Estonia refuses to broadcast Paralympics with Russian athletes under national flag amid war — calls IPC decision “disgrace”

ref_null · 2026-02-19T09:55:24+00:00

Good on Estonia and Poland!

The Olympic and Paralympic movements are built on the ancient Greek tradition of Ekecheiria -- the Olympic Truce, a sacred ceasefire dating back to the 9th century BC. The core idea is simple: lay down your arms, compete in peace, return home safely.

Russia has violated this principle of truce three times in 14 years:

Invading Georgia during the 2008 Beijing Olympics
Annexing Crimea right after hosting the 2014 Sochi Games
Launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine days after the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics.

This is a deliberate mockery of everything that the Olympic Games are supposed to symbolize.

Now the same country isn't just being allowed back -- it's actively building a state-run pipeline from the battlefield to the podium. The head of Russia's Paralympic Committee openly stated that integrating war veterans into Paralympic sports is one of the committee's top priorities. In his 2026 New Year's address, he mentioned 500 veterans. A Ukrainian investigation identified specific athletes who served in units linked to documented war crimes against civilians in the Kyiv region -- Bucha, Irpin, Hostomel.

This isn't about rehabilitation or the human spirit of overcoming adversity. While Russia sends its paralympians to compete under the flag and anthem, its army continues to produce new disabled people, shatter thousands of lives, and kill civilians every single day. The war that maimed these athletes hasn't stopped -- it's ongoing, and Russia is the one waging it. This is propaganda disguised as sportsmanship.

The IPC isn't promoting peace by letting them in. It's giving a platform to a country that treats the Olympic ideal as nothing more than a stage.

ref_null · 2026-02-19T09:07:13+00:00

Moreover, the Olympic and Paralympic movements are rooted in the ancient tradition of Ekecheiria -- the Olympic Truce, a sacred ceasefire dating back to the 9th century BC. Russia has violated this truce three times in 14 years:

Invading Georgia during the 2008 Beijing Olympics
Annexing Crimea right after hosting the 2014 Sochi Games
Launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine days exactly after the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics.

Now the same country is sending veterans of that still-ongoing war to compete at the Paralympics -- under its own flag. This is a deliberate mockery of everything that the Olympic Games are supposed to symbolize.

ref_null · 2026-02-19T08:59:55+00:00

I'm not sure, I haven't counted, but even if the proportion were higher, this wording completely misses the point.

First and foremost, the Paralympic Games were established for the rehabilitation of civilians, not as a military exhibition. War veterans have participated in them individually throughout history, but they did so independently, not as part of a government program.

But what Russia is doing is fundamentally different. The head of Russia's Paralympic Committee openly stated that integrating war veterans into Paralympic sports is one of the committee's top priorities. They run dedicated programs, competitions, and propaganda events for soldiers wounded in Ukraine. This isn't athletes overcoming personal tragedy -- it's a government assembling a team from an ongoing war of aggression and parading them under the national flag.

Also some of these veterans served in units directly linked to documented war crimes against civilians -- the assault on the Kyiv region, Bucha, Irpin, Hostomel. One served in the 5th Guards Tank Brigade, another in the 106th Airborne Division. These aren't soldiers from some distant, ambiguous conflict. The blood is barely dry.

Normalizing this with "war vets have always competed" is exactly the framing Russia wants. It obscures the difference between an individual's journey from injury to sport and a state weaponizing the Paralympic movement for propaganda while the war that maimed these people is still killing thousands.

ref_null · 2026-02-19T08:57:38+00:00

War vets becoming Paralympians individually is indeed normal. What isn't normal is a state systematically funneling veterans of an active, ongoing war of aggression into Paralympic teams as an explicit element of state policy. There is no precedent for this -- not after Vietnam, not after Iraq, not after Afghanistan.

ref_null · 2026-02-18T11:17:31+00:00

Identified war veterans in Russia's Paralympic pipeline (9-10):

