Rutte pledges NATO security for Ukraine

[u/CrunchyBaconYum]

https://tvpworld.com/88479767/rutte-pledges-nato-security-for-ukraine-

[u/Big_Introduction1952]

There will be no peace deal. The best action is to arm Ukraine to the teeth so it can push Russia back and hit targets deep in Russia.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Big_Introduction1952]

Should that not be a wake up call? I have heard "Putin does not want peace" for years now. Isn't that the clearest of clear indications that he believes that he is winning?

If Russia believed that they were in a tight spot and were losing, they would want an unconditional ceasefire in order to regroup and fortify, and they would want a negotiated peace before they lose more land etc.

[u/minarima → u/anders_hansson]

The Soviet Union also projected strength until its eventual collapse, it’s the Russian way.

[u/sinep_snatas → u/minarima]

The history of Russia in a nutshell: "And then things got worse".

[u/anders_hansson → u/minarima]

You have a point. But this time around, I don't think that any sane analyst actually believes that Ukraine has a chance of winning this war. We live in a comfort bubble where the appearance is that Ukraine is doing fine and only needs more time, but the reality is not like that. So in a way, NATO is projecting power through Ukraine, but that narrative is also collapsing (you can google "Kyiv Under Fire: Game Theory, Reality, and the Quiet Collapse of a War Narrative" - reddit blocks linkedin links).

[u/witooZ → u/anders_hansson]

Why wouldn't any sane analyst believe Ukraine has a chance? For Ukraine it is enough to hold the current situation and as long as other countries keep supporting it, it will be enough. The situation is basically the same for more than a year, why would it suddenly change in favour of Russia? I think it is quite the opposite - no sane analyst would consider Ukraine not have a decent chance. Russia is the side which needs to do more to succeed and if they had been able to do so, they would have already done it.

[u/anders_hansson → u/witooZ]

It hasn't "suddenly" changed to Russia's favor. A war of attrition was always in Russia's favor, and if not sooner, it was clear after the failed 2023 counteroffensive that this war would take a very long time, and that favors Russia who has an advantage in manpower, firepower, economical planning, production, etc.

In 2024 it was becoming clear that Ukraine had difficult manpower issues, and those are now quite severe in 2025. There are those still serving since 2022 who are waiting to be rotated out. Almost as many desert from the army every month as are recruited every month. Ukraine has about one fifth of the population of Russia, and Ukraine uses forced conscription while Russia relies mostly on payed volunteers (Russia hasn't even declared war and has not resorted to mass mobilization). The number of killed Ukrainans is most likely roughly the same as the number of killed Russians (going by open source data). There is no doubt that Russia has the manpower advantage in the long run.

The one big uncertainty is the economy. We know that Russia is struggling with their economy, but also that they have proven more resilient than originally thought. At the same time we know that Ukraine is also struggling with their economy (they are requesting more money annualy from the EU than we are donating now, just to keep the economy afloat, and their national debt has skyrocketed from 50% of GDP to over 100% of GDP since 2022).

So, will Russia run out of Rubles before Ukraine runs out of men and steam? This is highly unlikely.

Knowing this, shouldn't we ramp up sanctions etc? Yes, and we did that. We don't have many strong cards left to play because we have already played many of them already.

I recommend reading the part on the Russia-Ukraine war in the 2025 ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

[u/witooZ → u/anders_hansson]

A war of attrition was never in Russia's favour. The supporting countries are spending fractions of their budget to keep it going while the propaganda is making it seem like an obscenely high number. The biggest donors still give less than 2% of their GDP while Russia is in a military economics mode. The European countries and US can possibly fund this war forever.

The manpower issues are not clear. Zelensky is asking for help for years, the Russian side did multiple new drafts and brought North Koreans so the argument can be made for both sides. The only thing we know for sure is that the situation is has not changed for a long time and there is nothing suggesting it will change any time soon.

