For the first time, Zelenski has indicated that he's willing to temporarily cede the 4 occupied regions of Ukraine to the Russians in return for NATO membership to protect the remainder of Ukraine.
![]()
Zelenskyy suggests 'hot phase' of Ukraine war could end in return for NATO membership if offered - even if seized land isn't returned immediately
The Ukrainian president told Sky News's chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay NATO membership would have to be offered to unoccupied parts of the country in order to end the "hot phase of the war", as long as the NATO invitation itself recognises Ukraine's internationally recognised borders.news.sky.com
This concerns me. It has more of a whiff of Chamberlain and chums appeasing Hitler about it. Then he still went and invaded Poland anyway and used the break in hostilities to strengthen the German armed forces. Chamberlain for me was the worst Prime Minister of the last 100 years for his desperate and futile attempts at appeasing a madman when it was blindly obvious what Hitler was up to. The worst until Liz Truss came along of course.
The Kremlin has recently been showering praise on Trump. It's clear now that the Russian bear looks weak and embattled, but Putin wants back what he considers Russian/Soviet territory and I don't think he'll stop. It's also clear that Trump made outrageous promises about doing a deal within a single day, one that possibly involves just giving away huge chunks of Ukraine. Trump also isn't a fan of NATO, and Ukraine's hypothetical potential membership of it was Putin's main excuse for starting the war.
So could this be the start of appeasement? Zelenski is clearly reading something between the lines here, he wouldn't have said anything like this before he met with Trump in September. I think the unpredictability of both Trump and Putin, who share many similar traits, is the key thing to consider here. I can see a compromise being reached that neither includes all of the territories Putin wants, or full NATO membership for the rest of Ukraine, that kicks the can down the road for a bit to stop immediate hostilities. But aid think we all know that the words and promises of both Trump and Putin are utterly meaningless
Ukraine is a fair military though compared to recent additions. North Macedonia and Albania's recent additions are probably even more useless right? As was Montenegro?We can’t continue to add smaller and militarily insignificant countries to NATO. It is disproportionally propped up by the United States as it is. Adding more and more land to defend weakens the alliance considerably. Russia-bordering countries tend to add more risk to NATO and its members.
The speech JD Vance did yesterday in Munich where the US slammed the EU and singled out the UK amongst one or two others regarding their immigration and free speech was an absolute brilliant speech and long overdue someone had to stand up and say it as it is.
Not a theory Matt, just a madman.Interestingly, some people think that Trump could be employing something called "madman theory", ...
Are you parody? It was unhinged nonsense.
Are you parody? It was unhinged nonsense.
No, @pluk is absolutely right. It was completely unhinged and crazed, typical of the Trump Vance project.According to you perhaps but I thought it was a speech that needed to be made to give Europe the kick up the ass it needs. Given the urgency of the meeting being called for next week by EU leaders it may be that the message got through.
As I said - for too long Europe has relied on the US. Countries not contributing the minimum amount to NATO yet still enjoying military protection. His points about mass migration are another topic but given the rose of the far right across Europe, it would appear many share his views. And I’m not a supporter of the far right before anyone jumps in, but if governments ignore their population and allow stuff like this to happen with the rising mass discontent we are seeing across European cities then eventually you get another Hitler in power and that’s the last thing we want.
Unfortunately though European governments instead of listening to their citizens and doing something about it, they just shut people up for speaking out and fuel the unrest further.
Given the responses in the media in response to his speech, it would appear many across Europe are also in agreement with his speech. And likewise, as with yourself, others disagree.
As with Pluk o respect your disagreement with the Vance speech, but as “unhinged” as people may think it was, it seems to have got an immediate response from the EU with leaders now apparently in a bit of a panic.
This whole situation I have to say is somewhat reminiscent of the beginning of WW2. The US wasn’t interested. The western bloc tried to reason with Hitler, there was a brief ceasefire and hope of peace, but of course Hitler wanted more, and the rest we know is history. The US only got involved due to being attacked themselves at Pearl Harbour.
It feels again that we a reasoning with Putin in the hope there is lasting peace whereas as you correctly point out Matt, in a few years Putin, like Hitler will want more. Seeing the weakness of Europe and the reluctance of the US to get involved, who could blame him for invading another country without fear of conflict.
If the Vance speech unhinged the European continent into acting and waking up (and possibly preventing a future conflict) then perhaps it wasn’t so unhinged after all?