Nato members have pledged their support for an “irreversible path” to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.
While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance’s 32 members said they had “unwavering” support for Ukraine’s war effort.
Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine’s military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.
The bloc’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest.”
No one’s security interests are served by a new era of escalating tensions between Russia and the West. No country has more nuclear weapons than Russia. All efforts should be taken to prevent Russia from becoming desperate enough to use their nuclear weapons. By further isolating and encircling Russia, I think the chances of them using their nuclear weapons increases.
Ok, you’re right, let’s give putain all the territories he wants.
I didn’t say that. I don’t think the options must necessarily be limited to either escalation or appeasement.
Ok, I’ll bite - how do you imagine that? It’s pretty much down to Ukraine and all othet countries laying down weapons if attacked or fighting back and defend their territory. Would love to hear what you imagine being the 3rd option
I think what really scares Russia isn’t Ukraine defending their territory, it’s Ukraine allying with the West. I think Russia sees all these countries joining NATO and it looks to them like their neighbors are joining their enemy, against them. I think that makes them nervous and afraid. I think the only solution is diplomacy.
You’re buying their excuses. Chechnya wasn’t joining NATO. South Ossetia wasn’t joining NATO. Ukraine wasn’t joining NATO before they lost Crimea in 2014.
Russia is an aggressive power that uses military might to hold power over people that do not want to be ruled by Moscow.
I’ve come to the realization that the only people truly believing ruZZian excuses, are people too young to know better. And not in a “hurr it’s all 12 year Olds” kind of way but in a “you have not paying attention to the wider world for long enough to know how some places just are”
And yeah, sure we all know what we want the world to be, but unfortunately right now we have to deal with how things are.
And how things are shows that Russia is clearly in the wrong here, full stop.
It also tends to be people farthest away from what’s going on. The most anti-Russian countries tend to be those geographically closest to Russia. Those on the border with them know what’s at stake and why having military backing against Russian aggression is so important.
They also have the support of the minority that wants to tear down democracy as a ruling principle. Some of those people are quite intelligent, they’re just mean and believe in power, violence and the importance of suffering. In their world the truth is not objective, what is true is whatever the strongest person says it is, because he will hurt you if you disagree. This destruction of objective factuality is a core part of their methodology and overall worldview.
We had to defeat them in a World War just to get to where we are today, but they never did fully give up. Stubborn sorts.
Funny how there was no reply to this comment. I wonder why they didn’t get back to you. Maybe they needed to cook dinner, or go to work, or rethink their entire life.
I hope it’s the last one but I’m not counting on it.
We’ve tried this. Blair’s talks with Putin, Obama’s Russia Reset, energy cooperation in Europe, and that non aggression deal Russia signed with Ukraine.
Putin threw all of that away when he invaded Crimea and then Ukraine.
True peace in the region will be achieved by Putin being removed from power by the Russian people, ending the war at internationally recognised boarders, rebuilding Ukraine letting them choose their own path geopolitically, AND helping Russia rebuild from decades of corruption and kleptocracy.
Until then the only way to stop Putin, who only recognises strength, is to fight back.
If that is the best path to peace, then I hope all of those things are achieved. But, if other possibilities need to be considered, I’m open to considering them.
He’s not interested in peace. Russia’s demands for a ceasefire are maximalist and would essentially erase Ukraine as a nation. They only pay lip service to diplomacy for international optics.
Medvedev literally said “we will invade Ukraine anyway after any peace deal goes through”. So how is your stance not appeasement of a warmongering dictator?
There isnt, they’ve been tried and failed. Time to block you for outing yourself as a Tankie
Isn’t Tankie a pejorative for Marxist-Leninists? I’m not a Marxist-Leninist.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill
Nuke the crocodile, then. I’ve decided I don’t care anymore.
You didn’t answer the question.
Diplomacy was utilized before Russians crossed the Ukraine border to launch a full scale invasion. Also back when Russia was “intimidated” by Ukraine’s inherited nuclear arsenal and made agreement they will leave Ukraine alone - and this, among other things led us here.
Now why would they fear Ukraine joining a non-confontational alliance?
And how do you rationalize the fear of your neighbour making new friends by physically attacking them?
I don’t know if you are a russian bot or actually conflicted so I’m giving you a chance to explain what you think Ukraine should really do. In my mind, bowing down to a bully is never ever the answer and support any aid they get in their purely defensive war.
I don’t think Russia sees NATO as non-confrontational.
I don’t think Russia sees it merely as a “neighbor making new friends,” I think they see it as a neighbor, that they feel culturally connected to, making alliances with their enemy.
I am not. I’ve never been to Russia, I don’t know any Russian people. I’m American, I’ve lived in the US my entire life. I’m just trying to look at things from Russia’s perspective, because I think that’s critical, regardless of how we proceed.
I am not against Ukraine defending itself from invasion, nor am I necessarily against them joining NATO. I completely understand why they would want to do that, and I would probably want to do the same. I simply want to find a solution that will result in the least possible loss of life and an end to the conflict as quickly as possible.
If Russia is so afraid of NATO attacking them, then why did they withdraw pretty much all troops from the Finnish border? There’s barely border guards there.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt then, mostly because I agree with you that the best solution is the one where the fewest amount of people die.
I think where we diverge is how to achieve this. From what we’ve seen so far, Ukraine surrendering would probably not end the war. At least long term. Russia would use the time to re-arm and retry. Even if they don’t, the people in these new russian territories would be poorly treated and potentially murdered, especially those disagreeing with the peace agreement. That is my honest opinion. Therefore, the only other ways are Russia going home or Ukraine beating them.
The first one isn’t happening, so we end up alternative three.
Do you agree or disagree with my assessment?
I think your assessment may very well be accurate, but I don’t think Russia is just going to go home, and if Ukraine does win the war, with the help of NATO member states, I don’t think that will just be the end for Russia, especially if they continue to feel threatened and encircled. They may try to strengthen their military, and their ties with China. It could result in another cold war. What do you think should be done to try and avoid that from happening?
Try to empathize with the Russian people and not with the Russian state and things will make a lot more sense.
What makes you think I don’t empathize with the Russian people? The Russian state are the ones making the decisions so they are who we have to deal with. Neither I nor the Russian people have much control over that.
Ukraine isn’t allying with the west per se, it’s allying with the countries that aren’t in violation of the Budapest accords.
Thank you for the chance to clarify.
Reality and Russia’s perception are likely at odds with one another, but even if Russia’s perception is inaccurate and based on delusion and paranoia, it is nonetheless their perception.
If Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine they wouldn’t be joining NATO. Same with Finland and Sweden.
Also, if they stopped being dickweeds they could have normal and friendly relations with the West. Russia’s paranoia is the problem, not NATO.
In the last 30-ish years nobody in Europe had considered Russia “the enemy”, on the contrary a lot of people were happy of doing business with them and putain could have chosen a path to integration with the rest of Europe and “the West” in general. I even dreamt of them being a civilised part of EU, along with the rest of the countries on the continent. But no, he had to revive the tsarist empire instead.
I don’t doubt that, but I do think there has remained a fair amount of mistrust and animosity between Russia and the United States, possibly a hold over from the cold war era, and I don’t think Russia sees much, if any, distinction between NATO and their enemy the United States.
Before Russia did their heel turn in the aughts, they almost joined NATO after a period of significant cooperation. Russia seeing the U.S., or it’s allies, as enemies is a symptom of Putin turning a fledgling democracy into a dictatorship, not the natural state of affairs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–NATO_relations
Go to the “Development of post-Cold War cooperation (1990–2004)” section and check out “NATO-Russia Founding Act”, “NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council”, and “NATO-Russia Council”.
Back then the talk was pearl clutching over NATO with Russia being seen as some racist white alliance against China, MENA, India, and others in the global south.
Russia only sees us as enemies because Putin needed to create enemies to seize and consolidate power.
It looks like there was mistrust developing before the NATO-Russia Council, with the bombings of Yugoslavia.
Russia should focus inward and become a country that people want to ally with and that people don’t fear will come for them. Start by putting a halt to invasions and murder. It’s some incel, victim-blaming shit from them…work on yourself Russia, be better so you aren’t the creepy guy noone trusts. Sorry if that takes generations of self sacrifice until a new population grows up only seeing your good acts for themselves and wondering why great!grandpa is so mad at a reasonable economic system that they don’t even use in Russia.
Where do you draw the line? If you are happy to give up Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war, where do you stop? Can he take all of Eastern Europe? What about the whole of Europe? Everywhere except your country?
Putin is a bully, and you stand up to bullies.
Besides, he might have the most nukes, but given the maintenance costs for 5,000+ of them and the corruption in Russia, most of them probably won’t work.
I have more cars than all my friends put together.
Of course, they’re all in various pieces, parting out for scrap, and in storage, so only my main driver works…
But hey, I’ve got the most cars!
You draw the line at “stop attacking outside your borders and we don’t have an issue” it isn’t hard…Russia has decided it wants to be seen as the villain and it wants the war to keep going … Has nothing to do with NATO or the US.
I don’t disagree with the rest of what you said, but this is kind of a silly dismissal. First of all “most of them” don’t need to work. Only a few need to and vast numbers of people will die and the Earth may be poisoned for many years.
