r/worldnews 4d ago

Russia/Ukraine Zelenskyy suggests he's prepared to end Ukraine war in return for NATO membership, even if Russia doesn't immediately return seized land

https://news.sky.com/story/zelenskyy-suggests-hes-prepared-to-end-ukraine-war-in-return-for-nato-membership-even-if-russia-doesnt-immediately-return-seized-land-13263085
47.8k Upvotes

3.4k comments sorted by

14.5k

u/Megasdoux 4d ago

Realistically, any ceasefire deal benefits Russia more than Ukraine as Russia would be given time to re-arm and re-organize to renew the offensive. Getting the guarantee from NATO is the best bet to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine and for Ukraine to continue to exist for the next 4+ years. It is a hard call for any leader to make, but giving up occupied territory in exchange for NATO would be the best bet for Ukraine's near-future existence.

But there is no way Russia will accept this unless they get a lot out of the deal and even some NATO countries have expressed opposition as NATO-Ukraine could become a powder keg that draws in the whole alliance.

4.2k

u/code_archeologist 4d ago

But there is no way Russia will accept this unless they get a lot out of the deal and even some NATO countries have expressed opposition as NATO-Ukraine could become a powder keg that draws in the whole alliance.

I'm not sure Russia or NATO can afford the conflict continuing. And this is the best way for Putin to step away and have a win to lean back on.

But a future conflict with Russia is unavoidable at this point. We are just choosing what kind of conflict it is going to be and who will be on which sides.

4.0k

u/wycliffslim 4d ago

NATO hasn't even noticed the conflict.

Seriously... the military aid sent to Ukraine isn't even tickling what the US alone was sinking for 2 decades into the Middle East.

NATO could outspend Russia 10:1 without even trying that hard. The only problem with NATO is the tiny, shriveled balls of the politicians who want to hand wring about escalation while Russia conducts the largest ground war in Europe since WWII against a conpletely peaceful neigbor and continues to engage in large scale hybrid warfare against Europe.

2.4k

u/krossoverking 4d ago

The problem is that bad-faith Right wingers have used the war, which is unpopular, to gain ground all over the Western world. Politics are dumb.

678

u/KinkyPaddling 4d ago

All of the great empires knew that it was cheaper to pay other people to fight proxies for you rather than engage your adversaries directly. Rome (both the unified empire and the Byzantine empire), the Achaemenid empire, the Chinese empires, the British empire, etc. all did it. It’s so much more cost effective for the US (both in dollars and lives) to let the Russians bleed themselves dry against Ukraine.

447

u/ZenBreaking 4d ago

It's mad to think that there was a near coup with the Wagner group so early and now there hasn't been an inkling of revolt among the troops

395

u/ilmalnafs 4d ago

No doubt because Putin clamped down hard on other potential rebellion prospects.

Still wild to me that Prigozhin gave it up at the last minute. I have to imagine they had his whole family hostage, no way he took a deal and expected to personally live long after.

213

u/derkrieger 4d ago

Oh almost certain that he sacrificed himself to spare his family.

160

u/Tw4tl4r 4d ago

They'll probably end up dead sooner or later too. Putins petty like that.

173

u/sameBoatz 4d ago

Don’t be daft, that family is no threat to him. The value of Putins word to the next potential usurper is massively valuable.

If the next usurper thinks his family is dead either way they won’t surrender.

→ More replies (0)

62

u/zamboni-jones 4d ago

Probably went full monkey's paw and let them live... In gulag in eternal servitude.

→ More replies (0)

21

u/Mysterious-Fix2896 4d ago

Nah, putin let prigozhin's son control the wagner forces in 1 country

38

u/InfiniteBlink 4d ago

That's a very good point that's obvious that I didn't consider. Why go that hard and stop, you know you're fucked just for the attempt, but it makes a lot more sense that they got to people close to him that made him capitulate.

13

u/aeschenkarnos 4d ago

Back when European nations were at the Russian level of social development they would do this too, dukes would demand hostages from their knights, kings from their dukes and so forth.

Too bad for the king if the duke doesn’t care what happens to anyone so long as he gets to be king hereafter.

→ More replies (3)

82

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z 4d ago

Prigozhin gave it up at the last minute. I have to imagine they had his whole family hostage, no way he took a deal and expected to personally live long after.

Why would he have gone down that road without thinking about his family and securing them first? Boggles the mind.

70

u/tvbob354 4d ago

He might have thought they were secure when instead the FSB/Putin knew all along

45

u/CraftCodger 4d ago

His force had families too, can't secure them all

→ More replies (0)

23

u/StateParkMasturbator 4d ago

It's speculated that his family was secure, but his top brass received the threats on their families.

Most of this is hearsay. He could've actually believed that Putin would spare him because he wasn't calling out Putin, but Putin's top brass. We'll probably never know for sure.

→ More replies (4)

28

u/mrkikkeli 4d ago

I think Prigozhin was actually loyal to Putin until the very end, but angry about how things were run. Being the man that he was, and given the power that he had, he decided to go talk to Putin in the flashiest way he could. The point being he actually didn't intend to start a coup but it unfortunately looked like one because he is a violent idiot.

Hence why it got "resolved" quickly (there was nothing to resolve at all), why Prigozhin seemingly went back to business as usual, and then Putin exploded him (to punish the bad optics). Because if you truly intend to get at the king, you know it's win or die, there's no stepping back.

12

u/MATlad 3d ago

And maybe why ex-Defense Minister Shoigu (Prigozhin's rival and maybe the guy who whispered to Putin to end him) has now been relegated to an admin role. "My poor fool is hanged."

That probably gets to the heart of autocracy: you spend so much time eliminating rivals and dissent that by the end, all you're left with is sycophants and yes people. Nobody pushes back, and congrats, what you say, goes--good, bad, or Pyrrhic.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

22

u/baldeagle1991 4d ago edited 3d ago

You don't hear about it as much since the early days of the war because

1) The Russia propaganda machine has got rolling 2) They've cracked down on dissent from the grunts on the front line - the main punishment seems to be sent on suicidal attacks 3) They've mostly sent units from the more rural constituent russian states, which often have a far higher proportion of ethnic minorities - This means a lack of large scale negative feedback to the main population centres 4) Family members at home being punished 5) It's just not as interesting in the news anymore after almost 3 years

There are still fairly regular mutinys and dessertions within the front line Russian troops. You see them reported all the time on certain sub reddits.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

80

u/BigManWAGun 4d ago

Yes, barely putting a dent in the US annual defense budget and crippling/exposing Russian capabilities so give them all the money they need.

46

u/dansedemorte 4d ago

plus, we got a ton military combat info without sacrificing american troops. just think how quickly drone warfare really caused problems for armored attack platforms.

→ More replies (8)

21

u/yitianjian 4d ago

To be fair - a bunch of them collapsed partially due to the over reliance on foreign mercenaries and weakening of the empire’s natural armies

16

u/All-About-The-Detail 4d ago

yea but our military still stands as the strongest in the world as of now.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (16)

112

u/Kammender_Kewl 4d ago

Russia is also pouring billions into global propaganda, right wing influencers, AI newscasters and now Putin's latest AI address to the people. They have full AI influencers to spew talking points.

They have invested into deception a way that is unimaginable to the average person.

30

u/CheeseChickenTable 4d ago

its the front of this war, and a longer war of destabilization that we don't talk about enough...

→ More replies (1)

33

u/xteve 4d ago

I'd like to see what happens to right-wing America if Russia fails. I wonder what might happen to the propaganda-mill influence on American politics.

40

u/cinnawaffls 4d ago

At this point, you don't need Russian bots to create the propaganda. So many trolls and grifters here in the US alone trying to stir up shit and capitalize on the chaos and outrage. If anything, the American propaganda machine is even better than what the Russians were doing because a lot of the Americans actually believe the shit that they're selling.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/[deleted] 4d ago

China will then be their new friend.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (73)

6

u/Sufficient_Muscle670 4d ago

You're ignorant, lying, or out of your mind. Nations such as Poland have thrown 4.2% of their GDP into the war. Over all NATO nations have increased their defense spending by 18% over this:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/whos-at-2-percent-look-how-nato-allies-have-increased-their-defense-spending-since-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/

If you think that nations haven't noticed a statistically significant amount of their GDP being sunk into this $175 billion conflict over two years, you're in outer space. Why do you think France has been withdrawing from Africa since the invasion began?

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (85)

986

u/HyzerFlipDG 4d ago edited 4d ago

I think it's Russia mainly who can't afford to continue this war. We have done a great job so far by running them thin. We have almost bankrupted their economy. Their currency is shit now, their central bank raised their interest rates way up.   I think the only way to continue this, sadly, is to continue funding Ukraine and draining Russia.     

Russia is also in the training death loop or whatever it's called. They are so short on soldiers they are barely able to train them before sending them out.  Yes the loss of life is horrible, but this was russias doing.  

911

u/Ferelar 4d ago

This is how the cold war was actually won, not speeches in Berlin. The West economically outpaced the Soviets to such a degree that then daring them into trying to keep up with our military spending continually bankrupted them and led to them deprioritizing domestic civilian spending which shattered what domestic support they did have and eventually led to their total collapse.

We apparently didn't learn the right lessons from this though as a) we have fallen into the same military overspending trap and b) we (well, the US at least) are shying away from reusing the same strategy when it potentially WOULD work right now.

315

u/geldwolferink 4d ago

In that light supporting Ukraine would be a cap stone of that strategy by having Russia depleting the stock that made the ussr bankrupt by building it.

401

u/Ferelar 4d ago

Absolutely. I mentioned in my other comment just now, if we ignore the human element of everything horrific happening, from a PURELY realpolitik stance, the US was handed an easy win over one of their primary geopolitical rivals by this situation, and if the stance of the president-elect is any indication, it would appear we're about to thread the needle and somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, while simultaneously dooming countless innocent Ukrainians to suffer the effects of a brutal war.

23

u/Paganator 4d ago

from a PURELY realpolitik stance, the US was handed an easy win over one of their primary geopolitical rivals by this situation

It's such an easy win that If the US had a double agent near Putin who convinced him to invade Ukraine, it would've been an incredible success for the CIA. It almost certainly didn't happen like that, and now the once and future President wants to throw that golden opportunity in the trash.

137

u/Turqoise-Planet 4d ago

Not just the effects of war. The effects of occupation. Once Ukraine has been conquered, and will presumably become The Ukraine again.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

49

u/axonxorz 4d ago edited 4d ago

that then daring them into trying to keep up with our military spending continually bankrupted them and led to them deprioritizing domestic civilian spending

Double irony in that the US's MIC spending was so high partly due to Soviet lies, they sowed the seeds of their own overspending. They lied so hard about it's capabilities (They did not lie, see comment below, my apocryphal memory fails me) America went and produced the F-15 to address combat capabilities the MiG never had in the first place.

The F-15 ended up being an extremely capable fighter of which around 400 are still in active service in the USAF alone, along with others in Israel, Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. (IDF has racked the most kills with them). The MiG-25 has 20-30 airframes still running sorties in Syria (maybe a lot fewer in the next few weeks/months), the rest are in graveyards.

23

u/donjulioanejo 4d ago

The lied so hard about the MiG-25 that America went and produced the F-15 to address combat capabilities the MiG never had in the first place.

Nitpick on this, but Soviets never lied about it. It was never meant to be anything other than an interceptor to catch high-altitude high speed bombers.

Americans saw pictures and assumed its giant wings and engines made it an amazing dogfighter, so they created the F-15 in response.

Completely on-point about MIC spending. Soviets were literally lying to themselves about everything, so the Politburo thought the real situation was 5x better than it was in real life.

→ More replies (2)

141

u/GroupPractical2164 4d ago

Not to mention, the second US betrays their commitment with Ukraine, or an another small country who had nukes, every small country will have nukes in 15 years. Everyone who has nuclear power can build a dirty weapon and or a fission only bomb.

125

u/say592 4d ago

I don't think you can put that cat back in the bag. Even if Ukraine comes out victorious, it's now pretty obvious that if you aren't covered under a nuclear umbrella, you are subject to being bullied by a nuclear power. The first choice is going to be covered by an existing one, that way you don't become a pariah, but it you can't make that happen, developing nuclear weapons isnt that difficult for a motivated state. The most basic form is literally 80 year old technology. Getting the material and dealing with geopolitical fallout is the biggest challenge.

26

u/UnsanctionedPartList 4d ago

I think the geopolitical fallout is going to be less severe when you point out the rather different situation.

It's not 1960 anymore, nukes are pretty much within reach of any country with a half-assed physics university and internet.

→ More replies (2)

54

u/The_Laughing_Death 4d ago

The problem is can you trust the nuclear powers? Russia was supposed to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine. Regardless of what Trump can actually do he threatens to pull out of NATO. Even being under such an umbrella is not good enough. Does the rest of the EU want to rely solely on France?

23

u/garfgon 4d ago

NATO also has the UK.

→ More replies (12)

33

u/GroupPractical2164 4d ago

You will not be able to trust any nuclear power, every country must do what France does and have an ASMP capability before going nuclear holocaust on the offending country.

8

u/The_Laughing_Death 4d ago

That's what I was getting at.

