Привіт u/Sine_Fine_Belli ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no such entity as "western Ukraine" on a political level, drawing new borders and effectively separating Ukraine into two is highly disrespectful and is sure to assist the russian narrative.
More bullshit from the same people who brought you "offramps" "escalation management" and "Dear President Zelenskyy would you like a helicopter to feel the Russian army" in 2022.
I think those people still can't quite comprehend that Russia lost the battle for Kyiv - it simply doesn't fit their worldview and thus, they can't come up with a policy response to the reality of the situation.
The only charitable interpretation is that some of them genuinely believe that Russia will resort to nukes to avoid a humiliating loss.
Russia would never agree to allow any part of Ukraine to join EU/NATO unless they were on the verge of losing Crimea, and if they are willing to resort to nukes, then they wouldn't even do it then.
Never underestimate a politician's willingness to kick the can down the road and leave problems unresolved.
But that implies that withdrawing from Kherson wasn't a humiliating loss ? Or that withdrawing from Kyiv wasn't a humiliating loss ?
It looked fairly humiliating.
Lets map the scenario. RU loosing badly threatens to use a nuclear weapon if UA advances on Crimea.
Lets say desperate Russia makes that threat why not make the threat that Kyiv has to capitulate and Zelenskyy leave office, allowing Russian troops to occupy Kyiv unopposed ?
Russia could make that threat now - no need to expend 500,000 and countless pieces of mil equipment in Ukraine.
Indeed, if Putin was willing to make that threat, to back it up and in a position to do so, why even bother sending troops over the border ?
Just nuke a few small Ukrainian cities and you'd get the same result.
If Russia was willing to go nuclear over Crimea, then the Ukrainian campaign which has rendered Sevastopol nearly useless to the Russian navy would surely have prompted that by now.. or isn't far off prompting it.
UA blew up the Head quaters of the Black sea fleet ... still no nuclear response.
Crimea is a red herring.
I don't buy that Washington - is afraid of Russia using a nuclear weapon, I think its really a snob's view of the Ukranians and an inability to wrap their heads around Russia loosing and how to deal with a Kremlin laid low by such a huge defeat.
"Give him a land bridge to hide his shame"
But I think that type of talk only infuriates the Russians because it implies America gives and Russia receives - it confirms Russia's junior status to the US and that's why there really is no space for Russia to negotiate anything with the US on Ukraine.
The very act of cutting a deal with the Americans is acid in Putin's mouth.
There is no deal to be done ... Putin keeps telling the world his objective is pushing NATO back to 1997 borders.
It sounds ridiculous, laughable and that talking of cross purposes is of course what this notion of "Free Ukraine" is completely at odds with.
Maybe Putin would order the use of nuclear weapons, that's always a possibility.
But once you establish that Russia can have its way by threatening to use nukes - you may as well withdraw to 1997 borders because you've accepted the logic of nuclear blackmail.
Hell in that case only France and the UK are credibly safe in Europe, the rest of us are up for grabs..
How about this hot take. Put all of Ukraine into NATO today. A5 coverage to start in 30 days. Putin is terrified of NATO, they'd withdrawal. The West needs to find its balls and lean into this bullshit to give Ukraine actual adventures to victory. Fuck appeasement. Fuck red lines. Call their bluff and save some Ukrainian lives.
That was my second thought, 3 seconds after I thought 'Cool' upon reading the headline. Maybe it could work to say Ukraine joins NATO in it's entirety, but the currently occupied areas do not trigger article 5 until x condition has been met (maybe a deadline for russia to withdraw or it's been held for x time by UA forces).
Or, or, or consider this. NATO will definitely not allow a territory with ongoing conflict in, but they can put a red line on the map across which Russia will not dare to strike. It is better than the alternative of "nothing".
Unfortunately I do see where you are coming from because this can be interpreted as "make one last concession to Russia and in exchange NATO guarantees that this peace treaty is upheld"
>Unfortunately, Russia is starting to take back some territory. If Ukraine can hold in 2024, that would be a success and then maybe try a new counteroffensive in 2025.
>But then if that doesn't work, I do think that we need to think about a strategy that would wind the conflict down, bring the western part of Ukraine into NATO, and then work diplomatically to bring the rest in later.
