equal and separate from NATO's in the peacekeeping efforts. And this was the most pro-US government we had. 

And then the US unilaterally leaves the ABM treaty in 2001. The Russian government warns against this, insisting that it will revive a nuclear arms race, that it's an unnecessary, destabilizing move. That a better alternative would be to seek to include China and other nascent nuclear powers in the treaty. The US ignores this. 

So with that, in the 10 years after the collapse of USSR, the illusions were completely broken. Whatever peaceful relations you may think there were, the Russian government never forgot these things, especially when other waves of NATO expansion came as reminders. 

So if you really want to know who's responsible, look at the American officials throughout the 90s. The ones that advocated for all these expansionist moves, the ones that [suggested the bombing of Belgrade](https://youtu.be/vei_18YcC6E), the dissolution of the hard-won Cold War nuclear security agreements. They're the ones that spit in the face of cooperation, in favour of domination and hegemony.

Dawidko1200

marked01

US. Russia used to be a very pro-western country, but was welcomed by the US and EU only while it was staying silent.

cray_psu

Poland. And the Baltics.

The US politics is rather straightforward. American politicians don't think steps ahead.

For Poland and the Baltics the "Russia scare" became a primary point of foreign politics, and they promoted it, keeping saying that they needed investments to be protected from Russia. They were showing full loyalty to the US. The US liked this and approved this. At the time this US-Poland axis was seen as a tool for Americans' control over Europe, against the influence 'old Europe' (France and Germany). It created a situation where nobody in Russia was thinking about any anti-American policies, while US policy in Eastern Europe relied heavily on local russophobic rhetoric.

Then there was Ukraine with its two Western-backed coups, where the usurpers were both russophobic and showing off loyalty the US, which instantly made them liked by American politicians. That was the point of no return.

Hellerick_V

&gt; reset

It's just an empty buzzword. What were the interests (economic\geopolitical) of US and Russia? US still wanted us to be a helpless mess without any interests and sovereignty, and our ruling class wanted at least a tiiiiiny little bit of sovereignty - that's why the "deterioration". Irreconcilable conflict of interests.

There were never any intentions to "reset" anything - it was just a narrative for plebs.

Pallid85

Bill Clinton?

&gt;According to the US, in 2012 Putin damaged relations by accusing the US of election interference,

Isn't it other way around, US damaged relations by interfering in russian elections? How you damage relations by accusing someone?

&gt;damaged relations further in 2014 by annexing Crimea and starting the war in Ukraine, ultimately leading to the failure of the reset.

Megathread rule.

Final_Account_5597

It all started with Saakashvili, who was very passionate about uniting Georgia. After success with Adjara (not without help of RF diplomats), he was keen to join South Osetia. This eventually lead to Russo-Georgian conflict and further decline RF-West in relationship.

Leading_Zebra_1441

US policy after the collapse of the USSR was to maintain its role as the only superpower in the world. This means that any large country that gains influence automatically becomes their enemy. The same applies even more to China, although China has never fought a war with the US or harmed it in any way, I constantly see Americans seriously discussing the need for a war with China simply to prevent this country from taking over their leadership. Americans do not accept equal relations with other countries, only subordination.

The one who made mistake on that 'reset' button they've gifted to Lavrov and labeled it 'overload' in Russian.

Maybe it is Brzezinski's legacy. Or Soros.

fan_is_ready

&gt; Who was responsible for the deterioration in US-Russia relations?

Western bloc. Not just USA, but entire bloc. There was a lot of goodwill towards the west in 1990s, and there was an opportunity. The opportunity was squandered, by western powers. 

My personal impression that when USSR collapsed western countries got a bit too happy, misunderstood the situation, and drank a bit too much cool aid. "The end of history", "We've won". Then they decided that they've built the best political system ever and, like USSR initially wanted, decided to bring the light to the rest of the globe whether people there liked the idea or not. 

That resulted in series of failed "interventions" in foreign countries.

Vladimir Putin warned not to touch Georgia or Ukraine back in 2008, on Bucharest summit. Gorbachev likely expected them to uphold non-expansion promise. That did not happen, and that led us to where we are all now.