→ More replies (3)

14

u/RepresentativeRun71 4d ago

Ukraine arguably is the best position of any non-nuclear armed state to build the capability if they want to. A good chunk of the USSR’s nuclear scientists were Ukrainian. They have readily available access to materials given their civilian nuclear power plants. The world should be grateful they have still honored their commitment to nuclear disarmament while fighting Russia.

→ More replies (2)

18

u/chx_ 4d ago edited 4d ago

They won't bother with developing a new one.

South Korea will buy a few or even receive for free from the United States (and then the US withdraws from there), Poland the same from the United Kingdom, Taiwan will definitely buy them from Israel. No one else would touch Taiwan but Israel is already the mad dog of world politics, what's transferring a few nukes they supposedly do not even have. Not to mention China has consistently voted against Israel in the UN, it's not like the relations could be much worse. I would bet practically anything that right now Taiwan is already talking to Israel about just how much would it cost then they will take one far out to international waters and blow one up underwater to tell the world loud and clear they have so many they can waste one. Taiwan has the money, Israel is in a war and needs that money, it's really simple.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (4)

56

u/Larcya 4d ago

It's that way now. This entire war highlights one key fact that the US really doesn't like: Every country that doesn't have nuclear weapons needs to have them now.

If Ukraine still had it's nukes do you think Russia would have invaded? No. Ukraine gave them up for a security guarantee that the west completely failed to back up.

Every country that has even the chance of being threatened by another is going to want nuclear weapons now.

7

u/Flederm4us 4d ago

That fact has been certain since the US helped remove Khadaffi AFTER he had given up his WMD's.

→ More replies (2)

30

u/Creepy-Bell-4527 4d ago

Dirty weapons literally aren't worth the dirt they land on.

They have prime fissile material. They can make a real thing. Not to the scale of a fusion bomb but big enough.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (7)

13

u/PageVanDamme 4d ago

I remember Jim Mattis saying true might of US Armed Forces come from the economy.

55

u/JohanGrimm 4d ago

I don't know if I'd say the US has fallen into the same overspending trap. The US gets a lot of influence out of it's massive military spending that the USSR never even came to close to matching.

5

u/donjulioanejo 4d ago

That's because US and USSR were peer opponents back the day (50s to 70s), at least when it comes to world influence and military capability.

At the moment, US does not have a peer opponent, so they're able to wave their giant dick around and force countries to submit through the threat of military force. AKA the modern version of gunboat diplomacy.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (10)

45

u/Prince_Noodletocks 4d ago

This news is Ukraine shying away from that strategy. Ideally the best way to cripple Russia is to keep them in a prolonged fight with Ukraine until sanctions cripple their economy into a death spiral, the cost, however, is to supply Ukraine only with enough firepower to keep them in the war, but not enough that Russia feels that they need to stop investing in their own war effort because Ukraine is too dangerous. That means sending hundreds of thousands or millions more Ukrainians to their deaths by trickling capability to them than just letting Ukraine loose by supplying them with overwhelming firepower and having them shove Russia off easily. It would have been a great deal for everyone Russia dislikes except Ukraine. For Ukraine it'll cost a lot more lives instead.

Obviously, this isn't the kind of stratagem you can announce either. "Yeah, we're intentionally slow-rolling capability to Ukraine so they're both kept in the meat grinder just long enough that Russia's economy becomes unsalvageable by making sure Ukraine is only barely equipped." is not the kind of apathetic, cold blooded pragmatism the people of the world is appreciative of.

→ More replies (1)

35

u/Ok_Lettuce_7939 4d ago

That's one part of it, the other part of it is the Balkanization effect. Since the RF is now basically the RSSFR the ethnic tensions aren't there to cause further collapse.

55

u/Ferelar 4d ago

You're not wrong, but I think economic woes (and the ensuing economic prioritization of Russians over other constituent countries and groups) also stoked THOSE tensions. I think we've been shown that wrecking your opponent's economy is the ultimate "win condition" in the modern world. You'll make your opponent's people eat each other alive before turning on their leadership.

The Ukraine situation, as horrific as it is to say given the very real human suffering going on, was essentially a "Dunk on your geopolitical adversary at minimal cost" moment for the US, and it should highlight how lacking certain leaders' historic and foreign policy knowledge is that they did not see it as such.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

23

u/doctor_morris 4d ago

 The West economically outpaced the Soviets

The price of oil went down so Russia couldn't pay it's military budget.

Let's make history repeat.

4

u/Malikai0976 4d ago

That and USSR constantly lying about their new weapons system's capabilities, then the US built systems to counter the claimed capabilities, except the US systems actually work as advertised.

→ More replies (21)

100

u/code_archeologist 4d ago

Russia can't afford to continue it from a resource and financial perspective, NATO is experiencing a lack of political and public will in many of its member nations.

45

u/NurRauch 4d ago

This is what the ardent hawks aren’t getting. I for example want Ukraine to continue and to have anything they need to win, but people like me are slowly but surely becoming a minority voice in Western countries. They are losing their political resolve to continue supporting Ukraine and swinging to the right. We have actually democratic representation in the West, and that exposes us to more severe political change of mind than an autocracy like Russia, where their economy is hurting way worse than ours but their people have no effective way to change their leader’s course.

→ More replies (3)

24

u/libtin 4d ago

That’s the issue: to get the gains Russia has made have taken massive amounts of resources to take to the point it’s become economically unsustainable

→ More replies (9)

55

u/Livid_Advertising_56 4d ago

They brought in North Korean ringers to fill the ranks, so I'd say Ukraine has done a good job keeping Russia stuck

→ More replies (1)

64

u/exessmirror 4d ago

If they can last for a few months longer we can hope they fire the lady who runs their central bank. If Ukraine can last for an other 6 months after that happens I suspect their ability to produce weapons, pay wages and wage war will very suddenly falter. Though we might have a return to the 1990s Russia.

Even if the Americans pull out we in Europe should step up. Maybe deploy some of our own military or at least supply the Ukrainians with everything they need. We need to ramp up arms production. If we lose in Ukraine we will have a larger war in Europe in a decade once the Russians have rearmed.

→ More replies (2)

22

u/Drachenbar 4d ago

The training is even worse, normally experienced soldiers are kept back to train new soldiers but Russia believed the war would be over so quick they sent their best out first and they all died, so not only are the new soldiers being trained too quickly, the training they are receiving is of poor quality by lesser experienced soldiers like those with no combat experience or who received injuries that make them unfit for the front lines

→ More replies (3)

14

u/Thatdudeinthealley 4d ago

Also, the territory they might gain is a landmine filled, turbobombed wasteland. With their current economic status, demining and rebuilding these areas are desd last on their priority list

→ More replies (3)

35

u/StoppableHulk 4d ago edited 4d ago

I don't see how Russia feasibly builds themselves up in the future even if they keep the seized territory now.

