6 ms·

I know Ukraine will not and cannot do this, but writing off it's East and Crimea would enable NATO membership and EU ascension.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
All indications suggest that Russia also wants Odessa and the rest of the black sea coastline, which would probably never be acceptable even with NATO membership.
- miroljub 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Fatalist_ma 3y ago
    Acoordinto Gallup, October 2023: 31% want Ukraine to negotiate to end the war as soon as possible. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-... According to NDI(Movember 2023): 42% say that Ukraine should engage in negotiations, but 84% do not find it acceptable to end the war if it means letting Russia have the territory it controls currently. Even if Russia leaves all territory occupied since the 2022 invasion, 73% won't agree to such peace deal, they want pre-2014 borders. https://www.ndi.org/publications/opportunities-and-challenges-facing-ukraine-s-democratic-transition-1 https://www.ndi.org/publications/opportunities-and-challenge... If there are any newer poll results, please share.
    - miroljub 3y ago
      Kyiv's institute of Sociology had a more recent poll and published a Press Release on 21.02.2024 https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1372&page=2 https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1372&page=2 Have a look at the Graph 9 and 10 about their openness to negotiations.
- tharmas 3y ago
  [flagged]
lawn 3y ago
That would require Russia to back off, which they of course wouldn't do.
partiallypro 3y ago
Even if they did, NATO can't accept new members that are in active conflict. Putin doesn't believe Ukraine is a real country, real ethnic group, or real culture. Ukraine could give up those entire regions and Russia would not be satisfied, only pushing the war front farther up closer to the West. The war could be smaller at that point, but it would still be active, and Putin/Russia would make sure that they conflict were hot enough to not allow membership.
Terr_ 3y ago
This doesn't sit well with me, even with the disclaimer. I think it's because: 1. It suggests that there's a distinct objective/legalistic blocker to Ukraine's membership, when in reality the bar is "whatever existing NATO members want." 2. Even if #1 and Ukraine tried it, the benchmark is fundamentally unfair/unrealistic/unworkable. In this particular case, Putin would instantly declare-ownership over more Ukrainian territory, over and over, indefinitely.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  Putin is attacking Ukraine as hard as he can. We don't need to worry about provoking more aggression out of him.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    That seems like a non-sequitur, did you intend to reply to a different comment/thread?
    - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
      No, I'm responding to your last sentence.
      - Terr_ 3y ago
        I still don't understand why you think I'm "worried" about someone "provoking" Putin. If anything it's the opposite: There's no point trying to avoid provoking Putin because (A) he's a dishonest actor and has/will feign a grievance for any reason that benefits him and (B) Ukraine from forming alliances with its neighbors is one of his primary goals, so it's impossible to get that with land-deals or conciliatory gestures.
- libertine 3y ago
  I think it's a matter of changing the rules, just like Russia does so freely, I think it's about time NATO does the same thing. Even if that meant that NATO would be in direct conflict with Russia, then it would be solved between NATO and Russia. >2. Even if #1 and Ukraine tried it, the benchmark is fundamentally unfair/unrealistic/unworkable. In this particular case, Putin would instantly declare-ownership over more Ukrainian territory, over and over, indefinitely. If sovereign countries' security depends on what delusional dictators write on a piece of paper, then this isn't much of a world worth living in. Long story short, Putin can claim whatever it wants, in the eyes of the UN, Ukraine has its 1991 borders and that's where they should remain no matter what - even if it means a direct conflict with NATO. Enough with this bluff bullsht. Are Russians, who live in one of the largest countries in the world filled with resources, going to commit collective suicide because of Ukraine?
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I know Ukraine will not and cannot do this, but writing off it's East and Crimea would enable NATO membership and EU ascension. No, it wouldn't. NATO deciding it was willing to piss off Russia (which is why, without those active conflicts, Ukraine and Georgia were denied MAPs in 2008) would allow NATO membership. There's no actual rule that would prevent Ukraine from joining during the invasion (and even if there was, any NATO rule can be changed, either in a general way or to add a sui generis exception, by the same group -- all NATO members agreeing together -- required to admit a new member under the existing rule, so the rule would not actually be an additional barrier.) "But," you might object, "even if there is not a rule preventing it, Ukraine joining while the Russian invasion continues would be impractical because it would immediately trigger Article 5, as long as Russian forces were engaging Ukrainian forces anywhere in the country, or even occupying any part of the country." That could be managed, though, by admitting Ukraine while adopting either a general (for later review) or temporary with explicit time limits or other terminating conditions exclusion of some parts of its territory from Article 5 (not all the territory of all NATO members is covered by Article 5 now.)
- dmix 3y ago
  What practical difference would joining NATO make in the short term though? Ukraines problems are logistical and attrition and they have very strong NATO support. The red lines about prodding Russia will still exist and the supply shortages across the EU will as well. Joining NATO makes sense in peace time and so diplomats can hang out at conferences and get formally connected to intelligence data. But how different is that to the data feeds Ukraine gets today?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > What practical difference would joining NATO make in the short term though? Depends on the terms. If, say, Article 5 excluded defined territories whose control was actively contested at the time or which were occupied by Russia with an explicit time limit, and applied fully to the rest of the country (including places Russia likes to lob missiles but cannot yet effectively contest for control of), that would pretty substantially change the Russian calculus of the war. And especially if it also came with the kind of forward deployment (to the covered part of Ukraine) of NATO troops made to other eastern-flank countries, it would free up Ukrainian forces to deal with the contested and currently-occupied areas.