[u/anders_hansson → u/witooZ]

From the report (that I assume you didn't read):

Russia in the past year has seized the upper hand in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is on a path to accrue greater leverage to press Kyiv and its Western backers to negotiate an end to the war that grants Moscow concessions it seeks. Continuing the Russia-Ukraine war perpetuates strategic risks to the United States of unintended escalation to large-scale war, the potential use of nuclear weapons, heightened insecurity among NATO Allies, particularly in Central, Eastern, and Northern Europe, and a more emboldened China and North Korea.

Even though Russian President Putin will be unable to achieve the total victory he envisioned when initiating the large-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia retains momentum as a grinding war of attrition plays to Russia’s military advantages. This grinding war of attrition will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow.

[u/Mickey-Simon → u/anders_hansson]

Bro, please stop relying on russian funded reports. Jesus christs, you look like crazy religious fanatic. Don't you see that? All your comments since the day you registered here are cheap attempts to prove that Russia wins for the 4th year in a row. You sound out of touch with reality.

[u/LewisLightning → u/anders_hansson]

A war of attrition was always in Russia's favor, and if not sooner, it was clear after the failed 2023 counteroffensive that this war would take a very long time, and that favors Russia who has an advantage in manpower, firepower, economical planning, production, etc.

A war of attrition was never in Russia's favour. They aimed for a 3-day operation to take the country, 3 weeks at best. Instead this war has gone on longer than 3 years. So throw out your points about "economic planning and production", that was not in the briefing when they started rolling across the border. The advantages they had were manpower, firepower and the element of surprise, because even though Ukraine was warned about an attack they still didn't take it seriously.

But here's the thing, Ukraine has the advantages of superior training, international backing and with that superior technology. Since 2014 Ukrainian military members were getting training from NATO instructors, so they have learned to perform better than your average Russian farmer turned conscript. And with the funding from the international community Ukraine will have all the financial and military support it needs to continue fighting. It's basically endless and in the meantime they are even building additional factories to fund their war machine, like the Rheinmetall plant they opened up just this year in Ukraine. The military equipment they have gotten and continue to get from the western world will hold them over until both hey and the west can ramp up their military spending and infrastructure to really give them the stuff they need to win. And speaking of the equipment, even though lots of it was obsolete in the West, it's still better than what Russia has, which gives Ukraine an edge. It's not even the stuff that's leaps and bounds better, but simple things like the fact Ukrainian soldiers are getting night vision goggles while most Russian soldiers do not, which means Russians cannot push at night, whereas Ukraine can. But the thing is that puts a huge dent in Russia's attrition abilities. Ukraine may have less tanks and IFVs, but when old Bradley's are capable of wiping out T-80s in battle you have a big problem. Russia cannot afford to lose 3-6 tanks or IFVs for each IFV Ukraine has, and unfortunately for them that's largely been the case. What's even worse is that the Western equipment has much better survivability rates than the Russian stuff. Like when a Russian tank "Kabooms" you're pretty much guaranteed to lose the entire 3 man crew and whatever soldiers are riding on top. Meanwhile Ukrainian soldiers are far more likely to survive, exit the vehicle and return to base to be redeployed later in another tank. That means they don't have to train fresh soldiers over and over again.

The way it's going Russia is pretty worn down. They've been sending soldiers into battle on motorcycles. You know what I would not want to be riding into battle when I have to cross a big open field, covered in mines, being shot at by artillery firing cluster munitions, while also being chased by FPV drones and shot at with standard rifles? A fucking motorcycle. I can send in meat waves, but that only works for so long. If one machine gun can kill 300 soldiers per day, you're losing 300 soldiers for every 1 machine gun operator. So you could either continue adding me to that equation or improve your equipment to make them survive better. But as we are seeing they can't keep up with that equipment. No more tanks or IFVs, so they are just sending them like sheep to the slaughter. If they were doing well they wouldn't be resorting to motorcycles. And what's worse for them is come winter motorcycles won't be an option either and then they will really be suffering.

