Feanor said:
This strongly depends on what Ukraine joining NATO looks like.
yes, of course it will. First NATO has always said that it's impossible for Ukraine to join as long as the war is not over. To prevent Ukraine's NATO membership, Putin just has to drag the conflict eternally.
Let'd day, this is scenario #1: The Palestinization of the conflict when none of the parties wants or can end the hostilities. And 10, 20 or 50 years later we are still at the same point. one or the other constantly breach eventual agreements or ceasefire under the pretext that the other did.
IMO, given the intensity and the radical means applied by both sides, it's unlikely. At some point one of the two will break or they will both break and start to talk.
This is scenario #2: They talk and reach an accord.
Now let's say, Putin can sign an acceptable deal to the condition Ukraine never join NATO. Then, as you said, it would be common sens to sign it. Ukraine has already bilateral security agreements. But more importantly things can evoluate. 10 years later, Russia may not be an enemy anymore by change of policies toward the West. Or Ukraine is strong enough to confidently join NATO and be able to defend itself after they "exit" the agreement. And Ukraine would have the right to cancel the agreement because it was signed under threat. Any agreement signed while Putin had bombed Ukraine for sevral years relentlessly causing thousand of death and treathening to keep on bombing would be not legally valid under any normal juridiction, and morally.
I doubt Russia would start a second SVO in this case, after the casualties of the first one have been publicly known inside Russia (it already is to some extent).
Ukraine could also promise not to join NATO while NATO warn Russia that if they attack Ukraine, they will defend Ukraine with their own force. Something like Article 5 without the Article 5. Russians could accept such a deal because because of the symbolical meaning of not being in NATO.
Now the question is would NATO intervene if Ukrainian and Russia fire at each other in a provocative way?
I think that NATO leader will first assess the situation carefully before accepting Ukraine. They will see if Ukraine is serious about a stabilised attitude or not after signing a peace accord with Russia and won;t try to recover territories it ceded to Russia in this accord. There will be a period of observation. Then after 2 or 3 year Ukraine will eventually be full member.
Ukraine will never be full member if there is constant instability. NATO's leaders are not crazy.
Feanor said:
Would NATO back Ukraine if they triggered some sort of escalation along the semi-frozen front line?
If the conditions are met for Ukraine to be in NATO, like a reasonable period of stability with Russia, without fire exchange, and seriousness in Ukrainian engagements, then yes.
I think that there will be a serious peace agreement with Russia (not Minsk xyz), which Russia will have to observe, and of course Ukraine too, without grey zone or unclear wording allowing each side to provoke the other. Because if not, Ukraine will keep on firing on Russian troops and Russian civilians to a lesser extent.
At the moment Russians are firing at Ukrainians but one shouldn't forget that Ukrainians also fire at Russians and Russians don;t want that neither. They will never be able to keep the Ukrainian territory under normal conditions if they don;t sign an agreement.
Russia may be able to bomb Ukraine from afar and from high altitude, but they won't be able to keep 300K soldiers on the front line indefinitely, whit daily causalities in the dozen. So they will need peace.
Of course scenario #3: Ukraine capitulates. Then we will watch what Putin will take or let alone. If he leaves some part of Ukraine alone, this part of Ukraine will join NATO immediately.
____________________________
Larry_L said:
I keep wondering how many non Ukrainian pilots will join the fight, and will be allowed by their governments. One American pilot, Dan Hampton, is saying he is ready to defend Ukraine.
None. Because that would be crossing a red line. An US pilot inside an US F16 would mean the US is attacking Russia. No US President will allow that.
All Pilots must be Ukrainians. Period.
___________________________
Reply to the Letter said:
The most striking feature of the letter signed by Lord Skidelsky and others is that it ignores everything we know about Russia’s objectives
Not only everything we know but also everything we don;t know about Putin's objectives.
Does a single person on Earth knows what Putin wants exactly? Putin himself doesn't know.
I think it's the best time to quote Donald Rumsfeld "
There are knowns and unknowns, there are known unknowns and unknown knows and unknown unknowns."
Reply to the Letter said:
Finally, it ignores a military strategy designed to make Ukraine unsustainable as well as uninhabitable. The response of Ukraine’s army to a level of carnage and atrocity not witnessed in Europe since the second world war is not to surrender in droves but to wage defensive war.
I agree. This is the most important reason why talking are impossible at the moment.
The deafening blast of the bombs and missile fired at Ukraine make it impossible to hear anything else.
x.com