NaN-183648

From the point of view of the US, it's obviously Russia. It's just the US external policy is about telling every single country what they should do and once they do not abide they become 'not democratic enough'. Hence, since Russia moved past the 'democratic' 90s and started to act more and more sovereign, the US started to like Russia less and less.

No, I don't agree with the US not willing to talk with others as equals.

Mischail

Reset was a play. It ment simply "this is your last chance, Russia, step aside and bow,l". If ever USA wanted to start a new relations, it have to learn how to respect other side.
Thou, thats a fantasy.

DimHoff

&gt;Do you agree with the Western narrative?

No.

&gt;Do you think the Russian government or the US government was responsible for the failure of the reset?

Both governments; though failure of reset is "natural", so it would cost an immensive efforts not to fail.

Facensearo

Malcolm_the_jester

Impressive_Glove_190

One can say this about the "Obama' reset": it's hard to change something without changing anything, but I tried to do it.

daktorkot

US appointed McFail as an ambassador, who did everything in his power to destroy any good relations left. John Sullivan wasn't much better.

Living_flame

Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NWE6JS5rh9)! 


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Realistically we'd roll Russia, unless they use nukes, in which case we'd still roll them but lots of us would die.

Careful_Response4694

Russia can't survive a full on war with NATO. They know that. But so far they have achieved their goals with the use of nuclear threats. Nobody is willing to face them directly when there's a strong chance of annihilation. Unless the dice are rolled and the western world draws a firm line, they'll continue to slowly exert control and annex nearby territory.

If the U.S. ever fell far enough to side with Russia in a military sense, all bets are off.

Professional_Bag3713

Extremely unlikely. A war with China or Russia is highly highly unlikely. 

Too much money would be lost for China. They make a lot off us and vice versa. They have no interest in war it would just be a lose lose for both sides. 

And Russia wouldn’t go to war either. They’d get stomped out pretty quickly anyway. Their invasion of Ukraine was very telling of their military. Even with our aid to Ukraine, it was actually surprising they weren’t able to crush Ukraine. It’s been very costly for them and now they also look weak. If they can’t invade Ukraine, they can’t win a war against nato, ever.

Those "credible" sources have been the same sources that have been wrong repeatedly about this war for years.

Remember when Russia's economy was about to collapse? How about when Russia was running out of missiles? Or going further back, how inviting Georgia and Ukraine to NATO wouldn't result in war? 

At a certain point you might want to look towards sources which are more accurate. Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer are famous in this regard.

CookieRelevant

There is no "NATO-Russian war". If NATO goes against Russia, then China and North Korea are coming with, so then we just have a WW3

Slight-Loan453

USA now supports Russia and North Korea while declaring economic war on our allies. NATO will be swept under the rug as well. It’s not how small Russia is, it’s how they rule. They’ve create a blueprint for USA conservatives which is being copied to a T. American Conservatism was in its death throes believe it or not. This next four years is them rejecting democracy.

Lazy-Damage-8972

As a history and military passionate i will tell you how likely it is.

Not really possible. First of all for Russia that would be mathematically impossible to win such war. Russia is now 143 mln which is 4x smaller than European Union. GDP of russia is the same as GDP of Benelux. Long term war is always won by the richer country.

Plus even if that would happen nuclear war is the least possible scenario. Every single use of atomic bomb would cause escalation that no one would want. Just look at the population density in Russia and ask yourself would you risk dropping a bomb on enemy knowing he would drop a bomb on Petersburg or Moscow?

Russia is always threatening, because Russia is a seriously weak country and threatening nuclear extinction is only possible way to get something from other smaller countries. They are a super power only by name. They can't cope with small Ukraine, they couldn't cope with Poland in 1920 or Afghanistan in the 80s. Their mentality is still stuck in the 40s of previous century. Russia is strong against the weak, and weak against the strong.

Russian military tactics are based on ww2 so called "meat assaults". Yeah USSR won with Germany but Germany's total casualities were around 8 milions while Soviet were 23 milions. There is NO single family in post USSR country that would't have lost someone in ww2 + USSR got most of their suport from the US, soviet soldiers had problems with boots, if not the US, they would go by bare feet to Berlin.