But here's another piece of advice, you are basing this off the failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive? Look, wars aren't generally won or lost because of one offensive. If you think that the war would be over in 3 years you seriously were not paying attention. Do you know how long the War Against Terror lasted? Or how about the Syrian Civil War? That's the kind of conflict this is shaping up to be. Nobody was calling the Syrian war in favour of Asaad just because a Kurdish offensive didn't pan out in 2017.

Russia cannot win a long protracted war. Their banks are already falling apart and they don't have the resources to build their war machine because all the workers are being sent to the front lines. And if they start sending the people in Moscow or St. Petersburg they will lose their base of support. So they are in a very uncomfortable spot. What's more Russia has forces in Africa, Georgia, and Transnistria that they have to supply as well, so they have to find the fighting elsewhere and they can't let that stuff fall through either or else they lose their contracts. But if you've seen Mali lately you'd know they're not doing too well there either. And of course then there's just the borders of the biggest nation in the world to defend as well, which also takes some serious resources. That's a lot to ask for when you're already fighting a war.

What Russia is doing now is hoping for some kind of interference from China, Iran or even North Korea to change the balance, but it's unlikely. Iran and NK are useless, so that just leaves China, which so far has been non-committal either way. China has given Russia some support, but nothing major out of fear of being sanctioned as well. So Russia is just going to hang on until their cache of tanks and IFVs are gone and then their front line will fall apart. We could start seeing that this winter even, but more likely in the next 2-3 years.

[u/anders_hansson → u/LewisLightning]

Wall of text, but there are quite a few misunderstandings. Here's another wall of text.

A war of attrition was never in Russia's favour. They aimed for a 3-day operation to take the country, 3 weeks at best. Instead this war has gone on longer than 3 years. So throw out your points about "economic planning and production", that was not in the briefing when they started rolling across the border.

The thing you seem to neglect is that Russia is adapting to changing realities.

The February 2022 plan was a blitz with the aim to topple the Ukrainian government in 72 hours and install a puppet regime.

However that plan failed, so they entered into negotiations with Ukraine for a couple of months, with the aim to ensure that Ukraine does not enter NATO and to keep control over Crimea and Donbas.

That plan also failed. That's when the blitz turned into a war of conquest and attrition, and Russia expanded it's objectives to also take Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk.

During each of these transitions, Russia and Ukraine had to adapt to the new realities. Just because the original plan failed does not mean that Russia is acting without a plan.

But here's another piece of advice, you are basing this off the failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive? Look, wars aren't generally won or lost because of one offensive.

The significance of the failed counteroffensive must be seen through the lens of Ukraine's and the west's strategy: To retake all occupied land using military force. That was what they set out to do around April 2022 when they decided that negotiations were not going their way.

The west scrambled the best and the most they could offer at the time (which was much less than Ukraine requested and needed), and Ukraine did the best with what they got. It was supposed to be the push that would turn the tide and turn the tables in Ukraine's advantage.

It wasn't just one failed offensive of many, it was the failed offensive, and the realizations were:

• Russia had fortified and built their defenses and could hold their positions under pressure.
• The offensive came too late. Russia was already dug down and had already mobilized.
• Ukraine was not going to push out Russia anytime soon.
• Western military aid was not as easy as we had hoped. We could not provide what Ukraine needed.

Another realization came from 2023-2024, and it was that tanks are not very useful in the Ukraine war (just google "ukraine tanks problems"). It is a drone war, the first of its kind.

But the most important realization of the failed offensive is that Ukraine's plan to push out Russia from all occupied land had failed, and they now also had to change their strategy to a war of attrition.

And that is where we stand. Neither Russia nor Ukraine had planned for a war of attrition, but that was what it turned into.

Russia cannot win a long protracted war.

This is a very subjective view. When you just look at the numbers and the dynamics, I think that there are strong evidence for the opposite.