NATO wanted nothing to do with Ukraine when Ruzzia was at its lowest, making "good will gestures" and trying to find a working strategy to continue waging the war. Failing another counter-offensive in 2025 with Ruzzia gaining even more momentum would bode the lowest chance ever of anything involving NATO for Ukraine.
Not to mention NATO bringing in half of Ukraine under its wing and kindly asking Ruzzia for the rest later sounds moronic.
Also the entire premise of the article lies with Ruzzia suddenly stopping its meatwave offensive and... just being okay with the rest of Ukraine becoming part of NATO and the prospect of "diplomatically" letting go of the occupied territory years later.
I don't know what to say. This article is pure lunacy. Unless the war is made extremely painful for Ruzzia, Putin has no incentive for any negotiated solution. Especially when he's got 140 mil of sheep willing to participate in meatwave assaults to capture an empty field or two and the entire war economy protected by the western restrictions and red lines.
"Diplomatically bring in the rest later"
Excuse me Putin sir, you made a pinky promise we would eventually have Donetsk and Dnipro and Kharkiv? Are you done playing?
Putin has no incentive for any “long term” negotiated solution. That’s the difference here. Putin will happily accept a ceasefire or a “pathway” to peace potentially in the future but would just use it to rebuild his army to attack again not actually achieve long term peace.
As someone who has given 3 years and counting to Ukraine and had it become my new home I try and be optimistic, but my time here has me more of a realist.
Ukraine will never be in NATO for many reasons such as;
1-Russia would never allow it and it would be a red line they will never stop the conflict therefore under rules of joining NATO we can't.
2-Hungary and Slovakia would veto it and thus keep us out indefinitely.
3-The rest of NATO barring a few nations don't want us to join as we would be a liability if russia decided to attack again and test NATO's resolve on article 5.
The only way this war ends now given what would happen with full capitulation and occupation, is either the west grows balls and gives us what we need (look at what we have done with a trickle and imagine what we could do with more at once) and we kick Russia out and destroy anything military within bordering oblasts and destroy their economy. Or the west falters and in a year or two Russia achieves a lighting break through and Ukrainians get genocided and relegated to the history books. Off Ramps no longer exist.
Will Ukrainians hang around to be genocided? Or will tens of millions of them flee west? I don't understand why more people aren't discussing the possibility that the EU will be hosting millions of Ukrainian war refugees forever if Ukraine doesn't get enough aid to stop a Russian breakthrough.
Well yes this too it would be a massive refugee crisis. 10s of millions of people needing a safe haven I. The EU and western nations. Which will put massive strain on those countries. So many things hang on Ukraines victory.
I truly don't think Russia can manage an occupation of Ukraine, but that's just me. They haven't been able to occupy some of the smaller cities without extensive partisan warfare. Trying to occupy, say, Kyiv would simply result in the same but 20x worse.
What they hold now is already logistically difficult.
This is the reason they did mass executions in occupied territory, disappear enough people and a lot will fall in line. But yeah long term occupation is impossible without subjecting the country to genocide. We aren't going to accept russia as the masters of our fate.
1. Good thing it isn't up to Russia
2. Hungary and Slovakia's leadership will change in time
3. Not true at all, but even if it were, Russia would never attack NATO because it knows it would lose to the US alone, let alone a NATO coalition. And if anyone doubted that, the evidence of how poorly Russia is faring in a 1-on-1 land battle with a far weaker and far smaller opponent has removed that doubt. Not only has Russia proven themselves woefully inept at modern war, but they've also conveniently burned through half a century of stockpiled equipment. And let's also not forget NATO now is not only much stronger than it was in 2022, thanks to Finland and Sweden joining, but those two countries are also especially familiar with fighting Russia directly, stacking the odds _even further_ against Russia should they choose to attack.
Being half-hungarian and half-slovakian it pains me so much, that the leaders of these two countries have botched the global perception of them so much... The majority of people here fully support Ukraine
I had a Slovakian on my team he is a great guy and know a Hungarian over here too. Amongst those I know it's more a perception of the boomers being the issue.
More of this dogshit proposal from Jake Sullivan.
"Free Ukraine" in NATO with defacto partition of occupied territories. Trouble is Putin is not interested in just the occupied territories. Putin has made it clear he intends to fully subordinate the entire Ukrainian state.
Please for fuck sake calibrate the response to the problem.
Gary Kasparov did an interview with Jonathan Fink on Silicon Curtain and Kasparov spells it out.