Russian military absolutely incopmetent. Corruption lead to such situation that soldiers had to eat expired food, or drive on old tanks that should have been in museum for like 30 years.

Russia now is literally china's vassal. Only thing they have to offer the west is cheap gas and wheat. But Ukraine has enough wheat to feed europe itself thanks to chernozem grounds that are probably the best for agriculture. And we are now entering atomic and renewable energy as our main source and we could still get enough gas from US or OPEC, so we could cope without Russia.

Ok_Practice3885

Dude, they're losing their shit to a back water, 3rd world, 50x smaller in physical and economic nation. I don't think Russia could last a day with Poland and Germany. They are getting fucked.

ElongnatedMuskrat_09

If there is a WWIII anytime soon, it won't be because Russia wants it.

Nearly every one agreed at the start of the invasion that the only way Ukraine would survive is if other countries intervened. The only way Ukraine could ever hope to win the war, it was thought, is if they got enough support to overcome Russia's numerous advantages. Credible economists also noticed that, given Ukraine's surprising resilience and attrition rates, there was a second way for Ukraine to win the war. If Ukraine could outlast Russia's economic engine and inflict sufficient personnel and equipment + vehicle losses, Russia would literally be physically incapable of continuing.

Estimates on this were from 3 to 5 years.

We are now at the 3 year mark, and we're starting to see the beginning signs of what those economists had described. Russia is facing labor shortages, even with an absurdly low (2.6%) unemployment rate. What's more, Russia's economy is quickly becoming more and more centered around military goods. This, in turn, means that there is less production in other, equally important sectors. If we accept the commonly held belief that Donald Trump is aligned with Vladimir Putin, we can take Trump's urgency to "end the war as fast as possible" as further proof that Russia is beginning to reach the end of its rope.

The more losses Russia suffers, the more quickly they will reach the breaking point.

With all of this in mind, it's virtually guaranteed that Russia would not want to instigate WWIII for a very long time. Regardless of how the war in Ukraine ends, they will need time to recover from the staggering losses they've suffered. Babies will need to be born. Equipment will need to be replenished. Peoples' faith in the regime will need to be restored. As it currently stands, there are glimpses of unrest in Russian social media. To say nothing of the utter humiliation Russia has been dealt in  their "special 3-day operation" lasting over 3 years, at this point.

MalkavAmonra

Depends on how Ukraine ends. Russia won’t move on NATO until the remaining non-aligned states are subjugated. As long as Ukraine exists peace between Russia and NATO will exist.

Responsible_Bee_9830

\&gt;Peace, or at the very least an absence of conflict, is going to be achieved in Ukraine this year

This seems optimistic - at the very least presumptive. 

  
Russia is weak militarily compared to what it was during the USSR era. The USSR fell because of economic failure. Russia has the same risk today. So does Europe. Putin is happy to grind Russian bones for his glory, Russia is chock full of natural resources. Ukraine is also chock full of natural resources. Trump is just looking to squeeze Ukraine for money and is happy to let Ukrainians die as part of his negotiation tactic as he is cold hearted money-grubbing scum (I mean a stable genius).

Without NATO we will still see Europe defend Ukraine because it's better to spend money helping Ukraine fight back against Russia and lose Ukrainian soldiers as part of that than it is to wait for Ukraine to fall and then spend money and lose non-Ukrainian soldiers. The US is in the same situation as Europe but we have a big beautiful ocean to protect us from and invasions which means that until Europes economy (and therefor the US economy) is at risk, the US need not take action; a consequence of waiting that long will be Europe being mad at the US for being selfish and thus become economically more self-reliant which will shrink the US economy and also prevent the US economy from being as globally significant as it is now.

  
Lots of people will die, lots of money will be spent. The US has a strong say in how quickly it ends, how many will die, and how much money it will cost and our current administration is okay with it taking a long time, costing many lives, and costing lots of money due to the belief that the financial cost will largely be born else where... a belief that is certainly true over the two to four year horizon which is all they care about (business works one quarter at a time, politicians on a 2, 4, or 6 year cycle depending on which job they have/want).