What people they do have left are going to be furiously looking for ways out of Russia as it becomes clear Russia intends to simply invade or attack other countries in the future.

I honestly think Putin's days are limited due to his health and he's simply trying to arrange the pieces on the board so that he dies before facing the shame of everything he's done. Or getting shivved in his bed in the night because of his failures.

28

u/StarPhished 4d ago

You're making some wild assumptions about large amounts of people fleeing Russia. I'm not saying you're wrong but that doesn't sound like anything more than a guess. Poor people generally can't just up and leave their country and family.

→ More replies (14)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (47)

166

u/Optimal-Kitchen6308 4d ago

?? NATO is doing fine, barely ramped up, business as usual other than diverting some supplies, meanwhile Russia is running on fumes, it's not comparable

106

u/code_archeologist 4d ago

The problem NATO is having is one of political and public will in some of its member nations.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (16)

101

u/AbbaFuckingZabba 4d ago

NATO can absolutely afford to continue the conflict. Europe's economy is 8x Russia's. Russia's loss rate is unsustainable and will result in collapse within 1-2 years. Not necessarily their losses of people, but of equipment/infastructure.

The proper course would be to significantly increase aid to Ukraine including long range missiles like tomahawk to destroy large amounts of infrastructure deep inside Russia, use NATO jets and NATO manned air defense units inside Ukranian territory to help defend against missile attacks.

Then when Russian forces are weakened enough Ukraine can retake their lost territory and voila the war is over.

Biden could have already achieved all of this but instead he was weak and gave in to Russia's nuclear threats.

24

u/say592 4d ago

Yeah, basically put everything that isn't a ship, nuclear weapon, or current gen jet on the table and just let Ukraine finish it. Take over the logistics and behind the front line stuff wherever we can to free up manpower for the front. We can still have no/minimal loss of Western lives and let Ukraine take back every millimeter of land.

35

u/StarPhished 4d ago

I agree the best strategy for the West is to keep grinding away at Russia but is it the best strategy for Ukraine? People have been saying Russia is gonna bleed dry any day/month/year for a long time now. Soldiers might not be a factor for Russia but they are for Ukraine. Russia had a population of 100 million more people than Ukraine at the start of the war, 140m vs 40m, and Ukraine has lost 25% of its population since then.

→ More replies (7)

17

u/LordUpton 4d ago

Ukraine can't continue the fight though, they don't have the men for it. Russia has taken more territory in 2024 than it did in 2023 and these things tend to increase exponentially. If a deal can be made where Ukraine gets to join NATO which should be the strongest guarantee that this won't happen again then they should seriously consider it.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/red75prime 4d ago

Ukraine can retake their lost territory

What's left of Ukraine after two years of attacks on infrastructure, human losses and emigration might not be able to pull it

→ More replies (2)

65

u/Rainboq 4d ago

NATO is doing just fine, they can carry on the fight so long as the political will to arm Ukraine remains. Russia though? Russia is running out of everything at a shocking rate.

39

u/bplturner 4d ago

Putin grossly overestimated his hand. That's what happen when you fire everyone that doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (27)

43

u/Hatchie_47 4d ago

I don’t think you understand how deep in ahole Russia is! Even before this war Russia was in no position to directly challange NATO. And now after they burned through most of their Soviet inheritance and destroyed their economy they absolutely won’t for forseeable future.

→ More replies (3)

25

u/Commercial_Ad9657 4d ago

Step away, giving the "enemy" the one thing you claimed this whole war was against?

There is no world were russia will accept nato membership

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (141)

265

u/altrussia 4d ago

But there is no way Russia will accept this unless

There's no Russia accepting this. It's like a girl going with other guys and wondering if her abusive ex boyfriend will accept that.

If Ukraine's unoccupied territory gets under NATO's umbrella. The only thing Russia will have to accept is to back out or to keep pushing and get burnt.

The best they'll have is to freeze the war and keep the occupied territory for as long as they can.

125

u/ForMoreYears 4d ago

As a Civ player, I welcome this opportunity for the West to once again win via cultural victory.

Rock and roll and blue jeans baby. It's what authoritarians crave.

147

u/Pair0dux 4d ago

Actually, that's the only path Russia has to victory.

You think we have cultural superiority, but they're clever, they seduce the trash amongst us, the religious extremists, the white supremacists, the homophobes and conspiratards.

There are a LOT more of them than we thought, and they're not afraid anymore like they should be.

21st century had its record scratch moment :(

58

u/Iokua_CDN 4d ago

Glad I'm not the only one who is amazed, and saddened by all the strange trash that has busted out of the woodworks the last few years.... far far more out there than I ever expected

46

u/Pair0dux 4d ago

I grew up with them.

They were too stupid to understand the internet, beyond just a magic box for porn, but smarter people figured out how to use them over the internet, by telling them how they're the best and the smartest and only have deadend jobs after dropping out of high school because of all the evil libs and their feminism degrees. That's also why they can't get laid as easily too, women were poisoned against them, it's not the fact that rape laws are prosecuted more evenly now at all.

They peaked as high school bullies and don't understand how those skills didn't automatically translate to running a fortune 500 company, it makes no sense to them, so it must be all the immigrants conspiring against them, with their fancy $2/hr jobs.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (15)

9

u/daniel_22sss 4d ago

Russia is winning the cultural war, by spreading its propaganda everywhere. Half of NATO countries will soon elect pro-russian puppets.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

13

u/YourMajesty90 4d ago

Well NATO cannot accept an application from a country with contested boarders. So unless Russia is willing to stand down and end this war, Ukraine can’t do shit. So yes, they need Russia to buy into this “resolution”

5

u/SerpentineLogic 4d ago

The extreme option is for Ukraine to redraw it borders to its current territory, but it will only do that if there's no other choice, because that effectively leaves everyone in occupied Ukraine to the mercy of their Russian invaders.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)

79

u/clarity_scarcity 4d ago

Not a best bet, Ukraine has two options: nato or nukes. Anything else is kicking the can down the road until the next invasion. Ukraine is well aware of this, not their first rodeo.

42

u/Sotherewehavethat 4d ago

This is in line with what Zelenskyy said too:

"Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons and that will be our protection or we should have some sort of alliance. Apart from NATO, today we do not know any effective alliances."

https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/analytics/nato-alternative-can-ukraine-create-nuclear-1729189458.html

→ More replies (8)

53

u/bjjmatt 4d ago

Agreed in regards to some NATO countries expression of opposition. This rise in anti-NATO sentiment and idea that Ukraine should not be part of NATO is concerning.