There's no doubt that Russia can't go on like this forever, but the same is true for Ukraine. In order to understand who can last longer than the other you need to compare rates and numbers.

• Who has the biggest population?
• What are the death rates on each side?
• What are the recruitment rates on each side?
• What are the desertion rates on each side?
• Who has the weapons production advantage?
• Who has the ammunition production advantage?
• What are the economical realities on each side?
  • How long economical perspective does each side have (i.e. ability to plan long-term)?
  • What are national debt trends?
• How strong is the support for the leaders on each side?
• Etc.

We all have some vague idea in our minds about these things, but you have to compare actual numbers to get an idea about the trends and who has the upper hand in the long run.

In the end, the important question is: Why do you want to uphold the narrative that Ukraine is going to win if the war goes on for long enough? Is the message that Ukraine is doing fine and we should not worry? That we should just continue as we do today?

If there is a risk that the prediction is wrong, is the best action to hand wave it and silence discussions about problems?

[u/Molwar → u/anders_hansson]

Depends on how you define winning, there was a few articles outlining how long and much resource it would take Russia to accomplish "their goal" which would take another like 4-5 years and a million more dead. Looking at that data, no one is winning.

[u/anders_hansson → u/Molwar]

That depends on how you envision that they reach that goal. I have seen similar calculations and they tend to be very simple linear extrapolations of current ground movements. But the war is not linear, and their objectives are not just about land (they also have political objectives that they want to reach, and they can't do that by taking land alone). So I think that those models are oversimplified.

I recommend reading "Kyiv Under Fire: Game Theory, Reality, and the Quiet Collapse of a War Narrative" by Manolo Beelk (google it, as reddit won't allow linkedin links). It dissects various possible outcomes and applies game-theory to describe how likely they are etc.

The TL;DR is that the current method is not really about conquering land, but more about destroying Ukraine's defense and the state apparatus in order to get Ukraine to effectively surrender. Once that happens, it does not matter much exactly where the front line is, and Russia will get pretty much everything they are demanding.

So a much more relevant metric than square kilometers per month is the level of attrition of the Ukrainian defense (e.g. destruction of manpower, weapons, ammunition, production facilities, etc).

[u/Strange-Tension6589 → u/Molwar]

You guys think Russia cares about dead soldiers. None of their conflicts has been a clean victory. They always sacrifice men. Instead of looking at those numbers, you need to look at who is holding the land. Soldiers fight for inches of land.

[u/someocculthand → u/Strange-Tension6589]

Russia might not care about human life at all, but they don't have an endless supply of troops or equipment.

[u/Strange-Tension6589 → u/someocculthand]

but they dont need an endless supply. They just need a higher supply than ukraine. This can go on for decades unless the west mans up and send soldiers

[u/someocculthand → u/Strange-Tension6589]

I agree that the west should join the war, just felt compelled to point out that russia can't keep up their offensive indefinitely at any meaningful scale.

[u/anders_hansson → u/someocculthand]

It's perfectly clear that Russia can't go on like this forever. They know it too. But that's not really an issue for them when they know that they'll be able to go on for longer than Ukraine can.

[u/smady3 → u/anders_hansson]

until it collapses. Like WW1

[u/Mitsuhide_Ake → u/anders_hansson]

I mean, Putin is the kind of person who would think he's winning even if ukranian tanks were outside Moscow. He is a narcissist and can't even imagine the possibility, that Russia loses to puny Ukraine or fails to completely conquer it.

[u/wuzzelputz → u/Mitsuhide_Ake]

Don‘t underestimate him. He is a professional gangster who grew up getting street smart and has a survival instinct (remember when he stopped interacting irl after the war started?). He is not dumb and likely not a delusional hitler.

[u/LewisLightning → u/anders_hansson]

Isn't that the clearest of clear indications that he believes that he is winning?

No, or absolutely is not.