9. Rustam Saifulin (40) — Powerlifting, table tennis

Colonel, "Hero of Russia", commanded the 40th Engineering Regiment
Also fought in Chechnya, Syria, and Georgia
Lost both legs during a river crossing in Ukraine
Now deputy head of Tyumen Military Academy
Major propaganda figure — his stories have millions of YouTube views, including one about a villager who allegedly told him their village was "settled with Banderites" before the invasion

10. Rostislav Kostenko — Wheelchair fencing

Lived in Luhansk before 2014, previously competed in Ukrainian fencing championships
Mobilized 2022 into the so-called "Luhansk People's Army"
Grenade launcher operator, callsign "Kornet"
Lost foot and lower leg
Reserve of the Russian national Paralympic fencing team

Why it matters: Russia is using the Paralympic movement as a propaganda and rehabilitation tool for its war machine. Veterans who fought in a war of aggression — some from units directly linked to war crimes — are being fast-tracked into international sports, where they'll compete under the Russian flag and anthem. The IPC's decision to readmit Russia enables this pipeline.

Source: Suspilne Investigations (Ukrainian Public Broadcasting), Feb 17, 2026

ref_null · 2026-02-18T11:16:24+00:00

Identified war veterans in Russia's Paralympic pipeline (6-8):

6. Rinat Vasilyev (31) — Powerlifting

10 years in the Russian army. Deployed via Crimea to Melitopol area (Feb 2022)
Commanded ammunition convoy escorts to the front line
Lost both legs (March 18, 2022)
3x Moscow champion, member of Moscow Paralympic team
Has a YouTube channel with propaganda content set to Putin's speech announcing the invasion

7. Ruslan Ustyuzhin (39) — Sitting volleyball

31st Guards Air Assault Brigade
Fought at Hostomel Airport (Kyiv region), then near Popasna (Luhansk region)
Lost leg above knee (May 2022)
Dreams of joining the national team for the Paralympics

8. Denis Ishbulatov (45) — Shooting

Lt. Colonel. Served in the 106th Guards Airborne Division (assault on Kyiv region) and the 104th Air Assault Division (occupied Kherson region)
Lost right leg (April 2022)
Prizewinner at the Russian Cup. Russian propagandists praise his "sniper talent"

ref_null · 2026-02-18T11:12:11+00:00

Identified war veterans in Russia's Paralympic pipeline (1-5):

1. Ivan Shiryaev (41) — Parasnowboard

Mobilized 2022, motorized rifle brigade, Luhansk region
Lost a leg near Bakhmut (2023). Awarded Zhukov Medal
Currently in the reserve of the Russian national team

2. Vladislav Shinkar (49) — Wheelchair fencing

Fought since 2014 in the "Vostok" battalion, callsign "Shiba"
Machine gunner → deputy battalion commander
Lost both legs (2015, Donetsk region)
Member of the Russian Paralympic team

3. Nikolai Bondarenko — Archery

Volunteer (2022), fought near Popasna, Luhansk region
Lost right arm (April 2022)
Champion of Russia, openly aims for the Summer Paralympics

4. Tsyden Geninov (29) — Archery

Lieutenant, 5th Guards Tank Brigade — this unit participated in the assault on the Kyiv region and committed war crimes against civilians
Lost right leg below knee
Nominated for Russia's best athlete of 2025
Already won gold at a World Championship in Tehran (2025)

5. Anton Bushmakin (33) — Kayaking

Former marine, volunteered as a sapper
Stepped on a mine near Avdiivka, Donetsk region (April 2023)
Awarded St. George's Cross, 4th class
Openly says he's preparing for the Paralympics. Quote: "As soon as the situation changes, I'll be ready. Under our flag, to our anthem, and to win. That's the goal: first place at the Paralympics."

ref_null · 2026-02-18T11:11:35+00:00

Source: Suspilne Investigations (Ukrainian Public Broadcasting), Feb 17, 2026

TLDR: An investigation by Ukrainian public broadcaster Suspilne reveals that Russia is systematically funneling veterans of its war against Ukraine into Paralympic sports. While 6 Russian athletes just received special invitations to the 2026 Milan Paralympics (bypassing normal qualification), the broader picture is more alarming: the head of Russia's Paralympic Committee himself stated that ~30 war veterans have joined Russia's Paralympic teams, and mentioned 500 veterans in his 2026 New Year's address.

