This comic is kinda old already, but still stays relevant.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
794 points (93.6% liked)
Funny
16198 readers
959 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So Russia had to invade Ukraine because NATO won't trade with Russia even though they do?
Sort of, NATO was practicing an method of economic and physical encirclement intended to suffocate the Russian economy. I don't personally think this was feasible but Russia has for about 2 decades and made their stance clear on this matter. If NATO continued on this path it would lead to war. Russia has stated this repeatedly and high ranking members of NATO have as well. Everyone involved knew this but to NATO's credit, they pushed those boundaries for a very long time and Russia never actually did anything about it. Mostly because it was not economically or militarily feasible.
Ukraine was the final red line though. Sure, morally speaking, one nation should not be able to limit the treaties another nation decides to make or coalitions they try to join but geopolitics is not governed by morality. It was stupid to believe that Russia would just accept Ukraine's entrance into NATO which is why no one in power genuinely believed this. Russia was not going to accept an alliance that allowed for a military buildup so close to their key infrastructure and ballistic missiles within a few minutes of Moscow. Russia fully understands that NATO is an imperial organ and necessarily a threat to its existence as a decently sized economy largely independent of it and brimming with natural resources.
Russia didn't "have to" invade Ukraine but if it didn't it would effectively look like rolling over to their largest geopolitical enemy and, strictly speaking, put them in a strategically compromised position.
This doesn't make it morally right or a great thing that I just fucking love but in the world of real politik it is rational. They weren't forced into this action but were put in a position where not doing it would be strategically untenable in the long term. The Russian ruling class is simply protecting their economic interests.
You don't have to be Russia's number one fan to understand this conflict as more complex than the western propaganda narrative that Russia is just an evil imperialist taking Ukraine because it wants to.
What the fuck are you even talking about? EU trade with Russia was at an all time high at the start of 2022.
Again, what the fuck are you talking about. Ukraine declared its neutral status in 2010 and again in 2014, stating that they were not seeking NATO membership. That position only changed after the annexation of Crimea.
Stop writing walls of nonsense on shit you clearly have no idea about.
I'm tired and had a bit to drink so I won't be super in depth here and I apologize for that but I will explain my reasoning as simply as possible.
The 2022 and previous state of NATO member nations economic relationship with Russia was one of opportunism and convenience that does not reflect their long term strategic goals in the region.
Ukraine declared neutrality on the matter because it knew joining NATO would lead to it being invaded. This changed after the highly western backed and financed Maiden "revolution". This occured concurrently with the Russian invasion of Crimea and it is arguable that both influenced each other in turn. Russia recognized the changing political tides towards western powers in Ukraine and responded to it while Ukrainian nationalism swelled in response to Russian invasion. None of these events were beneficial to the working people of Ukraine.
Edit: you can disagree with my reasoning here and I'd kinda understand, I don't expect to convince you, but at least I am consistent.
But they said they know the material conditions and stuff, so shut up and let Russia do what they want to civilians.
IIRC, there was no serious talk of Ukraine joining NATO before Russia invaded Crimea
You're kidding, right?
NATO is not an economic block. NATO does not trade or have anything to do with international trade deals. It is a defence pact just as the Warsaw pact was. Russia was free to trade with whoever they wanted to after the fall of the USSR. What changed after that?
I used NATO as a shorthand for the economic bloc the countries within it make up and I apologize for any confusion that caused. NATO members are and have been for some time highly economically intertwined and aligned on geostrategic goals. They tend to sanction nations that threaten the economic order they benefit from in order to preserve that system as a group. They often, though not necessarily through the organ of NATO, invade the same nations as a coalition for the same reason. NATO is not the economic organ but its members are part of an economic organ.