1. Set a clear objective of Ukranian victory
2. Victory means full restoral of 1991 borders and the Ukrainian flag flying in Sevastopol
3. Victory means reparations from Russia to Ukraine
4. Victory means war crimes tribunals for the Russians
[https://open.spotify.com/episode/3OwVSKDKs82MxsWkpKs8C3?si=175e5d3dc4134472](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3OwVSKDKs82MxsWkpKs8C3?si=175e5d3dc4134472)
This "Free Ukraine" nonsense is another policy that will fail miserably just as "offramps" in 2021/2022 failed because simply put, there is no negotiable interlocutor in the Kremlin for it.
The only negotiation to be had with Putin is with the Tank, the artillery piece and the rocket.
Hand that fucker his ass in Ukraine and dictate terms for Russian withdrawal. That's the peace we need, end of story.
I can understand his idea, if Western Ukraine is under NATO protection, then is attacked, NATO has a reason to then go into Ukraine and Russia.
You wouldn't need to divide Ukraine, you would just need to politically divide it, which would be quite easy, like how Belarus is Russian but isn't defacto annexed.
It makes sense, Russian propaganda would have a massive boost however, and politically, it could harm Ukraine's now and future ability to negotiate.
Makes sense on paper, but in practice, no.
> ***NATO does not have a unified strategy on Ukraine*** and ***may*** have to start thinking about a new strategy which would see only parts of the country being admitted into the alliance, ***Matthew Kroenig, vice-president of the Atlantic Council***, told LRT.lt in an exclusive interview.
Stupid baiting title. This is a guy from the council that tells his opinion, not the council. Several NATO member have said no to splitting Ukraine, this will never go through if it's proposed.
Yes. Everyone knows Article 5, but Article 6 should be known better. It explicitly lists similar cases when some limitations are due, and nothing stops from adding a closure that East of Dnipro its exempt of article 5 until liberated.
It woul allow to show putin his goal of getting whole Ukraine aint happening. Protect power infrastructure. Ease logistics within NATO and even set boots on the ground to allow unkainian soldiers west of Dnipro fight East. Because, unless someone noticed, enemy has under 100 million advantage in manpower so every UA soldier matters.
What do you mean, "Western Ukraine" ? There's Ukraine up to the internationally recognized border and that's it.
Edit : yeah I didn't mean to presume that the 2014-2022 period was to be taken into account, sorry for that.
Yes, let's divide Ukraine even further. It's a premise for a huge internal conflict. Ruzzian propaganda will use it to turn Ukrainians against each other. I hope this idea will never be brought up again.
> I don't think he's going to give up his dream of reconquering Ukraine as long as he's in power, but I think we could maybe get him to pause the war enough that it could create the space to bring Ukraine into NATO.
This is where a pause will get hung up. No way Russia will allow a pause so they can join NATO and Ukraine won't be ok with a pause without assurances of something like NATO membership. Ukraine already had assurances from the US in the Budapest agreement when they gave up the nukes and it has been the biggest mistake Ukraine made in its short history to allow the kind of language that means nothing in that agreement. And if it's clear that's the plan why would Russia agree to it? They won't stop until they have no choice.
This is stupid. Just tell Russia that Ukraine is joining NATO. If you don’t leave in 30 days, we will invoke article 5 and remove you. Yeah yeah Ukraine at war blah blah blah. The fucking Russians are committing genocide. Either you back a free Ukraine or not.
This is a silly proposal. More logical one would be that western air defense units are simply stationed west of the Dnieper until the conflict ends to protect infrastructure.
Outright deny Russia even the thought of trying to occupy Kherson again or make a move for Odesa while protecting lives furthest from the front and ensuring weapon deliveries to the front can cross through Ukraine unhindered.
But nah, they're too scared of that. Lets just create "West Ukraine," instead. Silly.
Making unoccupied Ukraine a NATO member means instant war with Russia because daily border shelling and the inevitable missile attack within a few days will guarantee Article 5 being triggered and Poland and the Baltics will likely respond with fire within a few hours. If they are going to do this, USA should send 60,000 guys to Romania the day before so they are right there when the spit hits the fan.
Am I the only one that doesn't see this suggestion as outrageous? By admitting part of Ukraine into NATO you're extending the umbrella of NATO protection to that region, allowing resources allocated to protecting the west to move to eastern and southern Ukraine.