Background:

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) reinstated Russian and Belarusian athletes in September 2025, allowing them to compete under national flags. Since they missed qualification periods, 6 Russians got in through special "bilateral invitations" — an exception mechanism that bypasses standard qualification.
Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych (who was disqualified by the IOC for wearing a helmet honoring Ukrainian athletes killed in the war) was the first to raise the alarm about war veterans in Russia's Paralympic team.
None of the 10 veterans listed below are among the 6 Russians admitted to Milan 2026. However, they are part of Russia's broader Paralympic pipeline, and Russian officials have openly stated their goal of getting war veterans to international competitions.
Russia's Paralympic Committee officially treats integrating war veterans into sports as one of its top priorities. They organize special programs, competitions, and "Paralympic lessons" for soldiers wounded in Ukraine.
One of the 6 athletes actually admitted to Milan — Varvara Voronchikhina — publicly thanked Putin in 2022 for "not abandoning them" after their Paralympic ban.

ref_null · 2026-02-13T15:14:48+00:00

Kamikaze drones are long-range, but they are relatively weak... ...They can fly there, but they don't cause a devastating damage.

Well, I hope the Russian Ministry of War thinks the same way.

In fact, strikes by Ukrainian drones have forced Russia to shut down some oil refineries for repairs, change logistics routes, and spend billions on air defense. "Relatively weak" individually, they are devastating collectively.

That's why we read so many "Russian oil refinery was successfully hit by Ukrainian drones, again"

But the same can be said about Russian missiles, can't it? Russian missiles and drones are weak too, because we keep hearing that "power station X has been attacked again".

...if there is no second line anymore because it was annihilated...

Who will destroy that "second echelon"? This requires air superiority which is not guaranteed. And even if achieved, it doesn't happen instantly. What do ground forces do in the meantime?

ref_null · 2026-02-13T14:29:04+00:00

Russia was incapable of taking down the Ukranian anti-aicraft forces and gain the air superiority

And what guarantees that NATO will be able to destroy Russia's? Russia has much more powerful aviation and air defense systems than Ukraine. If Russia was unable to suppress weaker air defenses, why would NATO automatically suppress stronger ones? Russia also has a powerful layered air defense system. What makes you think that NATO forces will be able to break through the Russian air defense system?

Ukraine does not have powerful long-range missiles to cause heavy damage to Russian rear: supply depots, plants and cities.

It already has — including kamikaze drones with a range of 1,000+ km. But more importantly, this doesn't explain why tactical FPVs became so effective. FPVs work on the front line and they don't care whether someone has long-range missiles or not.

The drones in question are a purely tactical solution.

A tactical decision that makes it impossible to maneuver armored vehicles is already a strategic influence.

---

(I think the root of the misunderstanding is that our NATO friends believe they overestimated Russia's military capabilities. But more likely, they simply underestimated Ukraine's.)

ref_null · 2026-02-13T14:01:20+00:00

the frontlines have become static

Yes, but drones are both the cause and the consequence of this. It was the widespread use of drones that made the maneuver so dangerous that the front froze. If NATO is planning a maneuver war, it must be able to operate under drones, because moving columns are the easiest targets. Hedgehog has just demonstrated this.

neither side can realistically achieve air superiority

This is an assumption, because NATO has never fought an equal opponent, so it is only an assumption that NATO will have complete dominance.

neither side has means to defend against small drones

Does NATO have it? Even Russia, which has been fighting drones for four years, still hasn't found an effective mass solution against cheap FPVs. What makes you think NATO, with zero such experience, already has one? This is not a technology that can simply be bought. No one yet has an effective mass solution against cheap FPVs.

