64
Nato official suggests Ukraine could give up land in exchange for membership
(www.theguardian.com)
Is there someone they forgot to ask? I am not sure Russia would accept a deal where Ukraine ends up joining NATO regardless of how much territory they give up for Russia to set up a buffer zone in.
I think they're just exchanging one unnaceptable demand for another. A strange stratagem for somebody losing a war, but such is the NATO way.
It's so hard to say how Russia might react because nobody has ever suggested that Ukraine might join NATO before.
One of their primary security concerns has always been NATO membership of bordering states. It's hard to say what exactly the reaction would be, but I would think that accepting such an agreement is the least likely of any.
It's all very silly. This, and the whole """"peace summit"""" that Saudi Arabia and others had without inviting Russia, which obviously came to nothing. It's giving me second-hand embarrasment watching these people who were all "Alright, this is it, Ukraine is going to push Russia out of the Donbass AND Crimea AND Belgorod AND Zelensky is going to march through Moscow and Budanov is gonna dab in the Red Square and it'll be so epic and Putler will be so owned and in the Hague and then Captain America will come and he'll deliver an epic quote and it'll be like AVENGERS ASSEMBLE omg Ukraine better not own Russia TOO hard!!" pre-counteroffensive, watching them come down from that unhinged high and very slowly rejoin reality.
And along the way they're in full Bargaining mode, like
"Okay, Russia! As I understand it, Ukraine has killed 500,000 of your troops and destroyed 100,000 tanks so far, so maybe we'll let you keep half of Crimea if you surrender now!"
"Putler, everybody knows your days are numbered, so give up now and we'll re-do the Crimea referendum vote!"
"Alright, maybe we'll also redo the referendums for the Donbass republics too, but no funny business!"
"L-look, just stop and we'll let you keep Crimea and the Donbass but you have to let us do the vote in Kherson and Zaporozhye over, because of electoral irregularities..."
"Please, okay, you can keep what you currently have, but let the rest of Ukraine join NATO..."
"This is my FINAL deal! Stop advancing to the Dniper and we'll let you keep control of Kharkov oblast too!"
NATO and Ukraine, my brothers in christ, you are not in a position to be dictating terms to anybody if you are losing the war. Your options are a conditional surrender now or an unconditional surrender later. Pick the option that saves the lives of more people.
Weren't there a few peace summits on the tail end of ww2 where germany was not invited? Maybe, just like then, the western leaders think Russia will unconditionally surrender (lol)
Russia: "You can't give up what we already own."
Do you think the libs who've been saying that Ukraine trying to join NATO couldn't have been a factor in the invasion because Ukraine never tried to join NATO will now stfu and self reflect?
No, I'm not hopeful, either.
The actual specifics of the conflict are entirely irrelevant to them. Their narrative is just: "Putin bad man. He invade country. This bad. The End."
They have no understanding or nuance, no ability to learn anything about the build up to the conflict, they just want to believe that Putin woke up one morning and ordered his army to invade Ukraine because he's an evil bad man.
They actively refuse to learn about the conflict and the west's part in it. They want their simple movie narrative. They're like goddamn zombies or something, only instead of brains, they feast on liberal fiction.
They legitimately think Putin woke up one day and just randomly decide to invade Ukraine for no reason whatsoever.
Which isn't surprising, because I would be surprised if any of them even thought of Ukraine once before 2022. Certainly not any of the events from 2014. To them, Ukraine didn't exist until it was their latest Cause.
I think that's the part that pisses me off about libs suddenly caring about the latest moral issue. They didn't know anything about the situation, but now CNN or Reuters or whatever has told them about a thing they need to feel very strongly about and they're suddenly world experts on whatever is happening.
And they're just so damn arrogant when you try to educate them, even using liberal approved sources they just deny everything about the issue so they can remain morally pure or whatever.
That's just an invitation to trigger Article 5 and thus nuclear armageddon. On the one hand this can't be serious, on the other hand the owners of the empire don't care.
The point of giving up the land is to avoid the article 5
That doesn't even make any sense.
Russia's primary concern since 1991 has been NATO expansion eastward. One of the reasons for the SMO was to prevent the build up of a hostile and well armed comprador state on its border.
NATO membership in exchange for Donetsk and Luhansk is completely absurd. If this isn't a silly negotiating tactic the managers of the empire are more dumb than I already thought.
I fear they may yet continue to surprise you.
Give up land to Russia, no? So they don't have any border disputes.
It still ends with NATO breathing right down Russia's neck
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
64 points (93.2% liked)
World News
2315 readers
156 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS