Volodymyr Zelensky may or may not be a Rolling Stones fan - but after this Nato summit, he is probably familiar with their song entitled You Can't Always Get What You Want.

Ukraine's president came to Vilnius, Lithuania, with high expectations.

He was looking for an assurance that his country would join Nato after the war with Russia was over. He wanted membership of the world's most powerful military alliance to be a beacon of hope for his people, the ultimate peace dividend that could ensure that never again would Russian troops despoil the Ukrainian homeland.

Instead, Mr Zelensky was simply told Ukraine would be invited to become a member "when allies agree and conditions are met". So far, so noncommittal.

Not surprisingly Ukraine's president hit the roof, saying it was "absurd" for Nato leaders not to give even so much as a timetable. The conditions, he said, were "vague".

And he was furious at the idea that somehow Ukraine's membership of Nato would somehow be a bargaining chip for post-war negotiations with Russia.

 

FULL STORY

Keep giving them the weapons to drive the vile ORC's from your land, then lets seem whats what.

Seems reasonable.

If they were granted membership now during an active conflict would this not put NATO at war with Russia, seeing as each member state is treaty bound to defend the other?

43 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

Keep giving them the weapons to drive the vile ORC's from your land, then lets seem whats what.

Great , but what about the nations birth rate regenerating the Ukrainian army ? I imagine there could be a time the births are much less than the men required to fill the ranks, whilst mad old Putin just drafts suckers and pays mercenaries

Let's be honest. Ukraine ain't gonna win.  So it is only pragmatic to keep NATO membership as a bargaining chip.

Russia ain't gonna lose either. If they DO start to lose, expect some tragic consequences.  You really think Putin will say, "OK guys, you got me. I'll retreat to the prewar borders. Oh, and you can have Crimea too. Sorry..."

1 hour ago, RichardColeman said:

Great , but what about the nations birth rate regenerating the Ukrainian army ? I imagine there could be a time the births are much less than the men required to fill the ranks, whilst mad old Putin just drafts suckers and pays mercenaries

Do you think Russia doesn't have a problem with demographics?

 

"Russia is about to enter a prolonged and painful period of demographic decline at home—complicating its expansionist ambitions abroad."

 

"From 1993 to 2007, the fertility rate (defined as the number of children a woman can be expected to have over the course of her lifetime) fell below 1.5, far below the 2.1 replacement rate needed to hold a population steady."  https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/03/russia-demography-birthrate-decline-ukraine/

14 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Let's be honest. Ukraine ain't gonna win.  So it is only pragmatic to keep NATO membership as a bargaining chip.

Russia ain't gonna lose either. If they DO start to lose, expect some tragic consequences.  You really think Putin will say, "OK guys, you got me. I'll retreat to the prewar borders. Oh, and you can have Crimea too. Sorry..."

So peace will have to be negotiated with Putin's replacement.  That's ok.

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So peace will have to be negotiated with Putin's replacement.  That's ok.

Really? How has that gone in the past 50 years.... dictators don't get replaced by Jed Bartlett. They get replaced by even worse scumbags.  And that isn't a good outcome in a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

26 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Let's be honest. Ukraine ain't gonna win.  So it is only pragmatic to keep NATO membership as a bargaining chip.

Russia ain't gonna lose either. If they DO start to lose, expect some tragic consequences.  You really think Putin will say, "OK guys, you got me. I'll retreat to the prewar borders. Oh, and you can have Crimea too. Sorry..."

nonsense ...

2 minutes ago, steven100 said:

nonsense ...

Care to elaborate?  

No one could blame Zelenskey for being p_ssed off as it were,  Ukraine has paid the price with thousands of lives.   Let Russia take Ukraine and then see what the cowards of NATO and EU do .... 

Not one person at that summit could hold a candle to Zelenskey ....  they're all trumpet blowers. 

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Care to elaborate?  

I don't think at this stage you can say Ukraine ain't gunna win ....

 

9 minutes ago, steven100 said:

I don't think at this stage you can say Ukraine ain't gunna win ....

 

True I guess it is a bit of an unclear concept. I would perhaps say that Ukraine may survive, but not regain all the land lost. That may be a victory of sorts.  Not getting swallowed whole by Russia. 

50 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Really? How has that gone in the past 50 years.... dictators don't get replaced by Jed Bartlett. They get replaced by even worse scumbags.  And that isn't a good outcome in a country with an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

If the war in Ukraine causes Putin's fall then his successor will understand that it is in his interest to end the war.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

If the war in Ukraine causes Putin's fall then his successor will understand that it is in his interest to end the war.

Perhaps, but HOW will his successor end it? Not a good idea to corner a country with  hundreds of nukes.  Its gonna be a huge mess with potentially catastrophic consequences. I prefer to sacrifice a slice of Ukraine and keep that possibility at bay.  

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Perhaps, but HOW will his successor end it? Not a good idea to corner a country with  hundreds of nukes.  Its gonna be a huge mess with potentially catastrophic consequences. I prefer to sacrifice a slice of Ukraine and keep that possibility at bay.  

What scintilla of evidence do you have that that corner, which controls Ukraine's access to the Black Sea would prevent Russia from continuing to destabilise and arm separatists as they have done since at least 2014. Of course they would. Russia needs to end this war themselves and put in a government which will deal with the west instead of wantonly attacking random countries and perpetrating horrific war crimes. There's no room here for appeasement.

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Perhaps, but HOW will his successor end it? Not a good idea to corner a country with  hundreds of nukes.  Its gonna be a huge mess with potentially catastrophic consequences. I prefer to sacrifice a slice of Ukraine and keep that possibility at bay.  

I am happy you are willing to sacrifice a piece of the Ukraine and give it to russia!

