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.”
…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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