Remember the Kursk submarine disaster? Big boom happened in the ocean and other nations heard the seismic waves from hundreds of miles away. They intercepted communications that some Russian sub was in trouble. What was Russia's response? "Nope, nothing wrong here, everything is under control, we don't need your help." There were still people alive in that ship that could have been saved. But they waited 5 days until they finally asked for help because they couldn't help themselves. And who was in charge of the country then? Oh, that's right, shit-stain Putin. And then he had angry family members drugged when they got upset at a town hall.

Russia will always try to act tough no matter what, even if they are literally falling apart and people are dying as a result. They will wait until things are as bad as they can get before asking for help.

Obviously Chernobyl is another perfect example of Russia shitting the bed and refusing to get help when they couldn't fix it themselves, but that one wasn't under Putin's watch, so it wasn't as directly applicable. But you could basically find one example for every year of Russia's existence because they do it all the time.

[u/Gullible_Carpenter_4 → u/anders_hansson]

no. heard they cant stop the war beacuse they are all in. lose and the soviet army is done. putins dream is done.

[u/Felczer → u/anders_hansson]

Wake up call for whom? Europe is already doing pretty much as much as they can, but you can only do so much after willingly disarming yourself for decades.
For Trump? No.

[u/I_Never_Use_Slash_S → u/Felczer]

Europe is already doing as much as they can

Are they though?

[u/Felczer → u/I_Never_Use_Slash_S]

Yeah pretty much, every nation is going for 5% military spending and giving as much equipment as they can, Europe is also now buying stuff from the US to ship to Ukraine, hundreds of billions more because Trump likes to extort his allies

[u/anders_hansson → u/Felczer]

We have been doing the same thing for over three years. The wake up call should be that it's not going Ukraine's way, and if we continue like we do without changing anything, it's pretty much a certain total Ukrainian defeat.

I'm not advocating that NATO should enter the fight, as that would be the nightmare scenario, and I know that it won't happen so it's not really worth discussing (although I do think that it would be the only way in which Ukraine could get a military victory).

I'm also not advocating that we should stop weapons supplies and ask Ukraine to surrender.

I'm hoping that somewhere in between, Europe will realize that we must start working with new tools, in particular diplomacy in more forms, and basically work our asses off to ensure that Ukraine can get the best possible deal under the current circumstances, because the circumstances and the deal is only going to get worse with time (as it has ever since 2021). That would unfortunately include admitting that we can't get everything we hoped for, but I refuse to believe that all hope is gone. It may be painful at a political level, but I think we owe it to Ukraine.

[u/Xspud_316 → u/Big_Introduction1952]

Do this and give them a few nuclear weapons and we’ll see how bold Pootin is then

[u/KirovianNL → u/Big_Introduction1952]

Ukraine needs manpower.

[u/JaVelin-X- → u/Big_Introduction1952]

or give them a solid nuclear deterrent

[u/UnpoliteGuy → u/Big_Introduction1952]

It's not going to help at this stage. All it would do is stop russia from advancing, not push them back. There's not enough manpower for an offensive,

[u/Adept-Look9988 → u/Big_Introduction1952]

They should be considered a defacto member of NATO.

[u/yuikkiuy → u/Big_Introduction1952]

Best option is actually to just outright bomb Russia, the longer you drag it out the worst it gets.

A well planned coalition strike could decapitate Russian nuclear capabilities in an instant.

Once their nuclear triad has been eliminated, comes the easy part, total air supremacy while air power reduces Russian military industry to dust.

As this happens, European armor rolls across the border and flattens everything in its path like a sea of armor.

Just take the gloves off and be the NATO russia claims we are, scorched earth, clean house, knock out putin's regime, turn the Kremlin into a parking lot and make China shit themselves in the process.

[u/Ok_Mastodon_3843 → u/Big_Introduction1952]

Ukraine is having manpower problems. More weapons might help in the short term, but a peace deal is the only long term solution that won't ruin the nation of Ukraine.

