33
Nato official suggests Ukraine could give up land in exchange for membership
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
33 points (78.0% liked)
World News
32286 readers
563 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
NATO wants to give assurances to their Eastern European members that they won't bail on them when Russia starts eyeing their territory.
If they wanted to keep the war going, they wouldn't have made the offer in the first place.
Key part " in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.". NATO didn't let Ukraine join the last time they asked because NATO is well aware that it could lead to multiple countries having nuclear weapons (U.S., UK and France) going against Russia.
Why do you think NATO would want to give remaining parts of Ukraine the NATO membership if such a peace agreement where the NATO Ukraine remains in war with Russia? This will result in a very sensitive situation where a NATO member (Ukraine) and Russia are in a frozen war with each other. If Ukraine were to try to take their territory back, it'll be a war between entire NATO and Russia.
I believe NATO is well aware of the fact that such a 'deal' is not possible.
What Ukrainian Government 'wants' is very unrealistic considering how strong the Russian presence is in Crimea.
Yes, NATO doesn't want a deal that could spark another war. And they also offered Ukraine a way to settle a dispute, lose territory, and stop a current war.
Explain to me then: How is the west forcing Ukraine to keep fighting? And don't say "stop supplying weapons", NATO has to assure their members that they would stand by them.
Ukraine isnt in NATO officially.
Are you saying NATO wants to give 'assurance' to its own members that they'll provide help if Russia were to enter NATO territory by 'helping' a non-NATO country? Don't you think its a bit ridiculous to give billions of dollars of weapons (thus weakening themselves) to a non-NATO country just to 'prove' to its eastern European members that NATO will 'help'? U.S. already has military bases in Germany, Poland and Baltics, one would think large number of U.S. soldiers just being in Eastern Europe and multiple NATO countries having nuclear weapons would be enough of a deterrence for Russia to not invade.
Public opinion in Eastern European NATO countries is very much pro-Ukraine. They want NATO to send more weapons.
In fact, they have gone above and beyond to send them more weapons (percent-wise), than other countries.
:>For example, Poland is in line to receive an undisclosed number of Challenger 2 tanks from the U.K. to backfill its supply of T-72 tanks to Ukraine. That’s in addition to the planned purchase of 250 Abrams tanks from the United States in a deal worth almost $5 billion.
Eastern Europe gives up its old Soviet era weapons, obtains fancy ones from the U.S. Military Industrial Complex.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/04/28/ukraine-weapon-switcheroos-are-flushing-soviet-arms-out-of-europe/
How does that contradict what I've said? They want NATO to send weapons, and they fear Russia (for obvious reasons). And NATO needs to reassure them that they will support them in defending themselves against a potential Russian invasion.
Are you trying to change the subject? Or did you genuinely did not understand what I said?
But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.
Assurance to the other Eastern European countries that are members (read my previous response). The other Eastern European countries want to supply weapons to Ukraine (they have gone above and beyond to send extra to Ukraine).
Bruh nato sending ukraine weapons is a good argument to point to when asked how nato keeps this war going. We're not pro Russia, neither are we pro nato. We want an end to the bloodshed, where as you look at thousands of dead Ukrainians and then pretend this is a good thing because you care so much about Poland or something. You wipe a solid argument off the table because you gave it some vague explenation (show members they'd stand by them? Even if that were the reason, it doesn't justify the tens of thousands of dead you seem to not take into account at all).
Read the article mate.
NATO literally proposed to Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Answer this, and don't dodge the question: Why would NATO ever put forth that proposition if they wanted the war to keep going?
Bruh you havent read anything since the third grade. It's about how a nato official blurted something out for which he almost emediatly had to apologize. 'Not ruling out' is just a first sign of NATO coming to terms with the fact they'll run out of Ukrainians sooner or later. If this war ends, it'll be through negotiations, and like it or not, Russia has the stronger position. But you're happy to keep throwing bodies into the meat grinder.
He wanted them to consider it, otherwise he wouldn't have said it. This is not some guy in the pub having a chat with his friends and he "blurted it out" over some beers. These are bureaucrats with highly controlled chains of command.
He did that after the Ukrainian backlash.
I'm not going to debate who's wining, since you're going to pull out some RT stats. What I'm arguing is the point tankies keep pushing that NATO is somehow pushing Ukrainians into a war against their will, and that NATO is not open to a negotiation to end the war.
You had literally a NATO official suggesting Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Ukrainians getting outraged, and him having to backpedal.
Hell, at first you said NATO made a proposition, nicely ignoring that they didn't do such a thing at all. As I said, and as we agree, it's a nato official, blurting something out.
NATO has pushed ukraine deeper and deeper I to this conflict, casualties be damned. You speak as if the Ukrainian working class can't wait for the opportunity to get blown to pieces by artillery for some bourgeoisie state that's already stelling of the nations assets to the highest western bidder. NATO forces the Ukrainians to use counter insurgency tactis they've deployed for war crimes in the global south, expecting Ukrainian draftees to be so filled with patriotism (that, or hatred for those damned asiatic hordes) they'd happily drive into a minefield for Zelensky.
Had NATO been open to ending the war, the war would have already ended. Yet they keep sending weapons upon weapons (to what end? Do you really think ukraine is going to get crimea back? As the famed counteroffensive should point out, they're no where close, and they'll never be.)
What I'm willing to give you is that maybe now, NATO pencil pushers see the reality of the situation on the field, that the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Ukrainians they've sent to their deaths died for absolutely nothing. Maybe now, with this nato official blurting out the thought/proposing it through a rigourus chain of command, the Ukrainians realise NATO fed them to the meat grinder to advance its own geopolitical intrests. Even if Now NATO starts to carfully think about negotiations, that doesn't undo the fact that NATO has kept this conflict going for far longer than it needed to, out of sheer self (but mainly American, see the Nord stream pipeline) intrests.
Edit, said keystone instead of nordstream pipeline
Oh shit nvm you're that 'NATO is giving guarantees to eastern Europe' guy lmao.