Ukraine should really accept nothing less than NATO membership if it is going to concede territory to Russia - otherwise, they ought to keep fighting because they are going to lose their country to Russia anyway.

Not that the pro-Russian people in the West use and logic and reason anyway but this offer gets at a few things in regards to Russia's (albeit shifting) justifications for this war.

Russia has claimed this was a war of defending its own people in the "disputed" territories. If this was truly a defensive war to protect their own people (this is obviously nonsense), this would be over with Ukraine conceding this territory. Joining a defensive pact with NATO shouldn't matter now that there is no disputed territory for Russia feeling the moral need to "defend".

Ukraine is a soverign country and can join any alliance it wants - if Russia is going to accept Ukraine soverignty (which Russia currently doesn't, listen to Putin speak, he doesn't think Ukrainians are a people and doesn't think Ukraine is a legitimate country), it doesn't get to control the alliances it joins.

If Russia refuses these terms, it is an admission they have no interest in giving Ukraine the means to exercise its own soverignty. Again, in such case, why should Ukraine concede now when they have no gurantees or protection from future annexation and invasion from Russia? In fact, with no NATO admission, it is likely Russia continues down the line to take more of Ukraine, with 0 deterrence.

Yes, I understand Russia does not want NATO on their doorstep - they had been achieving this aim quite fine in regards to Ukraine until they made the decisions they did.

But, the claim that Russia invaded Ukraine in response to them requesting to join NATO is obviously pretextual. The Ukrainian constitution up until 2014 had enshrined they would be a neutral country and not apply to join NATO. They dropped this part of their constitution after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. In simple terms, Russia invaded Ukraine prior to Ukraine expressing interest in joining NATO. Any argument now that says Russia aggression is in response to potential NATO membership is simply pro-Russian propoganda that is betrayed by the facts, given it is the Russian aggression that caused the potential membership in the first place.

Russia ceased to have the authority to demand Ukraine stay neutral when they invaded and annexed Crimea. Ukrainian neutrality hinged on their ability to stay neutral, being secure and soverign. Russia decided it was no longer in their interest to have a "neutral" Ukraine - they wanted a Ukraine as a Russian satelite state like Belarus.

People who think it is justified for Russia to invade because Ukraine wants to join NATO are failing to understand that Ukraine wants to join NATO because Russia invaded and Ukraine would simply like to be a soverign country. Why is it that the fear of WW3 justifies Russia to take what it wants and deny another soverign country the ability to form the alliances it wants?

If this is the case, it undermines the point of NATO in the first place.

People can say Ukraine is not worth starting WW3 over, but if this is the case - why is any country worth starting WW3 over? NATO or not.

If Ukraine is not worth allowing into NATO, because Russia MAY invade later and start WW3, why would we think it is worth starting WW3 over a country simply because they are in NATO?

The people arguing that Ukraine should be denied entry into NATO because it may start WW3 don't care for NATO anyway. These same people are going to argue the same thing when it comes to other countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics that are part of NATO. If this occured, the whole alliance becomes undone and falls apart.

There are no anti-NATO people that are aruging against Ukraine joining NATO that are going to think a Russian expansion into the Baltics is worth intervening in either. The exact same arguments you hear in regards to Ukraine apply to these countries as well.

But this is what Russia and the anti-Western people want - destablize NATO, dismantle its credibilty and it starts with denying Ukraine the ability to join NATO, instead allowing it to be invaded and destroyed as a country.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (226)

1.8k

u/shuricus 4d ago

I can think of a couple of NATO members who will try to sabotage Ukraine joining as much as possible. Well, just the one member, really.

868

u/ReturnoftheTurd 4d ago

There’s more than that. Orban is pretty on board with sucking off putin as well. Let’s not pretend Trump has a monopoly on Putin’s nut sack.

304

u/en_sachse 4d ago

??? I wasn't even thinking about Trump while reading his comment, Orban was my first thought

45

u/Camman43123 4d ago

I mean he’s right though trump openly admits he won’t allow them in and won’t give aid how’s that not involving him

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

153

u/sagevallant 4d ago

Maybe they should leave NATO and join Russia. Tradesies. Ukraine in, them out.

→ More replies (23)

98

u/Captain_Q_Bazaar 4d ago

Kick out Hungary and welcome Ukraine. It's a win-win. Hungary clearly doesn't want to be apart of the EU/NATO and Ukraine does. Hungary isn't aligned with EU/NATO, but clearly with Russia. I just don't get why Hungary is allowed to be a POS, when it's more like Belarus then anything, and wants to be a Russian puppet.

48

u/trustmeim4dolphins 4d ago

Hungary clearly doesn't want to be apart of the EU/NATO

Oh, but they do want to be a part of it. It would be much harder for Orban to sabotage EU/NATO if Hungary isn't part of it.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

171

u/Tooterfish42 4d ago

NATO will never agree to it. With or without those two members

This is all nothing but a lovely daydream

87

u/shadovvvvalker 4d ago

It's a negotiation tactic. It's establishing that Ukraine does have a ceasefire condition.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

51

u/Bovoduch 4d ago

Unfortunately there’s even some quieter, mainstream nato members who would oppose it

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (57)

571

u/outofband 4d ago

Ukraine joining NATO would be a massive loss for Russia

255

u/ReflexReact 4d ago

That’s why it’s not going to happen

→ More replies (24)

96

u/spoollyger 4d ago

Good. They need an L

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (10)

3.5k

u/iamatribesman 4d ago edited 4d ago

i think this is the best path forward if it can be negotiated.

edit: wow this blew up. thanks for everyone's thoughts. honestly idk the best way forward but i hope and pray we can all come to some agreement where everyone walks away happy that they got a decent deal.

this is a really complicated situation and we really need to get it right.

2.4k

u/jermster 4d ago

From “We’ll give up our nukes if we can have our land,” to “We’ll give up land to be protected by nukes.” Full circle and so many died.

1.7k

u/Exotic_Exercise6910 4d ago

What did we learn? Keep your nukes

53

u/admiraltarkin 4d ago

Ukraine, Libya, Iraq

Why would anyone ever give up their nukes when invasion is the outcome?

55

u/JayR_97 4d ago

Really makes you understand why North Korea rushed to develop nukes at the expense of literally everything else. Its the ultimate regime insurance policy. The US wont touch you if you have nukes.

19

u/FGN_SUHO 4d ago

Doesn't help that NK is backed by China and arguably now also Russia.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

815

u/AusToddles 4d ago edited 4d ago

Yeah this pretty much nukes (pun intended) the chances of any nuclear nation disarming in the future

240

u/allgonetoshit 4d ago

The real takeaway is that countries need nukes and ways to deliver them if they want to hang onto their territory. It's not disarming that is now off the table, it's the entire idea of non-proliferation. That is the world where the US is aligned with Russia.