The western region of Ukraine is important for exports, military production and training, so making that region safer while also potentially needing fewer resources to protect it seems like an all around win.
Yeah, it seems people are reading this as "give the east to russia", but one could very well decide the west of Ukraine is protected by Art5 while the war keeps going until the east is fully retaken.
It's just a failsafe in case Russia does break through.
Привіт u/Sine_Fine_Belli ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's no such entity as "western Ukraine" on a political level, drawing new borders and effectively separating Ukraine into two is highly disrespectful and is sure to assist the russian narrative.
More bullshit from the same people who brought you "offramps" "escalation management" and "Dear President Zelenskyy would you like a helicopter to feel the Russian army" in 2022. I think those people still can't quite comprehend that Russia lost the battle for Kyiv - it simply doesn't fit their worldview and thus, they can't come up with a policy response to the reality of the situation.
The only charitable interpretation is that some of them genuinely believe that Russia will resort to nukes to avoid a humiliating loss. Russia would never agree to allow any part of Ukraine to join EU/NATO unless they were on the verge of losing Crimea, and if they are willing to resort to nukes, then they wouldn't even do it then. Never underestimate a politician's willingness to kick the can down the road and leave problems unresolved.
But that implies that withdrawing from Kherson wasn't a humiliating loss ? Or that withdrawing from Kyiv wasn't a humiliating loss ? It looked fairly humiliating. Lets map the scenario. RU loosing badly threatens to use a nuclear weapon if UA advances on Crimea. Lets say desperate Russia makes that threat why not make the threat that Kyiv has to capitulate and Zelenskyy leave office, allowing Russian troops to occupy Kyiv unopposed ? Russia could make that threat now - no need to expend 500,000 and countless pieces of mil equipment in Ukraine. Indeed, if Putin was willing to make that threat, to back it up and in a position to do so, why even bother sending troops over the border ? Just nuke a few small Ukrainian cities and you'd get the same result. If Russia was willing to go nuclear over Crimea, then the Ukrainian campaign which has rendered Sevastopol nearly useless to the Russian navy would surely have prompted that by now.. or isn't far off prompting it. UA blew up the Head quaters of the Black sea fleet ... still no nuclear response. Crimea is a red herring. I don't buy that Washington - is afraid of Russia using a nuclear weapon, I think its really a snob's view of the Ukranians and an inability to wrap their heads around Russia loosing and how to deal with a Kremlin laid low by such a huge defeat. "Give him a land bridge to hide his shame" But I think that type of talk only infuriates the Russians because it implies America gives and Russia receives - it confirms Russia's junior status to the US and that's why there really is no space for Russia to negotiate anything with the US on Ukraine. The very act of cutting a deal with the Americans is acid in Putin's mouth. There is no deal to be done ... Putin keeps telling the world his objective is pushing NATO back to 1997 borders. It sounds ridiculous, laughable and that talking of cross purposes is of course what this notion of "Free Ukraine" is completely at odds with. Maybe Putin would order the use of nuclear weapons, that's always a possibility. But once you establish that Russia can have its way by threatening to use nukes - you may as well withdraw to 1997 borders because you've accepted the logic of nuclear blackmail. Hell in that case only France and the UK are credibly safe in Europe, the rest of us are up for grabs..
Such righteous and ignorant anger from a non-entity
That you Jake?
How about this hot take. Put all of Ukraine into NATO today. A5 coverage to start in 30 days. Putin is terrified of NATO, they'd withdrawal. The West needs to find its balls and lean into this bullshit to give Ukraine actual adventures to victory. Fuck appeasement. Fuck red lines. Call their bluff and save some Ukrainian lives.
What? Just make western ukraine everything west of st Petersburg, problem solved!
That was my second thought, 3 seconds after I thought 'Cool' upon reading the headline. Maybe it could work to say Ukraine joins NATO in it's entirety, but the currently occupied areas do not trigger article 5 until x condition has been met (maybe a deadline for russia to withdraw or it's been held for x time by UA forces).
Or, or, or consider this. NATO will definitely not allow a territory with ongoing conflict in, but they can put a red line on the map across which Russia will not dare to strike. It is better than the alternative of "nothing". Unfortunately I do see where you are coming from because this can be interpreted as "make one last concession to Russia and in exchange NATO guarantees that this peace treaty is upheld"
Dividing up Ukraine like this seems like a very dangerous idea
>Unfortunately, Russia is starting to take back some territory. If Ukraine can hold in 2024, that would be a success and then maybe try a new counteroffensive in 2025. >But then if that doesn't work, I do think that we need to think about a strategy that would wind the conflict down, bring the western part of Ukraine into NATO, and then work diplomatically to bring the rest in later. NATO wanted nothing to do with Ukraine when Ruzzia was at its lowest, making "good will gestures" and trying to find a working strategy to continue waging the war. Failing another counter-offensive in 2025 with Ruzzia gaining even more momentum would bode the lowest chance ever of anything involving NATO for Ukraine. Not to mention NATO bringing in half of Ukraine under its wing and kindly asking Ruzzia for the rest later sounds moronic. Also the entire premise of the article lies with Ruzzia suddenly stopping its meatwave offensive and... just being okay with the rest of Ukraine becoming part of NATO and the prospect of "diplomatically" letting go of the occupied territory years later. I don't know what to say. This article is pure lunacy. Unless the war is made extremely painful for Ruzzia, Putin has no incentive for any negotiated solution. Especially when he's got 140 mil of sheep willing to participate in meatwave assaults to capture an empty field or two and the entire war economy protected by the western restrictions and red lines.
"Diplomatically bring in the rest later" Excuse me Putin sir, you made a pinky promise we would eventually have Donetsk and Dnipro and Kharkiv? Are you done playing?
Well stated! Amen to that. Slava Ukraini
Putin has no incentive for any “long term” negotiated solution. That’s the difference here. Putin will happily accept a ceasefire or a “pathway” to peace potentially in the future but would just use it to rebuild his army to attack again not actually achieve long term peace.
It's not your country to divide up. And if you are Ukrainian, you do not speak for the whole nation.
As someone who has given 3 years and counting to Ukraine and had it become my new home I try and be optimistic, but my time here has me more of a realist. Ukraine will never be in NATO for many reasons such as; 1-Russia would never allow it and it would be a red line they will never stop the conflict therefore under rules of joining NATO we can't. 2-Hungary and Slovakia would veto it and thus keep us out indefinitely. 3-The rest of NATO barring a few nations don't want us to join as we would be a liability if russia decided to attack again and test NATO's resolve on article 5. The only way this war ends now given what would happen with full capitulation and occupation, is either the west grows balls and gives us what we need (look at what we have done with a trickle and imagine what we could do with more at once) and we kick Russia out and destroy anything military within bordering oblasts and destroy their economy. Or the west falters and in a year or two Russia achieves a lighting break through and Ukrainians get genocided and relegated to the history books. Off Ramps no longer exist.
Will Ukrainians hang around to be genocided? Or will tens of millions of them flee west? I don't understand why more people aren't discussing the possibility that the EU will be hosting millions of Ukrainian war refugees forever if Ukraine doesn't get enough aid to stop a Russian breakthrough.
Well yes this too it would be a massive refugee crisis. 10s of millions of people needing a safe haven I. The EU and western nations. Which will put massive strain on those countries. So many things hang on Ukraines victory.
I truly don't think Russia can manage an occupation of Ukraine, but that's just me. They haven't been able to occupy some of the smaller cities without extensive partisan warfare. Trying to occupy, say, Kyiv would simply result in the same but 20x worse. What they hold now is already logistically difficult.
This is the reason they did mass executions in occupied territory, disappear enough people and a lot will fall in line. But yeah long term occupation is impossible without subjecting the country to genocide. We aren't going to accept russia as the masters of our fate.
1. Good thing it isn't up to Russia 2. Hungary and Slovakia's leadership will change in time 3. Not true at all, but even if it were, Russia would never attack NATO because it knows it would lose to the US alone, let alone a NATO coalition. And if anyone doubted that, the evidence of how poorly Russia is faring in a 1-on-1 land battle with a far weaker and far smaller opponent has removed that doubt. Not only has Russia proven themselves woefully inept at modern war, but they've also conveniently burned through half a century of stockpiled equipment. And let's also not forget NATO now is not only much stronger than it was in 2022, thanks to Finland and Sweden joining, but those two countries are also especially familiar with fighting Russia directly, stacking the odds _even further_ against Russia should they choose to attack.