MiniPoodleLover

Keep in mind the axis of China/Iran/NK would assist Russia in this endeavor

Beadlfry

The problem with Russia, is that if they feel defeat is immanent, nukes will fly.

So rolling them in conventional warfare is some what irrelevant.

No_Unused_Names_Left

Russia can’t handle what’s on their plate now they can’t fight anyone anywhere except on their border or on their soil bc of horrible logistics.

The only chance Russia has of success militarily is if you invade them.

The major takeaway from the Ukraine-Russia war is Russia is a paper tiger.

BarnacleFun1814

We need to actually look at what countries want. 

Russia wants Ukraine. They want it because they claim it’s theirs. They also want Europe because they want to rule the world. But it’s clear they don’t have the manpower and weapons to take over the world. 

So they want Ukraine. If they get Ukraine or if they’re forced into a cease fire (unlikely, if they’re smart they’ll be spending the next several decades modernizing their military. Again, unlikely because they’re stubborn. But they know they can’t win against Europe.

Varsity_Reviews

If Ukraine falls the likelihood of conflict between NATO and Russia increases exponentially, which is why it's so fucking stupid that we're abandoning Ukraine.

Edit: Also, as we're already starting to see America's abandonment of NATO is increasing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation. So, yeah.

Competitive_Topic466

Tim_Apple_938

Just saying if a russia started a war with a minor country and became a stalemate they are getting steamrolled if only half of nato (without Usa) fought them

Then_Instruction_145

Russia is big but the combined forces of NATO and the US could kick Russia's teeth in especially if Ukrain joins NATO

Now we just need world leaders to grow a pair and just go to war. That would be the quickest way anyway. 

Bonus points for making Vladimir Putin look like the biggest idiot on the world stage.

NATO is dead and Europe failed, my dude. This war ain't happening

Bman1465

Zero. Russia isn't attacking NATO, that's a crock.

RustBeltWriter

daffy_M02

Various nations have recently been openly talking about putting boots on the ground in Ukraine. Australia, the UK,France. Poland has said they still aren't willing to send troops in but are pushing mandatory military training for all men &amp; development of their own nukes. 

Without US support, Europe is in very real danger &amp; they're taking it seriously. But I'd bet my left nut that the moment any European troops move into Ukraine that Trump will invade Denmark or even Canada to start a defensive war on two fronts.

mildmichigan

Zero. If Putin has to fight a wider war, it'll mean he failed in his quest to subjugate USA. It is looking like he is succeeding on that front so there is no need to widen his war.

Particular-Song2587

The more russkie will bleed out in Ukraine, the less likely full-blown NATO confrontation is gonna be.

Also, NATO won't probably become the first target - I would bet Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, only after those get conquered they will move into Baltics and then possibly Poland/Finnland/Romania.

There is also a possibility that China will stab russkie in the back and retake some parts of Siberia once russkie get into a full-scale war with the West.

Chliewu

I would bet my entire life savings against this happening

AlbatrossRoutine8739

Vladimir Putin is not a fool. While Reddit often labels those they disagree with as "stupid", the reality is that he is a highly intelligent strategist with a KGB background, wellversed in manipulation and geopolitical maneuvering. Underestimating him is a mistake and so is assuming that he would take a frontal assault approach.

It is unlikely that he would launch a direct military assault on an EU or NATO member, especially after enduring a prolonged war of attrition in Ukraine. The assumption that Europe’s response would mirror that of Ukraine is fundamentally flawed. The West’s strategy was never about enabling Ukraine to outright defeat Russia in a sweeping military victory. Instead, the objective has been to systematically weaken Russia, militarily and economically, through stretched engagement, making direct confrontation a riskier and less viable option for Moskva. This calculated approach explains the measured and sometimes hesitant nature of Western support for Ukraine.

In the event of an attack on an EU or NATO member, the response would be swift and severe, as dictated by existing treaties. Whether or not the United States engages, the collective defense mechanisms of NATO and the EU ensure a decisive retaliation.

