Russia vs NATO

[DiogoJ42]

"Safe" only applies to the initial attack. On an island as small as ours, nowhere will escape the fallout.
... At what point should this move to the "radioactive" topic?

 

[Poisson]

Also with the collapse of society as we know it, even none glowing areas will be utter misery.

 

[Matt.GC]

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

 

[Benzin]

Zelenski probably positioning so that when Trump inevitably takes away American money from them they're not in deep trouble.

 

[Ash]

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

The European bigger players, France, UK, Germany, Poland haven’t reacted quickly enough. This should been our final warning that we are in a world where we may not have America to rely on.

The best case that happens in this war is the final cessation of the Donbas and crimea but Ukraine joins NATO in some form (they wouldn’t meet the criteria to join immediately)

Anything that kicks the can, as has been said, just emboldens Putin to go further.

The one positive is a large proportion of the Russian military has now been substantially limited by the war. Even on a war footing and with the help of China, Russian and Iran.

The idea that any attack on NATO wouldn’t end in the overnight destruction of the Russian military is for the birds.

The Ukrainians have done extraordinary. Pushed the Russians back to the Donbas, restricted their ability to operate in the Black Sea and inflicted heavy losses.

I’m more concerned about the longer term about that this means for Taiwan, the Suwalki Gap, aukus, the South China Sea and how the world will realign and it seems the axis of powers are shifting and not in our favour. Liberal democracies need to deliver and strengthen asap

 

[Tom]

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.

 

[JoshuaWAH]

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.

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?

Nevermind Iceland which does not even have a military.. Ukraine is no UK or France but it has a fair weight to their military. The US target for 2% spending on defence is only really being met right now by Russian bordering states. Poland in particular are actually spending more than the US does on defence relative to their GDP/population. Ukraine like Poland has tons of incentives to spend as they actually have a threat next door. Most of the Baltics are similar (Estonia in particular). The ones who are not pulling their weight are the ones who are not under any threat.