pclmulqdq 3y ago

All indications suggest that Russia also wants Odessa and the rest of the black sea coastline, which would probably never be acceptable even with NATO membership.

miroljub 3y ago
[flagged]
- Fatalist_ma 3y ago
  Acoordinto Gallup, October 2023: 31% want Ukraine to negotiate to end the war as soon as possible. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-... According to NDI(Movember 2023): 42% say that Ukraine should engage in negotiations, but 84% do not find it acceptable to end the war if it means letting Russia have the territory it controls currently. Even if Russia leaves all territory occupied since the 2022 invasion, 73% won't agree to such peace deal, they want pre-2014 borders. https://www.ndi.org/publications/opportunities-and-challenges-facing-ukraine-s-democratic-transition-1 https://www.ndi.org/publications/opportunities-and-challenge... If there are any newer poll results, please share.
  - miroljub 3y ago
    Kyiv's institute of Sociology had a more recent poll and published a Press Release on 21.02.2024 https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1372&page=2 https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1372&page=2 Have a look at the Graph 9 and 10 about their openness to negotiations.
tharmas 3y ago
[flagged]

lawn 3y ago

That would require Russia to back off, which they of course wouldn't do.

partiallypro 3y ago

Even if they did, NATO can't accept new members that are in active conflict. Putin doesn't believe Ukraine is a real country, real ethnic group, or real culture. Ukraine could give up those entire regions and Russia would not be satisfied, only pushing the war front farther up closer to the West. The war could be smaller at that point, but it would still be active, and Putin/Russia would make sure that they conflict were hot enough to not allow membership.

Terr_ 3y ago

This doesn't sit well with me, even with the disclaimer. I think it's because: 1. It suggests that there's a distinct objective/legalistic blocker to Ukraine's membership, when in reality the bar is "whatever existing NATO members want." 2. Even if #1 and Ukraine tried it, the benchmark is fundamentally unfair/unrealistic/unworkable. In this particular case, Putin would instantly declare-ownership over more Ukrainian territory, over and over, indefinitely.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago
Putin is attacking Ukraine as hard as he can. We don't need to worry about provoking more aggression out of him.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  That seems like a non-sequitur, did you intend to reply to a different comment/thread?
  - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
    No, I'm responding to your last sentence.
    - Terr_ 3y ago
      I still don't understand why you think I'm "worried" about someone "provoking" Putin. If anything it's the opposite: There's no point trying to avoid provoking Putin because (A) he's a dishonest actor and has/will feign a grievance for any reason that benefits him and (B) Ukraine from forming alliances with its neighbors is one of his primary goals, so it's impossible to get that with land-deals or conciliatory gestures.
libertine 3y ago
I think it's a matter of changing the rules, just like Russia does so freely, I think it's about time NATO does the same thing. Even if that meant that NATO would be in direct conflict with Russia, then it would be solved between NATO and Russia. >2. Even if #1 and Ukraine tried it, the benchmark is fundamentally unfair/unrealistic/unworkable. In this particular case, Putin would instantly declare-ownership over more Ukrainian territory, over and over, indefinitely. If sovereign countries' security depends on what delusional dictators write on a piece of paper, then this isn't much of a world worth living in. Long story short, Putin can claim whatever it wants, in the eyes of the UN, Ukraine has its 1991 borders and that's where they should remain no matter what - even if it means a direct conflict with NATO. Enough with this bluff bullsht. Are Russians, who live in one of the largest countries in the world filled with resources, going to commit collective suicide because of Ukraine?

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I know Ukraine will not and cannot do this, but writing off it's East and Crimea would enable NATO membership and EU ascension. No, it wouldn't. NATO deciding it was willing to piss off Russia (which is why, without those active conflicts, Ukraine and Georgia were denied MAPs in 2008) would allow NATO membership. There's no actual rule that would prevent Ukraine from joining during the invasion (and even if there was, any NATO rule can be changed, either in a general way or to add a sui generis exception, by the same group -- all NATO members agreeing together -- required to admit a new member under the existing rule, so the rule would not actually be an additional barrier.) "But," you might object, "even if there is not a rule preventing it, Ukraine joining while the Russian invasion continues would be impractical because it would immediately trigger Article 5, as long as Russian forces were engaging Ukrainian forces anywhere in the country, or even occupying any part of the country." That could be managed, though, by admitting Ukraine while adopting either a general (for later review) or temporary with explicit time limits or other terminating conditions exclusion of some parts of its territory from Article 5 (not all the territory of all NATO members is covered by Article 5 now.)

dmix 3y ago
What practical difference would joining NATO make in the short term though? Ukraines problems are logistical and attrition and they have very strong NATO support. The red lines about prodding Russia will still exist and the supply shortages across the EU will as well. Joining NATO makes sense in peace time and so diplomats can hang out at conferences and get formally connected to intelligence data. But how different is that to the data feeds Ukraine gets today?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > What practical difference would joining NATO make in the short term though? Depends on the terms. If, say, Article 5 excluded defined territories whose control was actively contested at the time or which were occupied by Russia with an explicit time limit, and applied fully to the rest of the country (including places Russia likes to lob missiles but cannot yet effectively contest for control of), that would pretty substantially change the Russian calculus of the war. And especially if it also came with the kind of forward deployment (to the covered part of Ukraine) of NATO troops made to other eastern-flank countries, it would free up Ukrainian forces to deal with the contested and currently-occupied areas.