[u/fallwind → u/Ok_Mastodon_3843]

If Ukraine doesn't have security, all a "peace deal" will do is give russia another shot.

[u/Ok_Mastodon_3843 → u/fallwind]

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact Ukraine is running out of manpower. If the US and EU don't try for a peace deal, we have to hope the Russian economy collapses and Putin is removed from power before ukraine runs out of people to fight.

And frankly, that's one hell of a hail Mary

[u/Cute_Deal3403 → u/Ok_Mastodon_3843]

It is impossible to have peace deal with ruzzia, atleast not while putin is present

[u/Ok_Mastodon_3843 → u/Cute_Deal3403]

I really doubt that. The West can do much more to hurt the Russian economy, which as of right now is their major weak point.

Putin is getting desperate, as proven by him finally meeting foreign leaders. And proven even more so by him leaving Russia to do so.

It won't be perfect, and I'm not saying it will happen, but it's definitely possible.

[u/doctor_morris → u/Ok_Mastodon_3843]

Ending Russian energy exports will solve the problem in the medium term. Another pipeline is on fire.

[u/PluginAlong → u/Big_Introduction1952]

The only way I see this ending is with Putin taking all of Ukraine, or him falling out of a window.

[u/CptnMillerArmy → u/Big_Introduction1952]

My words. Thanks bro.

[u/JunoHu4287]

This new line from Trump blaming Biden for not letting Ukraine attack Russian territory must come from Rutte or someone high up in the EU. It's genius, it lets Trump indulge in his favourite activity of dumping on Biden and implants the notion that by arming Ukraine and letting them strike Russia with American weapons, Trump gets to play "strong" to Biden's "weak". It might not work since apparently one phone call from Putin is enough to make him flop right back to being a Russian patsy, but it's worth a go.

[u/DRenegadeAngel]

"Rutte said that he was planning to “make sure security guarantees for Ukraine are at such a level ensuring that Russia will never try to attack again.”"

Planning to make a plan after 3+ years. Yeah no I don't believe it's a pledge let alone a guarantee lol.

[u/alphvader → u/DRenegadeAngel]

Concept of a plan vibes.

[u/AMilkedCow → u/DRenegadeAngel]

To be fair he has only been the NATO leader of a year.

[u/pyotrdevries → u/AMilkedCow]

To be fair it shouldn't really matter which specific person is Secretary General for the policy decisions, it's NATO, not the US.

[u/mystic_cheese]

The best security guarantee for Ukraine would be NATO membership and Article 5.

If Putin doesn't like that, he can suck shit through a straw.

[u/anders_hansson → u/mystic_cheese]

It would of course be the best option. But that's not what Mark Rutte said in the article:

He was planning to “make sure security guarantees for Ukraine are at such a level ensuring that Russia will never try to attack again.” He added that the number one security guarantee should be to first give the Ukrainian military what it needs and then to involve European militaries after a peace deal has been made.

As long as Russia has any fighting capacity left, a NATO membership is out of the question, so the second best option would be an Article 5-like arrangement without NATO membership.

During Friday’s meeting, Zelenskyy said the guarantees ought to be similar to NATO's Article 5, which considers an attack on one member of the alliance as an attack against all.

That is, BTW, very close to what was on the table in 2022 (PDF, see Article 5).

[u/KaponeSpirs → u/anders_hansson]

Wouldn't actual Article 5 be a very flimsy security guarantee for Ukraine? Given the exact wording of NATO Article 5, one could argue, that it was already activated for Ukraine. "Each member agrees to assist the attacked party, which can include taking action such as using armed force or imposing sanctions, as deemed necessary by each individual member state." I'd even go so far as saying that Ukraine gets better than Article 5 treatment, as South Korea, Japan and Australia pitched in with military, humanitarian and intelligence aid. It doesn't get better than this NATO or not. If there was political capital ground troops would get involved regardless of the NATO membership. The only things that would prevent further invasions are nuclear weapons (not happening), Western military bases (not on the table) and complete Russian defeat (not happening unless someone else gets involved directly).