Yes, stand up to Putin. Absolutely give Ukraine NATO membership. But don’t act like there’s no risk here. There’s a huge risk.
I wasnt acting like there was no risk, 1 nuke is too many, especially when a dictator has his finger on the button. Russia might have the highest quantity of nukes, but i’d be surprised if they had the most working nukes as the US stockpile isnt far off Russia’s.
Regardless, I wouldnt let the fact Russia is a nuclear capable nation deter us from doing what is right.
Yes, appease the bully, clearly the best strategy.
It worked for Hitler!
…wait.
By allowing Russia to expand it further provokes the west to use nuclear weapons. Huh, guess we’re at a deadlock. I guess Russia could give back what they stole.
They should, but if they don’t, what should be done, knowing that no one’s interests are served by all out war between Russia and the West?
Russia’s annexation of Ukraine is a geographical one. It’s the last corridor of easier mobilisation in Europe. Should the western border close that door, they are quite trapped by borders and the Black Sea with exception of northern approach via Belarus, though a terrible and easily stoppable option.
Should they not have Ukraine, taking more territory in Europe is basically impossible and any dreams of a restored or Empirical Russia are well and truly dead. For all intents and purposes, they will be surrounded by unfriendly borders or impassable natural features. Even if they were capable of some sort of modern Blitzkrieg tactic—theyve proven that could never happen—it wouldn’t work.
Do you feel that there should be some similar sort of compromise if Israel decides to occupy Gaza and the West Bank in perpetuity?
Ah yes, appeasement. A historically winning strategy.
Is instigating wars a winning strategy?
Russia should’ve thought about that before invading Ukraine, it seems.
It is when you win them, something Russia still has to figure out.
That’s funny because Ukraine gave up their nukes and Russia signed the agreement to defend their territorial integrity. Russia’s feelings are irrelevant and if they want to nuke us all so they can get out of a contract they signed, that’s their problem.
Another thing is you can appease someone completely in reality and people like Vladimir Putin will just turn around and say it’s still not enough.
I think it’s the other way around: Russia is aggressive but a show of strength would deter it. In other words, Russia isn’t desperate to avoid a confrontation with the West. Russia wants a confrontation with the West, and it needs to know that that’s a confrontation it won’t win. (China also needs to know that, and it’s watching the situation in Ukraine closely.)
That’s not to say that we should seek out such a confrontation with the goal of intimidating Russia. A high-stakes situation like that does have the risk of escalating out of control. However, the situation in Ukraine is already such a confrontation, initiated by Russia due to its belief that the West is weak. It would have been much better to avoid creating such a belief, but now is too late for that. The best we can do is to avoid reinforcing it and, from a pragmatic perspective, it helps that most of the risk is borne by Ukraine.
In short, the nightmare scenario is Russia invading a NATO country like one of the Baltic states. Then either there is a war between nuclear powers immediately or Western unity collapses and a war between nuclear powers becomes much more likely in the near future. Our best chance of avoiding that is to stop Russia in Ukraine, where we can do so indirectly.
Edit: Also people shouldn’t be down-voting you. You’re making a valid point that needs to be addressed.
I disagree. As the cold war showed, shows of strength escalate, they do not deter. I don’t believe for a moment Russia wants a confrontation with the West or that they believe the West is weak. I think they invaded Ukraine because they were scared of the West. They were scared of Ukraine’s rich agricultural land coming under the control of the West, and they were scared of NATO being on their doorstep. I think the invasion of Ukraine was an act of fear and desperation, and if we continue down this path, more acts of fear and desperation will follow.
NATO has been on their doorstep since its inception, so this argument is unreasonable.
Norway is a founding member and share a border with them.
The geographical argument for Russia wanting to take Ukraine is nonsense BECAUSE of the nuclear threat. Having a physical buffer zone or whatever is complete nonsense in an era where anyone who poses a real existential threat can simply be nuked out of existence and start the apocalypse. A few thousand kms of extra land does exactly zilch to change the calculus for the West starting a war with Russia. Russia wants Ukraine because it wants to make more money, and no other reason.
I think Russia wants Ukraine not in order to make money but in order to have Putin go down in history as the restorer of the Russian empire. That lack of pragmatism is what’s going to make negotiations difficult.
That, but also the fossil fuels underneath Ukraine, let’s not forget about those.
What exactly was the west supposed to do though? They weren’t gonna stop at ukraine. They want to take Moldova, Georgia, maybe even parts of Finland as well before they joined NATO. Stopping then now and letting the countries join nato/eu would solve future invasions. Russia shouldn’t have to feel threatened if they stopped acting like a threat to everyone else.