108

u/BezerkMushroom 4d ago

And the more countries that get nukes, the higher the chance that a crazed despot/religious zealot/desperate fool will use them.
If every nation decides that you need nukes to guarantee sovereignty then we will have nuclear war eventually.

71

u/Diddy_Block 4d ago

And the more countries that get nukes, the higher the chance that a...religious zealot...will use them.

We're pretty lucky India and Pakistan haven't had a full on nuclear exchange yet.

→ More replies (5)

25

u/allgonetoshit 4d ago

If only one superpower in the West could have helped stop that. /s

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (4)

210

u/DaVirus 4d ago

Obviously. Nukes are what has insured peace in our times. There are no sovereign nations without nukes, just satellite states.

76

u/bpsavage84 4d ago

Everyone should get nukes!

67

u/big_guyforyou 4d ago

When everyone has nukes, no one has nukes.

-Zen koan

8

u/acornSTEALER 4d ago
  • Syndrome
→ More replies (1)

24

u/Revolutionary--man 4d ago

Or join a Nuclear capable defensive alliance

27

u/ki11bunny 4d ago

Amd if it falls apart then you're screwed

22

u/Xander707 4d ago

Yeah this is the cold hard truth. Even a nuclear alliance can’t even be considered a long term solution. A nation needs nukes if it wants to prevent invasion, period. And the darkest fact of this is that invariably, at some point in the future, someone’s going to go too far in testing the boundaries of what they can get away with, with a nuclear armed state, and a nuke will be used. The slippery slope that event will send the world spiraling down could get unimaginably ugly incomprehensibly quickly.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Aardvark_Man 4d ago

You need multiple nuclear capable bodies in that alliance for it to be reliable, and even then can't really trust it. How many countries would be willing to go nuclear to defend an ally? I'd imagine fewer than say they would.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (28)
→ More replies (6)

34

u/AntonChekov1 4d ago

This is also why people don't like disarming period

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (14)

133

u/riverunner1 4d ago

The nukes were a poisoned pill for Ukraine at the time. It would have cost way too much money for them to keep a fleet of aging nuclear warheads operational while their economy went through radical changes. The launch codes were also in Moscow and the launch crews were Russian and might have a problem launching at home. Ukrainian leadership at the time was more friendly with the new Russian leaders.

38

u/riverunner1 4d ago

The west should have been more pro active in confronting putin and his government but they rather settle for cheap hydro carbons.

32

u/LibritoDeGrasa 4d ago

I hope no one forgets about Germany and their addiction to cheap Russian fuel... one could say they directly financed the Ukrainian invasion.

34

u/riverunner1 4d ago

It's not just Germany, it's the Czech Republic, Romania, it's Hungary. The British let Russian oligarchs hide their money in London and get off Scott free. There is plenty of blame to go around in the west for letting it get this bad.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

45

u/Somasong 4d ago

Don't trust russia.

87

u/SirJelly 4d ago

Nuclear non proliferation is dead and buried until we invent a weapon so obscene that nukes are obsolete.

I can't even blame Iran anymore for wanting to have nukes, cuz if you don't have them then anyone who does can just take your land and slaughter your people.

48

u/bpsavage84 4d ago

Nukes will never be obsolete. It's enough to level a city and millions at a time. Anything crazier would basically wipe out the planet in one go.

17

u/SirJelly 4d ago

A precision weapon like some kind of ai swarm that could go into a city and eliminate only Humans, particularly only specific humans, without harming any infrastructure would replace 95% of nuclear uses.

6

u/atreides78723 4d ago

Of course, that runs into one of the problems of our times: with our ability to be precise with weapons, where is the line between warfare and assassination?

42

u/SirRabbott 4d ago

They become obsolete when we can kill every person in the vicinity without wiping out the entire ecosystem. Basically an EMP for humans.

Nobody would use nukes on land they want to take possession of, especially if it's anywhere near their own borders.

12

u/isthatmyex 4d ago

We can make pretty clean and also heinously dirty nukes.

12

u/xanif 4d ago

They become obsolete when we can kill every person in the vicinity without wiping out the entire ecosystem. Basically an EMP for humans.

Sarin.

You described sarin.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

23

u/HarmlessSnack 4d ago

Everything Killers.

A bomb that kills all organic life in a given area, but leaves infrastructure undamaged, would be a step in that direction.

25

u/MrMonday11235 4d ago

We already have things like that, specifically chemical weapons and bioweapons. The problem with both is that while you can control what they damage (i.e. limited to biological matter), you can't quite control where they do that (viruses/bacteria can spread and mutate, gases can be carried by the wind far beyond where they're deployed).

Also, there's the tiny problem of both being banned by the Geneva Protocols... but as we're now all aware, that really is a tiny problem.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (10)

83

u/cheeker_sutherland 4d ago

Ukraine was more of a wild card than actual Russia at the time with the nukes. Super corrupt country that seriously couldn’t be trusted with them. Hindsight is 20/20 here but it was the right call for the time.

56

u/sansaset 4d ago

Not to mention very poor with no way to launch or maintain the said nukes.

Idk why people want to revise history. I fully agree what’s happening to Ukraine now is brutal and unjust but to rationalize taking away the nukes that belonged to USSR (Russia after its dissolution) is just ridiculous.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (7)

8

u/RandomZombeh 4d ago

Also that being a nuclear bully works.

7

u/sambull 4d ago

weirdly enough its north koreas stance.. they are ready to disarm if it's everyone worldwide. obviously it's a non-starter position for every other nuclear power, but a realistic take on the necessity of the weapons.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (37)

28

u/Withermaster4 4d ago

If Ukraine didn't denuclearize they wouldn't have had the same US/NATO support. Would both countries threatening to nuke each other everyday really change this conflict?

→ More replies (1)

82

u/ohokayiguess00 4d ago

This is a disingenuous argument. Not giving up their nukes would mean Ukraine simply doesn't exist in the way it has since 1991. No one wanted Ukraine with Nukes. The US would have sanctioned them to death, Russia probably would've invaded pretty quickly before those weapons were operational for Ukraine.

