The weirdest part here is the idea that Ukraine could ever become a part of NATO in the first place.
Is every single person in the Zelensky regime so utterly incompetent that they genuinely believed that would actually happen while they were in a civil war between 2014 and 2022, not to mention now when they are in an all out war with a literal nuclear power? I very much doubt that.
This is such old news. This is the downfall of the fediverse… very old posts from days ago making its way here. This was retracted and said as a mistake over 24 hours ago and this still got posted here? Reddit will continue to win with this low effort stuff.
As far as I can tell, Stian Jenssen apologised about the way the comment had been made and interpreted, but not about the substance. Specifically:
A day later, he gave an interview to the same newspaper, VG, that had reported on his original comments. “My statement about this was part of a larger discussion about possible future scenarios in Ukraine, and I shouldn’t have said it that way. It was a mistake,” he said. But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.
So clearly at least some people in NATO consider that a peace deal may entail territorial concessions. Which like it or not is a realistic position to take.
This is genuinely very disheartening. A lot of people have died and more will continue to die, but NATO can’t even talk openly about how the conflict might be ended. They really do want Ukraine to be the next Afghanistan in the forever war.
Is NATO meant to tell Ukraine how to handle peace deals? It seems to me like the war is carrying on because Ukraine is quite understandably unwilling to have another chunk hacked out of it by Russia
Technically, Russia is violating international law by the same amount they did at the start, so it’s fine to negotiate with the territory they took 😶🌫️
Interesting how tankies keep saying that the west is forcing Ukraine to keep fighting. But when NATO suggests they give some land to Russia to stop the war, the Ukrainians get offended and want to keep fighting. 🤔
‘Ukrainians’ are not a monolith. The Ukrainian government doesn’t necessarily reflect opinions of the Ukrainian people (especially if you compare between regions within Ukraine).
west is forcing Ukraine to keep fighting
If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don’t you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?
If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don’t you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?
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.
after he said publicly that Ukraine could give up territory to Russia in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.
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.
Ukraine has consistently called for a restoration of its internationally recognised pre-2014 borders
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.
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.
“When it comes to new equipment, the Eastern European partners will primarily turn to the United States,” said Matthias Wachter, chief defense analyst at the German industry association BDI. “Germany and France have unfortunately disqualified themselves in the eyes of many eastern Europeans by way of their reluctant stance on military support for Ukraine.”
:>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.
As a result, Poland, once interested in joining the German-French Eurotank development effort, will now be flush with modern tanks for decades to come, Wachter noted.
Washington has worked for years to get former Warsaw Pact countries to replace their Soviet-era equipment with NATO-compatible kit. A $713 million tranche of aid announced Monday, aimed at Ukraine and its neighbors, is meant to do just that.
Eastern Europe gives up its old Soviet era weapons, obtains fancy ones from the U.S. Military Industrial Complex.
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.
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).
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.
It’s about how a nato official blurted something out
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.
emediatly had to apologize
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.
Interesting how dronies keep saying that the east is forcing Donbas to keep fighting. But when Russia suggests they give some land to Ukraine to stop the war, Donbas gets offended and want to keep fighting. smuglord
You acknowledge that people have a right to defend themselves, and be supplied weapons to that effect. Your usage of “propped up” also suggests you acknowledge that there were legitimate separatist sentiments in Ukraine in 2014. Why do your principles of armed self determination break down when applied to Donbas? Seems that “tankie” is your word for “someone that believes in self determination”.
When did that happen tankie?
Minsk 2, proposed by Russia, outlines that control of the border should be restored to Ukraine, and that Donbas should be reintegrated democratically back into Ukraine with a level of federalization to protect it from future lapses in Ukrainian democracy.
Don’t change the subject with whatabouttisms tankie.
I can play that game too: Russia held elections at gunpoint in occupied territory. Do you also believe that the elections the US held in Afghanistan and Iraq were free? Or does that only apply to countries that you don’t like?
I’m sure Russia had to hold, (at gunpoint?) the people of Donbas who had been shelled for 8 years by the Ukrainian government to get them to vote to leave Ukraine. Or the people of Crimea who had already voted to leave Ukraine before the Russian Federation even existed.
That NATO official already has retracted and apologized for that statement. Fuck putin and fuck russia. They aren't going to get a thing except the contempt of the world.
That NATO official has apologised about the form and lack of context, then restated that territorial concessions are likely:
But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.
Add comment