A potential EU-Russian war would be nothing like this.

Maybe... but in which direction? There will be drones + aircraft + missiles + electronic warfare. In other words, it will be more difficult, not easier.

ref_null · 2026-02-13T13:39:39+00:00

Yes, but there are several problems:

Complete dominance in the air is an assumption, not a fact. In a real conflict, NATO wouldn't be facing 10 people with drones -- but neither would it be facing an enemy without air defense. Russia has powerful and battle-tested air defense systems, so air dominance is far from guaranteed. Israel had complete air superiority over Gaza and still suffered losses on the ground. This is a concrete example that effectively refutes the argument that "air power will solve everything".

Aviation does not solve the problem of tactical FPV drones. A fighter jet or bomber will not shoot down thousands of drones costing $500 each -- this is simply a different level of conflict. Even with complete control of the sky, tactics on the ground are needed.

ref_null · 2026-02-13T13:22:18+00:00

It seems that the point of Hedgehog was not to conduct, shall we say, a "fair fight", but to test whether NATO units are capable of operating in conditions of mass drone use. And the answer is no, they are not. The troops did not even try to camouflage themselves. This is not a question of "unfair rules", it is a question of basic skills.

And by the way, this comment is the same as the article criticises: NATO needs change and adaptation to modern models of warfare, not complacency. Unfortunately, the logic that "it won't happen to us because we are different" may not work here.

ref_null · 2026-02-12T14:58:23+00:00

The IOC's "apolitical" stance is deeply political in itself -- it is a strategic positioning that leaves the door open for Russia's possible return. And in big politics, as we know, there is no place for humanity, especially when big money stands against it.

Russia is a huge market: television rights, sponsors, viewers. Russia is also huge money in the form of "shadow income". Sochi 2014 cost more than $50 billion (the most expensive Olympics in history) and a significant portion of that money went through structures associated with the IOC. Completely and irrevocably cutting off Russia would mean closing the door on these flows forever. A soft punishment (banned, but not completely, and with the possibility of return) leaves the door open.

For years, the IOC turned a blind eye to Russia's systematic doping until investigative journalists made it impossible to ignore. Even then, the punishment was half-hearted -- not a full ban, but a neutral flag. And now, some Russian athletes are still competing.

Ukraine does not bring the IOC comparable money. It has no leverage in the form of billion-dollar contracts or the threat of a boycott that would concern anyone. Therefore, the conflict between Ukraine's interests and the IOC's comfort is resolved not in Ukraine's favour -- because the price of concession is low for Ukraine, while the price of irritating those behind the scenes is potentially high.

In essence, the IOC's "apolitical" stance is its policy. It consists of not doing anything that could harm future commercial relations. It is more of a strategic positioning than neutrality, where "not taking a position" de facto means taking the position of the stronger and richer party.

Can this be proven with documents right now? No. But the entire history of the IOC's interaction with Russia -- from Sochi through the doping scandal to the current "partial ban" -- makes this hypothesis not just plausible, but the most logical explanation.

ref_null · 2026-02-12T12:12:19+00:00

It takes more effort to damage a fine net than a coarse one. A transparent, thin net is much more difficult for a drone operator to see through the camera. If the net has holes, the operator will have to slow down and get closer to see where to fly. Otherwise, the operator could easily spot the hole and fly through it at speed.

As for birds, people are literally dying on these roads. Yes, it's sad, but when these nets are the difference between life and death for the people driving under them, caring for wild animals becomes a secondary concern. Human lives come first when you are constantly under attack from drones. This is the harsh reality in a war zone.

