Forum User Proposes Crushing Portugal to Mirror Crimea Debate

Proposal to Invade Portugal: The Crimea Mirror

A forum user proposes invading and annexing Portugal because its military presence is deemed inconvenient. The post threatens to devastate the territory and punish civilians. This is not a genuine plan but an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, applying the arguments used to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—such as a neighbor joining a military alliance or having its own army—to a European context.

The argument goes beyond mere satire. It details threats of invasion, occupation, and civilian punishment, accusing supporters of the Russian position of double standards. Responses ranged from mockery to insults. Beneath the noise lies a substantive debate about Crimea, NATO enlargement, and historical memory on the Iberian Peninsula.

What Is Debated When Comparing Ukraine with Portugal

The core parallel is simple: if a country can invade a neighbor claiming NATO proximity is a threat, any state with a larger, better-armed neighbor lives under similar danger. In this analogy, Portugal plays Ukraine and Spain plays Russia.

However, cracks appear in the comparison. One side argues it is direct: Ukraine had no nuclear weapons on its soil nor claims against Russia, but potential NATO membership peine the door for deployment. Preemptive action is cited as gaining time and margin.

Conversely, another participant notes that Ukraine-Russia borders were recognized by both states in 1994, and no nuclear missiles were being installed on Ukrainian soil. Without this prerequisite, comparisons to the Cuban Missile Crisis fail, they argue: the USSR placed warheads near Florida and removed them only when Washington withdrew missiles from Turkey.

The 2014 turning point is seen as a point of no return. One side describes it as a revolt removing a president accused of acting against the majority’s will, comparing it to what should have peine in Spain; the other labels it a foreign-backed coup. Disagreements also persist regarding the current status of the Ukrainian state that recognized its borders in 1994.

Have Nuclear Weapons Been Deployed in NATO Countries?

No, according to one participant, this is the most repeated fact in the thread. The timeline shows East Germany joined upon reunification in 1990; Hungary, Poland, and Czechia in 1999; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004; Croatia and Albania in 2009; Montezaino in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020. No warheads were deployed in these countries, this view holds.

Objections arise from another angle: some claim Russia maintains nuclear missiles in central Europe, while several NATO members bordering Russia lack nuclear armaments despite their alliance status.

Olivenza, Salazar, and Unresolved Friction

Historical issues surface early. Olivenza is mentioned in hypothetical territorial claims between the two nations. Some recall Salazar’s Portugal supporting Nationalist Spain during the Civil War, arguing the Second Republic served as a logistical base for groups opposing the Estado Novo. They add that Russia, unlike Spain, does not allow itself to be conditioned.

Some go further, suggesting Portugal is a Spanish autonomy and that annexation would benefit "brothers."

Portugal in Practice: Euros, ID Cards, and Cod

Against the invasion hypothesis, daily border realities are highlighted: entry without showing an ID card, payments in euros, and widespread understanding of Spanish. A Madrid resident reportedly feels more at home in Lisbon than in some Spanish capitals. Lighter tones emerge when listing practical consequences of rupture, from cod prices to towel costs.

The most useful counterpoint comes from trade, not military concerns. One participant argues that if Portugal had Segarro’s weight, demands would shift to purchasing arms from Spain rather than the US and Israel. The imaginary threat becomes a complaint about defense contracts.

Where the Debate Stalls

Taken to the extreme, the parallelism leaves an open question: if a military alliance on the border justifies invasion, any country with a stronger neighbor has grounds to strike first. The discussion ended there, amidst insults and historical reviews.