The scenario you describe has already come to pass. Russia has NATO on their doorstep since Finland joined, Russia’s chances of breaking through the Ukrainian army and actually capturing that agricultural land are rather low even if Western support for Ukraine drops significantly, and Ukraine is going to be friendly to the West and hostile to Russia even if it isn’t allowed into NATO. If this scenario is intolerable to Russia, then whatever would happen is going to happen.
I do think there is a small but significant risk that Russia will use nuclear weapons in Ukraine (a scenario where both escalating and not escalating are likely to be disastrous) if its army is driven back to the border but not if the war becomes a frozen conflict with Russia controlling the territory it currently does. With that said, I disagree that shows of strength don’t deter. Western strength deterred a Soviet invasion of Europe, and it deters a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. There definitely is a risk of escalation, but there always will be. The USA has tried being isolationist before, but it was still drawn into both world wars. It will be drawn into the next one if such a war happens.
Yes, but it also encouraged the establishment of the “iron curtain” of Soviet satellite states and a nuclear arms race. It’s only by the grace of god, or sheer dumb luck that full scale nuclear war didn’t break out.
I wonder who fucking started the escalations?
Uh… nato…
Removed by mod
You may want to look up the Sudeten crisis/Munich agreement and how effective it was at preventing war.
Ok, I give up. I’ve been down voted to hell and told repeatedly by multiple people that I’m an idiot or a coward or a Russian bot for wanting a peaceful resolution to the conflict, so I’m going to defer to the expertise of all these people and concede the point. It’s not like my opinion was going to change anything anyway.
Removed by mod
Yes, I am an idiot. Thank you for helping me see how stupid I am. I don’t remember saying what you’re saying I said, but you’re so much smarter than me, so you must know better what I said than I do.
Peaceful resolution is not only the easiest thing in the word, it is 100% Russia’s choice…stop invading and go back home and try to make yourself a productive member of the world…start with your own suffering people.Russia was old news and no one cared before the invasions. If you are always treated like the bad guy, you have to put a lot of effort in to selflessly prove you aren’t and the world will take notice…or invade and get shit on and be the villain everyone said you are…
It’s not the world’s call here. Debate the people that actually can change this situation.
That’s the hivemind for you. Personally I don’t think you deserve downvotes for these comments and I don’t think you are a Russian shill. I replied to you because I understand where you’re coming from, and I was trying to get you to see things the way I see them : I actually held the same opinion when Russia annexed Crimea by force in 2014 even though people were already screaming that it was basically Hitler’s playbook. But the fact that Putin didn’t take that easy, huge W when basically the entire world went for appeasement, and instead decided to keep escalating convinced me that he is actually literally applying Hitler’s playbook (and backing it with mutually assured destruction, of all things).
I’ve been thinking about it, and I think I understand why many people have such strong reactions to the situation. Russia did illegally invade a sovereign nation, without provocation. They have killed thousands of innocent people and they have done incredible harm. It’s abhorrent. Any such unjustified invasion (like the US invasion is Iraq, for instance) is abhorrent. I suppose some people view my attempts to dispassionately look for peaceful solutions to the conflict as a kind of tacit support for Russia, or at least indifference. I am not indifferent, and I certainly don’t support their illegal and immoral actions, I just don’t want anything that could lead to more war, or more widespread war. However, as you’ve said, Russia has likely left the rest of the world with few other choices.
Good on you for trying. I gave up a while ago. A consensus has formed, at least on here and on most of the English-speaking internet and lines have been drawn. Contrary opinions are rarely tolerated. Thankfully the rest of the world isn’t as gung-ho on isolating Russia and is actually helping restore some balance, because at the end of the day whether Ukraine is a NATO country or a Russian protectorate in ten years time matters little in the grand scheme of things.
What matters more is that the global pecking order between great powers is disturbed and this will likely lead to frequent local and perhaps generalized conflict in the future. It would be helpful for more countries to remain neutral, so as to help maintain balance and independence, while limiting the reach of great powers, but under such intense competition for global dominance most countries have to pick a sponsor for better or worse. And Ukraine’s leadership has chosen NATO, naturally. Whether they could have remained neutral or not is for historians to debate. Right now, as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Do the US, Russia, and China have to be enemies? Yes, unfortunately they do. They have competing interests and the decline of the US is leaving space open for others. Hence also the focus on getting Europe more heavily militarized again. So that it can hold its own in the uncertain times to come. That is my understanding.
Why the FUCK would a country choose their invader as a sponsor?
Indeed, why would they? I never said they should, so not sure what you’re upset about.
I’ve learned my lesson, I’m not commenting on anything related to Russia, Ukraine, or NATO again. These people are…passionate, and they are not interested in hearing opinions that run counter to their own.