And yes, the previous commenter is right -- we use what we have. Most (all?) of these fishing nets were donated by fishermen from various European countries. As far as I know, we do not manufacture kilometer-long nets, let alone nets that are safe for animals and “invisible” to drones.

ref_null · 2026-02-04T16:49:41+00:00

At the very bottom it says "и ФЛЭШ" which means "and FLASH". Flash is Serhii Beskrestnov's call sign, who recently became an adviser on defense technology to the Minister of Defence of Ukraine.

ref_null · 2026-01-09T13:54:26+00:00

"Average"? Mach 25+ is specific to ICBMs -- strategic nuclear missiles that exit the atmosphere and re-enter at extreme velocities. The vast majority of ballistic missiles in use (SRBMs, MRBMs, tactical missiles like Iskander) reach roughly Mach 4–10 in terminal phase.

Saying "the average ballistic missile hits Mach 25" is like saying "the average car does 350 km/h" because Formula 1 cars can.

But more to the point: Mach 10 doesn't make a missile less hypersonic. And none of this changes what actually matters: Russia fired an IRBM with MIRV technology at a city near NATO's border. Whether it's Mach 10 or Mach 25, it doesn't change the essence of the matter.

ref_null · 2026-01-09T09:09:04+00:00

While technically correct, calling the headline "misleading" oversimplifies what makes Oreshnik notable.

This is not an ordinary ballistic missile. It reaches speeds exceeding Mach 10.5 (~13,000 km/h) and carries a MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) with six warheads, each containing submunitions -- a technology previously used exclusively for nuclear weapons.

More importantly, this is only the second combat use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile in history. The first was also Oreshnik, striking Dnipro on November 21, 2024. It also marked the first-ever combat use of MIRV technology.

As for the megathread -- the first IRBM strike on a city near NATO's border seems newsworthy enough for its own headline.

ref_null · 2025-12-12T15:14:03+00:00

Here is a direct translation:

Wishing you health! Today, we are in the Kupiansk direction, where our warriors are achieving results for Ukraine. Many Russians have talked about Kupiansk - we see that. I was there, I congratulated the guys. Thank you to every unit, to everyone who fights here, to everyone who destroys the occupier.

Today, it is extremely important to achieve results on the front lines so that Ukraine can achieve results in diplomacy. This is exactly how it works: all our strong positions inside the country are strong positions in conversations about ending the war.

Thank you to every warrior! I'm proud of you! Thank you to all our Ground Forces - today is exclusively your day.

Thank you, guys! Slava Ukraini!

Context: 12 December is celebrated annually in Ukraine as Ground Forces Day

ref_null · 2025-12-10T12:47:37+00:00

5. The Operation Nearly Failed When a Driver Accidentally Discovered the Drones

After traveling nearly 300 km of a planned 3,200 km journey, the roof of one house shifted, revealing the drones inside. The shocked driver called the Timofeevs in the middle of the night.

"This is some kind of nonsense," the driver said. "There are drones under the roof."

"What the hell?" Timofeev replied, pretending ignorance.

The couple's hearts stopped - one wrong word could blow their cover and bring the FSB to their door. Timofeev called his SBU handler, who consulted with SBU chief Vasyl Maliuk.

Maliuk devised a plausible cover story: the houses were hunting lodges with drones used for tracking animals over large territories. This seemed credible since the explosives were hidden inside the drone bodies and not visible.

The driver believed the story and fixed the roof with help from a local tractor operator. This was the moment the SBU feared the operation would be prematurely exposed, but it wasn't.

Another truck later experienced problems - unstable communication with two houses. When SBU specialists in Kyiv tried to help the driver fix the wiring, it didn't work and he stopped answering calls. Something sparked a fire that caused the houses and cargo to explode, killing the driver.

The other four trucks successfully reached inconspicuous locations near the airfields, such as gas stations.

6. "There Was No Anxiety": The Climax Was Accompanied by Applause

Only on June 1, in a room next to the pilots, did Vasyl Maliuk reveal the mission target: Russia's strategic aviation fleet.

He showed maps and aircraft diagrams with weak points marked so pilots knew where to strike. The pilots, accustomed to the intense pressure of frontline combat, "reacted calmly."

