There is substantial evidence that diplomatic space was constrained in the years leading up to the war. Angela Merkel has spoken about the limits of the Minsk framework and how Poland and the Baltic states vetoed her attempts at diplomacy. Instead Europe largely deferred negotiations to Washington who has proven to be an unreliable partner. The US and Europe discouraged diplomacy, talking and back-channels while Kyiv formally ruled out talks with Putin. Whether those actions were justified is a separate debate.

The Russian and Ukrainian positions are fundamentally incompatible: Ukraine seeks NATO-like security guarantees; Russia rejects any NATO or NATO-equivalent presence in Ukraine. That structural gap is the stumbling block. Increasing military pressure does not automatically bridge that gap — evidence and history suggest that instead it is more likely to harden it. You argue that a stronger NATO military threat would deter Russia. I would argue that escalation logic is part of how we arrived here. Ukraine was armed under the assumption that deterrence would constrain Moscow. It did not deter, it scared Russia. That alone should give us pause before assuming further escalation will succeed where prior deterrence failed.

On Germany: post-1945 German policy was deliberately shaped by the legacy of World War II and a deep societal commitment to military restraint. Presenting a major expansion of German military power as “natural” overlooks that historical context and the strategic culture it produced.

Round and Round we go.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 15 2026 02:49am

Paris, The French Caliphate, find 43 draft dodgers. Hint: 60+ yo retirees now count.



This post was edited by Norlander on Feb 21 2026 12:47pm

There is no major shift in the war. The fighting grinds on.

There were several articles related to internal political maneuvering in Ukraine. Former Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi appears to be positioning himself politically, and criticism of Volodymyr Zelenskyy - particularly over the failed counteroffensive - is resurfacing. It’s a familiar line of attack, though arguably a delayed one. He wants office.

On the diplomatic front, the collective West continues to pretend diplomacy while at home all talk is about a 5 year weapons build up plan, War 2030. There is no appetite for meaningful dialogue. They will not countenance losing. The same holds true within Ukraine, where a significant portion of the population remains unwilling to concede territory. Better to fight to last breath then to cede land.

Everything appears to be about getting to 2030 - buying time to militarize. It seems daft noting if they really wanted this war to end they would sit down with Russia. Why build up your military when you have nukes? why provoke a country with nukes? yet here we are. A host of European countries are increasing defense spending, and even traditionally neutral states like Ireland have reports of substantial military upgrades (figures in the range of €600 million have been mentioned).

The gap between Russia and Europe, politically and strategically, is broadening and it looks like its still full steam ahead with no real diplomacy in evidence.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 27 2026 10:25am

Unfortunate.

Wait, isn't the common argument peddled in this thread that Russia started this war as an act of defense against "NATO aggression", because they felt rightfully threatened by NATO buildup in Eastern Europe?
Either the "why feel threatened when you have nukes"-argument is valid for both Europe and Russia, or it's not valid for either side.


Your complaints about European military buildup get the causality backwards. The Europeans kept underinvesting in their militaries from 2014 through 2022 while the conflict in Ukraine was already on its way. It was Russia which first announced plans to massively increase its military production for years to come in, I think, 2023. Yes, this decision was made by the Kremlin predominantly as part of their war effort in Ukraine. But in scenarios in which Ukraine loses/collapses, Europe has to be prepared if Russia then doesn't tone down its military spending and instead - emboldened by victory in Ukraine - seeks further conquest. As of today, the combined militaries of the European countries are still superior to Russia's by some distance - but Europe can't continue to be asleep at the wheel like they have been for the past 20 years while the Russian war economy keeps humming.



I fully agree with you regarding Zaluzhnyi's political ambitions.

Trump will have this war ended by May.

With Germany's eco in the tank, whats your views then on Germany now becoming a militarized country, with the best army in europe. If Germany adopted say the Israeli model, or US model of being an arms manufacturer / supplier? Any thoughts on the German Economy over the next 5 years, as well as standard of living? Maybe the new cash cow for Germany now that International trade is not doing so well and the influx of even more migrants, from the middle east etc? Europe refuses to lose the war, ergo Europe builds up its armies over the next 5 years. Do you see them sending troops to Ukraine or is it a case of "The US is unreliable, we need to be able to protect ourselves". i.e. the EU armies are currently not relevant, it is a cost, that simply, has to be paid?

I still think it would be helpful for the likes of France and Germany to build 4 or 5 nuclear power plants, if the EU let them... (but well this is a 15-20 year endeavor, i mean they are not China).

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 1 2026 01:05am

Germany's economy is stagnant overall. Some sectors are tanking (car manufacturing, chemical industry), others are doing quite well (arms manufacturing, biotech).
Our military is so far in the gutter after 30 years of crazy neglect that we could pump huge sums into rearming for years to come without the Bundeswehr catching up to the strength of the British and French militaries - so I really don't see Germany having the best army in Europe.

There is indeed a tendency in Germany's industrial sector to shift idle manufacturing capacities from the auto industry toward military production - it's not just the big European nations which are rearming, and countries like Slovenia, Belgium or Norway surely don't have the factories to produce their own tanks and airplanes. But this trend shouldn't be overstated; it's not like the arms industry will become the predominant economic sector of Germany.

I don't see European boots on the ground in Ukraine, it's imho more like you said: being prepared to protect ourselves at a time when Russia is on full wartime footing and US support is increasingly shaky.

France has tons of nuclear power plants, but many of them are quite old and decrepit. Germany giving up nuclear power was a huge mistake, but due to the huge financial and time investment, building new ones doesn't make sense either. Maybe we can start building those much smaller thorium reactors in a couple of years once the technology is ready for mass adoption.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 1 2026 01:21pm

Just to be clear: the German Government have made a statement to say they want the largest army in Europe. not sure if you saw that. I think as a manufacturing powerhouse (notwithstanding current position) we can take this at face value? it takes 15-20 years to build powerplants with a crap tonne of red tape extending that time periond.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 1 2026 01:26pm

The German governments throughout the past 30 years kept saying that they want to fix the Bundeswehr, this time for real, pinky promise. It never materialized. They will be somewhat more serious this time around, but not to the level where we surpass the Brits and French.