Instead, expect more of what he has done so far: efforts to fracture alliances, isolate individual states, and exploit division to his advantage. "Divide and conquer" is a timetested military strategy, and he wields it with precision, seeking to weaken collective resistance before striking.

You can love or hate the men, but he knows how to play this game.

SemiDiSole

LB-Bandido

&gt;they will strike while the iron is hot

Buddy, they are using Cold War era tanks as makeshift artillery. The iron is not hot, it's ice cold. If Russia *wanted* war with NATO, we'd have seen it by now. As for Russia being afraid of NATO, I don't know if this is common knowledge anymore, but Russia... has nuclear weapons. Russia has the ultimate defensive trump card. Anyone with two braincells to rub together, and yes that includes those in the Kremlin, knows that NATO isn't going to risk nuclear war to attack Russia. And vice versa, NATO has nuclear weapons. 

You should be more concerned about the fact that recent events have proven that the only means by which a smaller nation can protect itself is through nuclear weapons. Meaning we can anticipate many more rogue states pursuing their own nuclear programs.

PaleontologistNo9817

Fun-Engine-5283

It’s sad that at this point we aren’t sure what side we’d be on.

Omgpuppies13

mxthodman

Europe would roll Russia. Russia can't even handle Ukraine. To start a war with NATO after 3 years of significantly depleted forces it wouldn't even be serious.

They could use Nukes and in that event all of the Russia gov would be dead. You have to remember that more than just the US, China, Russia have Nukes.

Reasonable-Bit560

Do you European forces since voted in a career criminal that shits his diapers.

Appropriate-Food1757

The rest of NATO (EU + UK + Turkey) could probably match Russia as of now. If given a few years, they can outclass and outgun Russia by a wide margin.

But of course Russia has other tools in its toolkit. It's backing many different right wing populists in Europe and they might break the ranks on Russia's behalf.

Hopeful_Drama_3850

Russia’s economy is no where near ready to take on NATO. Projections for 2026 are extremely dire. Russia will never take on NATO unless they receive considerable financial support from big players like China and China will not do it. The answer is highly unlikely… unless Ukraine surrenders, letting Russia reorient their economy back to a peacetime one and do it again with Moldova and then NATO…

One_Form7910

Three things have to be true for a war to occur.

At least one party must make a demand of the other that the other is unwilling to make or vice versa 

Both parties think they will win the armed conflict.

Both sides believe there is more to win by going to war than there is to giving into the demands of the other.

I fail to see anything Russia might have that the entire Nato collective could want (mind you it's a defensive treaty).

I fail to see anything that Nato has the Russia would be willing to fight for. I think that Putin knows he can't win a conventional war. The best he can hope for is for the tides of time to swing in his favor and for the nascent right wing movements in Europe and the US to drive them apart so that they can't spend any attention on what happens on the fringes of their peripheral. Putin is counting on the apathy and resentment of nativist movements to push for isolationism and "realpolitik".

Once he feels that this has happened, wars might break out, but it would be a Nato vs Russian thing, it would be a Russia vs tiny underdeveloped European countries thing.

XxMAGIIC13xX

Odds are essentially 0.

US and Russia don’t want to dance, and Canada/Europe aren’t capable of dancing.

ActualDW

What would Russia achieve, strategically, from destroying the last remnants of global stability and starting a war with one of the world’s largest markets?

Delusional take.

Well, you certainly wouldn't know it if it happened, thanks to propaganda and and even if people knew, they'd flat out deny it because MERIKA!

Russia would be foolish actually attack a NATO country.

Puzzleheaded-Bus2211

Leave it to Europe to start another world war

There are softer targets for Russia that are not NATO like Moldova

Adventurous-Sort9830

Honestly if be more concerned with Trumps comments about Canada and Greenland. I know Russia is the enemy in front of our face, but if Trump actually uses military force to annex two allied countries it could spark a conflict that will put WW2 to shame

NaturalPossible8590

No_Biscotti_7258

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Malaysia amidst intensified Russian attacks on Ukraine. Both diplomats discussed new concepts for peace talks, though significant disagreements remain.

US-Russia Relations and Ukraine Conflict

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want