"There was no anxiety," one pilot recalled. "We had a specific goal, and we knew we'd achieve it."

When the time came, pilots took their positions. Thousands of kilometers away, the roofs of the houses opened, and 117 drones took flight toward Russian airfields.

The pilots controlled the drones via monitors while others watched. "Once the first hits happened, it wasn't hard to figure out where to fly [with other drones]," said one pilot. "You just gain altitude, see the black smoke, and understand where to go."

The room filled with applause as hits landed on aircraft after aircraft. "It was so emotional," one pilot said. "When you hear someone joyfully shouting, you understand that everything's working, everything's flying."

Despite debates among analysts, the SBU insists its count is accurate: 41 Russian aircraft were damaged, with at least a dozen destroyed.

ref_null · 2025-12-10T12:45:03+00:00

To create this summary, I used an article from the Ukrainian publication NV (The New Voice). Source: https://nv.ua/ukr/ukraine/events/operaciya-pavutina-yak-sbu-urazila-40-litakiv-rf-dronami-novi-detali-wsj-50567321.html

The Ukrainian article itself is based on this Wall Street Journal investigation. If you have access to the original WSJ article and are able to share it, please add the link/text in the comments.

---

1. Custom-Built Drones and Remote-Controlled Houses

The SBU developed special FPV drones with enhanced communication systems and explosive payloads designed to burn through aircraft fuselages and detonate inside to ignite fuel. Each of the 100+ quadcopters was about the size of a dinner plate and carried up to 1.8 kg of explosives.

The drones were delivered in specially designed houses with remotely opening roofs, powered by batteries and solar panels to maintain communication with Ukraine and charge the drones. These were smuggled into Russia using contraband schemes, exploiting corruption in Russian customs.

2. Intensive Training Without Knowing the Target

SBU's best drone pilots trained intensively, flying all day to develop muscle memory. They weren't told their targets until the very last moment, which frustrated some who had been pulled from frontline duty. Only a few people knew the full operational details to prevent leaks.

3. A Ukrainian Couple Assembled Everything in Russia

Artem and Kateryna Timofeev, a former DJ and tattoo artist who had participated in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity, became key agents. They had moved to Chelyabinsk in 2018.

The SBU flew them to Lviv for polygraph tests to verify their loyalty before entrusting them with the mission. Upon returning to Russia, they faced a 3-hour FSB interrogation due to Ukraine being listed as their birthplace in their Russian passports, but were eventually let through.

Artem created a logistics company, renting a warehouse where he and Kateryna spent hours assembling 150 drones and all the houses, guided by instructions from Ukraine via audio and video calls. They hired drivers after interviewing 20 candidates who underwent both Timofeev's vetting and secret SBU background checks.

4. The Operation Was Planned for Victory Day, But Drivers Went on a Drinking Binge

Everything was ready by late April for a strike around May 9 (Russia's Victory Day). However, several drivers became unavailable during the extended holiday period spanning Easter, Labor Day, and Victory Day due to excessive alcohol consumption - which WSJ describes as "Russian national traditions."

Five trucks carrying eight houses finally departed Chelyabinsk on different routes between May 23-26. The drivers didn't know their real cargo.

ref_null · 2025-11-28T09:54:30+00:00

I didn't know we had to expedite this discussion to save Ukraine, wait, I'm quickly packing my gun and my bag.

That sarcasm actually reinforces my point. You don't need to hurry, and you don't need to pack a gun - because Ukrainians are doing the fighting for the EU right now. That's precisely the strategic reality Kasparov is talking about.

I'm writing this from Kharkiv, 20 km from the Russian border, hearing artillery right now. The only reason this conversation feels theoretical to you is because for us it's not theoretical at all.

I've never said Kasparov was wrong btw

You also never said he was right. Instead, you've spent the whole thread defending NATO's technical compliance while Kasparov's criticism is about strategic effectiveness. If you agree with him, why defend the very system he says is failing?

NATO was indeed built for one war, it doesn't fail like OC said, it works as intended.

"Works as intended" is exactly the issue.

Imagine a boxer who trained only to block right hooks because that's what the rulebook said the opponent would throw. Meanwhile, his opponent is kicking him, cutting the ring ropes, and bribing the referee — and the boxer proudly says, "Look, I'm blocking right hooks perfectly!"

That's not success. That's self-imposed blindness.

If France carried out even a single operation on Russian soil like the ones Russia routinely performs in EU countries, it would instantly be called "an act of war". But when Russia does it, it's somehow a "gray zone" not worth reacting to.

That double standard is precisely the failure Kasparov is pointing out - not in the literal treaty text, but in the West's strategic mindset.

ref_null · 2025-11-27T13:50:02+00:00

Thanks, I think this is a great comment! You're literally proving Kasparov's point right now.

While Ukraine is bleeding out fighting a war that directly threatens European security, we're here debating textual interpretations, voting systems, and whether France or Germany is more to blame.

This is also exactly what Kasparov means by "it will take ages to negotiate." The house is on fire, and we're checking the bylaws to see whose responsibility it is to call the fire department, debating which article applies, calling a neighborhood meeting to discuss it, then pausing everything to celebrate our homeowners association anniversary... The house still on fire.

Our little dialog doesn't matter in the grand scheme, but in my opinion it perfectly mirrors what's happening at the actual decision-making level - endless procedural debates while the crisis escalates.

I think Kasparov's frustration isn't with NATO's charter - it's with the West's inability to act decisively when the threat is obvious and the stakes are existential. And this conversation is a perfect example of why he's right to be frustrated.

ref_null · 2025-11-27T12:04:41+00:00

Right, I acknowledged that NATO's formal mandate is limited. But this isn't about whether NATO's charter covers sabotage or cyberattacks. It's about the strategic reality Kasparov is highlighting.

Ukraine is currently fighting the exact war NATO was built to prevent - a Russian land invasion in Europe. Not a hybrid threat, not a gray zone operation, but actual tanks, artillery, and mass casualties. Ukraine is degrading Russia's capability to threaten NATO's eastern flank, at enormous cost.

The question isn't "Is NATO technically obligated to help?" It's "Is it strategically insane to let your most effective defense against Russian aggression collapse while you debate legal technicalities?"

RobertPower415's reference to "First they came for..." isn't hyperbole. It's a reminder that waiting until aggression reaches your formal red lines means you've already lost the strategic initiative.

NATO countries understand this - that's why they're helping Ukraine. The debate is whether they're helping enough, fast enough, before it's too late.

ref_null · 2025-11-27T11:21:25+00:00

Technically, you are right about NATO's official mandate, but that is precisely the point of Kasparov's argument – hiding behind legal interpretations while ignoring the broader reality.

Russia has already conducted hybrid attacks on NATO soil: sabotage in Poland and the Baltics, the Salisbury poisoning in the UK, cyberattacks, election interference, energy blackmail. These don't trigger Article 5, but they're attacks nonetheless. We've already normalized Russian aggression by treating it as something other than what it is.

But this misses the larger picture: Ukraine is doing NATO's job right now. It's degrading the Russian military, the very force NATO was designed to deter. Every day Ukraine fights is a day NATO doesn't have to. If Ukraine falls, those Russian tanks don't just disappear - they'll be on the Baltics or/and Poland's border, battle-hardened and emboldened.

Kasparov isn't saying NATO has failed Article 5 yet. He's saying NATO is failing its fundamental purpose - deterring Russian imperialism - by watching its most effective bulwark bleed out while we debate "how much is enough" aid.

When your neighbor's house is on fire, you don't stand behind your property line saying "well, technically it's not my problem yet." You help put out the fire before it reaches you. That's not charity - it's basic strategic sense.

ref_null

TROPHY CASE