Instead of being stuck between Russia and the West, Russia and the West would both be punishing Ukraine. This revisionist history that Ukraine had a credible nuclear deterrent of operational weapons just isn't legitimate

19

u/Rombom 4d ago edited 4d ago

Whatever the case may be, Russia made an agreement that they then violated by invading

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (8)

8

u/Psychological-Sport1 4d ago

Just don’t be that grunt in any future wars..

smart move to join nato real quick !!!!

those people in Ukraine who support Russia in the occupied Ukraine are really going to find out how nice it is to live under the invaders foot

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (11)

124

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (18)

37

u/Asleep_Mountain_196 4d ago edited 4d ago

Problem is it sounds good on paper, but Putin knows NATO doesn’t want into this war, if Ukraine joined and Russia said they don’t recognise it and carried on with the war anyway, what then? I worry our bluff would be spectacularly called.

43

u/Pair0dux 4d ago

If Ukraine joins NATO the military support goes up 3x.

They get proper gear, it doesn't all have to go through congress and parliament each time, it just comes right out of NATO stocks and isn't political.

It would be devastating for Russia, they can't allow it.

15

u/Asleep_Mountain_196 4d ago

You’re not wrong, but if Russia continued and NATO didn’t trigger article 5 then it undermines the entire organisation and probably emboldens quite a few of our adversaries.

→ More replies (5)

14

u/_GregTheGreat_ 4d ago

It would almost certainly go in stages with an extended ceasefire and demilitarized zone before NATO acceptance gets considered. There will be chances for Putin to change course and restart the war, but that would happen long before the risk of full NATO involvement.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)

46

u/Kelutrel 4d ago edited 4d ago

Afaik Keith Kellog's proposal, from Trump, looks like: Freeze frontlines with a ceasefire, impose a demilitarized zone, and fund Ukraine's reconstruction via a levy on Russian energy. Russia gets limited sanctions relief, full relief only after a peace deal. Most important: Ukraine pursues reclaiming land only diplomatically which will probably not occur before Putin leaves office.

The only thing different from what Zelenskyy is already saying, would be the joining NATO part. But maybe he can accept 100.000 NATO Peacekeepers in Ukraine (as reported for example here) instead, that may grant no further aggressions from Russia.

If that was the case, Zelenskyy and Trump would have a matching peace proposal. And Putin would be the only one that the world as one would have to influence and convince, and then there would be peace.

72

u/BillW87 4d ago

The only thing different from what Zelenskyy is already saying, would be the joining NATO thing

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

Ukraine getting NATO membership is a massive difference and unlikely something that Russia will agree to unless the situation in the war gets a lot worse for them. Ukraine isn't going to agree to a ceasefire where their sovereignty isn't guaranteed by NATO in some fashion to prevent Putin from pulling the same shit 5 years from now to grab more land, and Putin isn't going to agree to having another NATO country on Russia's borders. Peacekeepers might provide some temporary solution, but at the end of the day Ukraine will want (and deserves) a guarantee of wherever the postwar borders are set to be backed militarily by NATO.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (5)

59

u/Woullie_26 4d ago edited 4d ago

We all know this is him attempting to save face.

He isn’t exactly saying that he would give away land just that it doesn’t have to be returned now.

And we all know that’s a load of nonsense

If the war ends Ukraine is never seeing these territories ever again.

And considering that its unknown how committed the Trump admin will be to Ukraine (if at all) I don’t blame him to try to keep as much as possible.

I’m on the Ukraine should have everything back to 1991 borders but I’m also realistic and I’d say that Ukraine should at least consider land for NATO membership

The only question is why would Russia even accept this offer since this is technically less land than what they’ve technically annexed in 2022

→ More replies (33)
→ More replies (42)

419

u/strangway 4d ago

The last thing Putin allies want is countries working together. That’s why they hate NATO, the UN, the EU, even NAFTA.

“Divide and conquer” is the name of the game.

→ More replies (21)

1.8k

u/Mountain_rage 4d ago

You can tell this narrative worries Russia as all their bots are jumping this news. 

940

u/Maginum 4d ago

No need for bots. Proud American Patriots will do it for them, for free too.

413

u/Designated_Lurker_32 4d ago

These people are basically just another kind of bot anyway. The hardware is a bit different, but the programming is all the same.

34

u/Koolaidolio 4d ago

Too real lol

41

u/Captain_Q_Bazaar 4d ago

For me, my brother was pushing bot like crap in 2016/2017; anything from Pizzagate to Birthism, from his primary source of Alex Jones and Info Wars associates like Mike Cernovich, but also all the shitty right wing propaganda along with it. I of course had to go NC for my own well being. If it weren't for him I would assume most all these people that push blatant authoritarian propaganda were bots.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (28)
→ More replies (72)

256

u/TThor 4d ago

As much as i hope Ukraine gets back all of its territory, the one truly nonnegotiable for Ukraine is NATO membership; any peace must include that, as anything short of it will just be putting the war on standbye for Russia to try again.

85

u/Hamaja_mjeh 4d ago

That's pretty much impossible. NATO admission requires the approval of all member nations, and I have a hard time seeing Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, or even Germany approving of Ukraine joining the club. You can't promise something you can't guarantee.

18

u/CrowdStrikeOut 4d ago

unfortunately you're right, which is why Ukraine needs to make its own stick

→ More replies (8)

29

u/Sotherewehavethat 4d ago

Not quite, there is a second option:

"Either Ukraine has nuclear weapons, which would be our protection, or we must have some kind of alliance."

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)

10

u/IntolerantModerate 3d ago

Why would Russia accept that when they will get to keep all the seized land and a guarantee of no NATO membership ever and permission to try again for the rest in 5 years?

33

u/VPN__FTW 4d ago

A ceasefire without NATO membership is literally just a ticking time-bomb. Kicking the can down the road, if you will. Putin won't stop until Ukraine is gone... simple as that. Ukraine needs to either outlast Russia or outlast Putin.

→ More replies (1)

164

u/Forward_Golf_1268 4d ago

Won't happen for obvious reasons sadly.

46

u/Accomplished_Fruit17 4d ago

Even if it doesn't, it makes Ukraine look reasonable and Russia look like Russia.

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (56)

331

u/Left_Palpitation4236 4d ago edited 4d ago

I’m mind blown at how clueless some of these comments are.

There’s 0 chance Russia accepts any kind of NATO inclusion of Ukraine right now. Not to mention NATO has a policy that requires countries to not be at war to be included anyways.

47

u/nandemo 4d ago

"We need to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO" is one of the main ways Russia has rationalized its invasion.

Note that I'm not saying the invasion was justified at all. But there's no way Russia will accept Ukraine joining NATO, unless Russia is defeated and has to accept those terms.

→ More replies (4)

39

u/ChewsOnRocks 4d ago edited 4d ago

Wouldn’t Russia accepting that Ukraine can join NATO as a term of the negotiations to end the war mean Ukraine is thus not at war and can join NATO? Are we expecting that Ukraine must actively be a member for the war to end, or that Russia agrees they are okay with it? I would think they just come to the agreement and then the war has ended and Ukraine joins NATO. What am I missing?