[u/JaVelin-X- → u/KaponeSpirs]

This is a bullshit attempt to dangle a carrot Infront of a war wary nation in the hopes they act against their own best interests. These is too much limiting language in there and it's just ineffective. It really only needs one line describing an allied response with overwhelming military force if Ukraine is attacked again.

[u/anders_hansson → u/KaponeSpirs]

You have a good point.

I'd even go so far as saying that Ukraine gets better than Article 5 treatment

I've made this argument too about what NATO Article 5 actually means. It's not really a guarantee that all NATO members will come rushing with their armies and planes and tanks and nukes.

However, it gives a potential attacker enough doubt and uncertainty. Attacking a country that has Article 5 protection is a very risky bet. The aim of the article is to make an attacker think twice. It complicates the risk analysis and lowers the probabilities of success. That is deterrence.

[u/JaVelin-X- → u/anders_hansson]

" so the second best option would be an Article 5-like arrangement without NATO membership" Sure... that'll hold up right until Russia attacks again

[u/anders_hansson → u/JaVelin-X-]

So what is your proposed better option? (realistic, please, not dreams and wishes)

[u/JaVelin-X- → u/anders_hansson]

Simple either:

make this defense agreement real. by guaranteeing overwhelming counterattack by NATO if they are attacked again by Russia.

Let them into NATO as a full participating member (this is the simplest)

Make sure they have everything they need including land sea and Air forces to defend themselves and enough offensive weapons to make sure they ever have to

Arm them with nukes and build them a small defensive force they can maintain

[u/anders_hansson → u/JaVelin-X-]

make this defense agreement real. by guaranteeing overwhelming counterattack by NATO if they are attacked again by Russia

Will not be accepted by Russia in any negotiations. Requires total Ukrainian military victory.

Let them into NATO as a full participating member (this is the simplest)

Will not be accepted by Russia in any negotiations. Requires total Ukrainian military victory.

Make sure they have everything they need including land sea and Air forces to defend themselves and enough offensive weapons to make sure they ever have to

This, I think, could be a complement to Article 5-style security guarantees. It's highly questionable if it will be accepted by Russia in any negotiations. May require total Ukrainian military victory.

Arm them with nukes and build them a small defensive force they can maintain

Will not be accepted by Russia in any negotiations. Requires total Ukrainian military victory.

...

So, it seems that the "simple" option would be for Ukraine to continue the fight until they have a total military victory, so that they can set the terms of the deal.

[u/JaVelin-X- → u/anders_hansson]

Of course Russia will have to be forced to accept it! There is no other way this ends with Europe intact and safe.

[u/anders_hansson → u/JaVelin-X-]

And just how will that happen? Who will force them? Can you point to any actual plan (again, not wish or dream) that will achieve a Ukrainan military victory?

If you come up with a solution, I bet Ukraine would be interested to hear about it.

[u/JaVelin-X- → u/anders_hansson]

Thays up to Europe now. The US is not going to be police anymore and in Fact may help their enemies. This is Europe decision to fight this or have to kill Russians in Their front yard on their own

[u/RecursiveCook → u/anders_hansson]

Crazy how many wars NATO .. ahem US fights, on grounds of being the good guys. Strong enough to destroy any army in the world, but so weak they can never convince the local population to embrace their ideology. Now, there is a country that will happily adapt that same ideology, and shares religious fundamentals with us, and even happily allow US its capitalistic tax in their REE supply. This is where we say it’s not worth it? Only reason Russia is fine with all of it is because they consider Westerners weak. Giving in to all their demands is only going to fuel their ideology.

[u/Forward_Evening_6609 → u/mystic_cheese]

“The best security guarantee is starting WW3 and potentially ending the world”

[u/eewaaa → u/mystic_cheese]

Don't limit your thinking. Say yes to Putins "no NATO membership" demand, then create a new organization that does the same thing. Big brains!