Are you crazy?

russia is going to lose this "special operation"

Would you give part of your yard to keep a bully happy?

Personally i would rather die and luckily all of the Ukrainian people

feel the same way.

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

What scintilla of evidence do you have that that corner, which controls Ukraine's access to the Black Sea would prevent Russia from continuing to destabilise and arm separatists as they have done since at least 2014. Of course they would. Russia needs to end this war themselves and put in a government which will deal with the west instead of wantonly attacking random countries and perpetrating horrific war crimes. There's no room here for appeasement.

You build it into the negotiation of course. Ukraine agrees to forego NATO membership. Russia agrees to pull back to a certain predetermined line. Security guarantees are given by Europe to Ukraine. Russia would not have any need to arm separatists as most of the Russian areas would be under their control anyway. In turn, Russia has sanctions lifted and is allowed to trade with the world. Also pulls Russia from the orbit of China, which is the most important objective there is. 

Asking for regime change in Russia is a pipe dream, and doomed to failure at best. 

9 minutes ago, jvs said:

I am happy you are willing to sacrifice a piece of the Ukraine and give it to russia!

Are you crazy?

russia is going to lose this "special operation"

Would you give part of your yard to keep a bully happy?

Personally i would rather die and luckily all of the Ukrainian people

feel the same way.

No, they won't lose.  Ukraine is running on fumes. The much touted "spring offensive" accomplished nothing- it is already mid July and no results to speak of. 

If Ukraine wants to commit national suicide, that is up to them. But I have a feeling most would prefer to live in peace with a neighbor that can be held in check.

Just now, Hanaguma said:

You build it into the negotiation of course. Ukraine agrees to forego NATO membership. Russia agrees to pull back to a certain predetermined line. Security guarantees are given by Europe to Ukraine. Russia would not have any need to arm separatists as most of the Russian areas would be under their control anyway. In turn, Russia has sanctions lifted and is allowed to trade with the world. Also pulls Russia from the orbit of China, which is the most important objective there is. 

Asking for regime change in Russia is a pipe dream, and doomed to failure at best. 

You mean like the agreement that Russia would guarantee Ukraine's independence if they gave up nuclear weapons. Negotiations like those? Or do you mean promises like Putin flatly denying he was going to invade Ukraine?

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Security guarantees are given by Europe to Ukraine

you mean like the Budapest agreement where they all lied and reneged on.   You think anyone would believe any security agreement from those lairs ever again ....   Ukraine made the mistake of agreeing then and I doubt they will ever go down that road ...

1 hour ago, steven100 said:

I don't think at this stage you can say Ukraine ain't gunna win ....

 

Define win?

would Ukraine getting exactly what they could have had at the beginning of this conflict (no NATO membership), having the country destroyed, losing  a significant number of its people,  and in the process losing control  of eastern provinces be a win?

I'm all for Ukraine, but it's no slam-dunk. 

 

Russian 145M population, US$1.7T GDP

Ukraine 44M population, US$0.20 GDP

 

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Define win?

would Ukraine getting exactly what they could have had at the beginning of this conflict (no NATO membership), having the country destroyed, losing  a significant number of its people,  and in the process losing control  of eastern provinces be a win?

I would think that Ukraine and anyone would define a 'win'  as being Russia get the hell otta Ukraine and stay out.   Simple in anyone's language really ..... 

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Define win?

would Ukraine getting exactly what they could have had at the beginning of this conflict (no NATO membership), having the country destroyed, losing  a significant number of its people,  and in the process losing control  of eastern provinces be a win?

Ask the English and French if they think they won the second world war.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm all for Ukraine, but it's no slam-dunk. 

 

Russian 145M population, US$1.7T GDP

Ukraine 44M population, US$0.20 GDP

 

clusters,  fighter jets,  LRHMS,  Missiles,  whatever they need then blow Russia outta the water.  If I was Zelenskey and had the capabilities ... I would do a Horishima on Moscow ....  that would send a clear message.  

3 minutes ago, steven100 said:

I would think that Ukraine and anyone would define a 'win'  as being Russia get the hell otta Ukraine and stay out.   Simple in anyone's language really ..... 

If they had stayed neutral Russia would never had gone in!! 

So what do you think would happen in the end? 

  No NATO membership but neutrality. But in addition for Russian withdrawal there has to be some sort of Autonomy in the eastern provinces . Do you think Russia  will abandon all the Ethnic Russians after all this bad blood?There are about 5 million Ethnic Russians living in these provinces.  what do you think will happen to them without autonomy and or Russian protection?

So if you think having at the end of a fight what you could have had to begin with, getting bloodied  and losing control of part of their country is a win.. Then I don't know what losing is. 

I

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If they had stayed neutral Russia would never had gone in!! 

So what do you think would happen in the end? 

  No NATO membership but neutrality. But in addition for Russian withdrawal there has to be some sort of Autonomy in the eastern provinces . Do you think Russia  will abandon all the Ethnic Russians after all this bad blood?There are about 5 million Ethnic Russians living in these provinces.  what do you think will happen to them without autonomy and or Russian protection?

So if you think having at the end of a fight what you could have had to begin with, getting bloodied  and losing control of part of their country is a win.. Then I don't know what losing is. 

I

Ukraine had no plans to join either NATO or the EU before the Russian invasion.

Ukraine must remain sovereign state! NATO must stand strong as and fight to the last Ukrainian!

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Ukraine must remain sovereign state! NATO must stand strong as and fight to the last Ukrainian!

Funny, Putin wants to fight to the last Ukrainian as well. He's been wiping out the future fighters every chance he gets.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Ukraine had no plans to join either NATO or the EU before the Russian invasion.

Ukraine has been talking of joining NATO for at least 15 years, even before we watched Putin invade Crimea.