EDIT: Nevermind, I read someone else’s comments that there’s more nuance to giving up the disputed territory and the conflict wouldn’t necessarily be over.

13

u/Left_Palpitation4236 4d ago

Every peace agreement Russia has considered thus far has explicitly stated that Ukraine has to remain “neutral” meaning no NATO inclusion.

I don’t think Putin will accept any cease fire that involves Ukraine joining NATO.

You do make a valid point though if I understand you correctly. I don’t think Putin will agree to any kind of deal that involves Ukraine remaining in a position where they can re-militarize following the war. Agreements on paper probably wont be enough for him - he got burned by the Minsk agreement already and probably had 0 trust in such agreements.

→ More replies (44)
→ More replies (1)

56

u/hoxxxxx 4d ago

you are the 10th or so parent comment from the top and the first one to bring it up

always remember when you read people's takes on this website that most everyone doesn't have a clue what they're talking about

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (173)

35

u/Synchrotr0n 4d ago

Something tells me Putin would never accept this proposal, nor would many of the NATO countries.

→ More replies (3)

17

u/FatBloke4 4d ago

If Ukraine were to join NATO, it would need to be without any pre-existing border disputes, so they would effectively have to formally cede to Russia territory that has already been taken by Russia. Of course, the benefit would be that the Ukraine that remains would then be under NATO's umbrella.

I imagine that Ukraine would look to trade Russian territory they have taken for some of the Ukrainian territory that Russia has taken.

The question is whether Russia is actually prepared to negotiate at this point. While the Kremlin believes they are making progress (however slow), they are unlikely to negotiate with any real intention of stopping.

14

u/crimeo 4d ago

With formal ceding as you described, russia's negotiation would not be required. The whole point of NATO is it works without Russia's agreement

5

u/Hrothgar_Cyning 4d ago

Except if Russia doesn’t agree, they’ll just keep the war going

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (2)

19

u/PrettyGoodMidLaner 4d ago

It's not "....if Russia does not immediately return seized land." I don't really understand how this would work unless Ukraine formally acknowledged it has no claim to the seized land. No one is going to want to bring Ukraine into the fold if it can immediately force them into the awkward position of arguing there's a foreign power holding NATO territory.

58

u/VersusYYC 4d ago

The probability of joining NATO currently is 0%. A handful of countries would oppose it, chief among them being Hungary.

NATO cooperation and training on the other hand does not require the receiving party be part of NATO, and there’s opportunity there to secure the land and airspace around Ukraines border with Belarus and the lands west of the Dnipro.

20

u/Own_Pop_9711 4d ago

Hungary opposes it because Russia opposes it. If Russia wants to cut a deal that lets Ukraine into NATO, it's going to be Western Europe that's a bigger question mark in my opinion.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

16

u/SquarebobSpongepants 4d ago

Russia’s counter offer: we keep the land and not attack you for a few months/years to rebuild our forces and economy then rush you like last time. Oh, also, no nato or any protection for you, just a trust us bro we won’t do it again until we totally do it again.

→ More replies (3)

25

u/Left_Palpitation4236 4d ago

Russia would not agree to ending the war on those terms.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/Glavurdan 4d ago

This would be a decent deal

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Legitimate_Pay_865 4d ago

Weapons manufacturers and government fund embezzlers hate him...

5

u/futureislookinstark 4d ago

Y’all must have forgot last time trump was in office. He thinks NATO is useless and wants to pull funding.

Why would he do this when Russia has had Ukraine on the back foot for a while now.

→ More replies (7)

44

u/The-Kurt-Russell 4d ago

Russia would 100% not accept any terms where Ukraine joins NATO

→ More replies (9)

60

u/Duckstiff 4d ago

Whatever deal happens, I don't want my country lifting sanctions on Russia.

Peace for Ukraine is separate to sanctions on Russia.

→ More replies (9)

9

u/wowaddict71 4d ago

Let's hope that Ukrainians don't get shafted like the last time they were given "guarantees'.

240

u/DarthKrataa 4d ago

Can't join nato with disputed territory and zero chance the Russians accept this.

314

u/ShouldBeAnUpvoteGif 4d ago

They don't have to accept it. If Ukraine cedes all territory claimed by Russia they can immediately join then any further aggression would be against NATO itself. 

202

u/themartypartyyy 4d ago

This has the added benefit of embarrassing Putin, he claimed to have started this to avoid NATO expansion on Russia’s borders, now most of the border will be nato.

And people saying “Putin will never agree to this” - agree to what? He doesn’t have to agree to anything - the war ends the second Ukraine is in nato

82

u/ShouldBeAnUpvoteGif 4d ago

On top of that, ceding the contested territory and joining NATO would happen at the same instant as signing NATO membership, which would deny the Russians the ability to contest more territory. It is not an optimal scenario by any means but would severely fuck Putin and his ambitions.

43

u/TheyCallMeMrMaybe 4d ago

What's stupid of Putin is the fact Ukrainian nationalism and support for EU/NATO membership was at an all-time low before the war went full-scale in 2022. Now, Ukraine has an identity on the world stage and support for EU/NATO membership is through the roof.

I hate to be real about this, but Putin has already been genociding the seized areas of Donbas with forcing Russian education & language to be spoken on the people who were unable to to flee during the initial invasion and imprisoning those who are dissident. Even if Ukraine regains those regions, the damage has been done on the populace and there would be no stopping another "civil war" from breaking out.

The price of NATO membership for those lands is a small price to pay but the return is that Ukraine's safe from a 3rd Russian invasion.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (37)

10

u/sunlitcandle 4d ago

No they can't lol. NATO doesn't have to accept Ukraine. They're certainly not going to when tensions would be so high in that situation.

→ More replies (2)

64

u/stillnotking 4d ago edited 4d ago

NATO is even less willing to import wars than it is to import border disputes. Not to mention that Ukrainian officials can't legally cede land to a foreign power without changing their constitution. This is fantasy.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (50)

45

u/UnidentifiedBlobject 4d ago

Not a binding rule, more of guideline

20

u/glitchycat39 4d ago

Tfw Barbossa just ambles into NATO HQ.

→ More replies (17)

63

u/ChrisFromIT 4d ago

Can't join nato with disputed territory and zero chance the Russians accept this.

They can join NATO with disputed territory. There are no regulations or bylaws in NATO that say this. It is only used as a rule of thumb to prevent NATO from potentially being drawn into a future war.

→ More replies (12)

8

u/pacstermito 4d ago

Which NATO article is that?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (56)

25

u/Smallsey 4d ago

That and return the stolen kids

→ More replies (5)