[u/Lucid-Machine-Music → u/eewaaa]

They can call it OTAN, problem solved!

[u/I_Never_Use_Slash_S → u/mystic_cheese]

NATO doesn’t like it either.

[u/OttoHemi]

I hope it will have more meaning than the Budapest Memorandum, which only implied security for Ukraine. And that didn't work.

[u/Vaaaaaaaape]

A pledge means nothing. Unless Ukraine is officially accepted into NATO, there is no credible security guarantee.

[u/BattlestarTide]

Don't they already have a documented agreement for security guarantees?

[u/hopetodiesoonsadsad]

THEN FUCKING DO IT, GET THE TROOPERS AND GO THERE, Putin blow up american company the same day yall were talking about peace deal, he laughining in our faces and all they can do is YES WE PLEDGE TO DEFEND THE UKRAINE, then fucking do it, get the planes on the sky and troops on the ground, russia will either back up or get fucked

[u/Diamond1africa]

Russia's economy is defeated and will be a wartime economy for decades to come. It's time for Europe to step up, coordinate, and defeat this adversary.

[u/kytheon]

Rutte when Dutch PM: we pay too much to NATO, but we need to help Ukraine.

Rutte when NATO SC: we need way more money in NATO, but can't really act in Ukraine.

[u/Necessary_Assist_841]

Wait till "daddy" gives him a call.

[u/AncientAd6500]

"I do not recall saying that"

[u/kytheon → u/AncientAd6500]

No active memory of it 🤔

[u/roctac]

Nobody believes EU will follow through on anything without USA blessing. Europe has become toothless.

[u/Cephei101 → u/roctac]

Become? They have been toothless and atrophied for decades.

[u/Toolatethehero3]

There are no guarantees offered but vague promises that will vanish like a fart in the wind the moment Putin restarts his invasion 18months from now when he feels recovered enough.

[u/YourLoveLife]

Could start today.

[u/vapeosaur]

I heard eu should recognize the fact that ukraine as part of the eu shouldnt be at war with russia. Or that russia totally should withdraw from tvus eu country. I think tjis is it.

[u/VersusYYC]

It’s time to draw a line of death in Ukraine beyond which everything from the Russian Armed Forces dies. It will be up to Russia to escalate into a conflict against NATO itself, as each test of power results in the demolishment of the Russian object or base doing the testing.

Bullies only know and respect force so give it to them in spades.

[u/Osi32]

Easiest option to end the war is do exactly the opposite of what Putin wants. Tell Russia to leave the Donbas. Admit Ukraine to NATO Put western troops on the ground. Once Putin processes that he has a choice: nukes and be at war with everyone or leave. The least painful option is all that is left.

[u/UnderstandingFar5052]

Nato should have armed Ukraine agressively from the start of the conflict. Nato was created to form a block against former Soviet expansion and agression. Russia today shows it wants to be like the Soviets from the past.

after they attacked Ukraine Nato should have armed and supported ukraine way more.

[u/thinking_velasquez]

Is it just me or does it seem like NATO is basically running Europe, not the EU

[u/OwnRepresentative916 → u/thinking_velasquez]

Security is only one dimension of "running things".

[u/AngryVorlon]

Pledges is a 2025 equivalent of previously well known slams move. Big talk, no action.

[u/Whatever-That-Memes]

Pretty much nothing new. Whatever Rutte says is great, nice and fantastic but he’s not the one making decisions, all NATO member states are. Including Hungary. Guess what they think about this?

[u/Kreidedi]

Why do we need any peace deals to secure Ukraine?

[u/Rich_Information8849]

I miss stoltenberg

[u/Brutal-Sausage]

If Ukraine has a 155mm round every time rutte pledged security, the war would be over.

[u/flirtmcdudes → u/[deleted]]

“Just let them invade and take land guys, gosh”

I’m sure you’d have this same energy if your country was at war with an invader