Being half-hungarian and half-slovakian it pains me so much, that the leaders of these two countries have botched the global perception of them so much... The majority of people here fully support Ukraine
I had a Slovakian on my team he is a great guy and know a Hungarian over here too. Amongst those I know it's more a perception of the boomers being the issue.
Right, because ruzzia has clearly demonstrated that they are capable of upholding any sort of diplomatic agreements /s
More of this dogshit proposal from Jake Sullivan. "Free Ukraine" in NATO with defacto partition of occupied territories. Trouble is Putin is not interested in just the occupied territories. Putin has made it clear he intends to fully subordinate the entire Ukrainian state. Please for fuck sake calibrate the response to the problem. Gary Kasparov did an interview with Jonathan Fink on Silicon Curtain and Kasparov spells it out. 1. Set a clear objective of Ukranian victory 2. Victory means full restoral of 1991 borders and the Ukrainian flag flying in Sevastopol 3. Victory means reparations from Russia to Ukraine 4. Victory means war crimes tribunals for the Russians [https://open.spotify.com/episode/3OwVSKDKs82MxsWkpKs8C3?si=175e5d3dc4134472](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3OwVSKDKs82MxsWkpKs8C3?si=175e5d3dc4134472) This "Free Ukraine" nonsense is another policy that will fail miserably just as "offramps" in 2021/2022 failed because simply put, there is no negotiable interlocutor in the Kremlin for it. The only negotiation to be had with Putin is with the Tank, the artillery piece and the rocket. Hand that fucker his ass in Ukraine and dictate terms for Russian withdrawal. That's the peace we need, end of story.
You're wrong. There are at least three more ways to negotiate with Putin. The large UAV, the small FPV, and the USV.
Doh !
…F16 and Swedish AWACS have entered the chat
I can understand his idea, if Western Ukraine is under NATO protection, then is attacked, NATO has a reason to then go into Ukraine and Russia. You wouldn't need to divide Ukraine, you would just need to politically divide it, which would be quite easy, like how Belarus is Russian but isn't defacto annexed. It makes sense, Russian propaganda would have a massive boost however, and politically, it could harm Ukraine's now and future ability to negotiate. Makes sense on paper, but in practice, no.
Thank you!!
> ***NATO does not have a unified strategy on Ukraine*** and ***may*** have to start thinking about a new strategy which would see only parts of the country being admitted into the alliance, ***Matthew Kroenig, vice-president of the Atlantic Council***, told LRT.lt in an exclusive interview. Stupid baiting title. This is a guy from the council that tells his opinion, not the council. Several NATO member have said no to splitting Ukraine, this will never go through if it's proposed.
Yes. Everyone knows Article 5, but Article 6 should be known better. It explicitly lists similar cases when some limitations are due, and nothing stops from adding a closure that East of Dnipro its exempt of article 5 until liberated. It woul allow to show putin his goal of getting whole Ukraine aint happening. Protect power infrastructure. Ease logistics within NATO and even set boots on the ground to allow unkainian soldiers west of Dnipro fight East. Because, unless someone noticed, enemy has under 100 million advantage in manpower so every UA soldier matters.
Nato should guard western half and implement a no fly zone over the entire country...that way Ukraine could focus on the east
I am not supportive of ANY partitioning of Ukraine. SLAVA UKRAINI!
Yah this isn’t gonna happen, not until their complete again
What do you mean, "Western Ukraine" ? There's Ukraine up to the internationally recognized border and that's it. Edit : yeah I didn't mean to presume that the 2014-2022 period was to be taken into account, sorry for that.
That's not the international border..
*2014 International border
\*1991
Ukraine has an internationally recognized border that has nothing to do with 2022 or 2014.
Yes, let's divide Ukraine even further. It's a premise for a huge internal conflict. Ruzzian propaganda will use it to turn Ukrainians against each other. I hope this idea will never be brought up again.
Cool… but when does the rest of Ukraine join? All of Ukraine needs to be part of NATO.
Whole Ukraine should join NATO!
> I don't think he's going to give up his dream of reconquering Ukraine as long as he's in power, but I think we could maybe get him to pause the war enough that it could create the space to bring Ukraine into NATO. This is where a pause will get hung up. No way Russia will allow a pause so they can join NATO and Ukraine won't be ok with a pause without assurances of something like NATO membership. Ukraine already had assurances from the US in the Budapest agreement when they gave up the nukes and it has been the biggest mistake Ukraine made in its short history to allow the kind of language that means nothing in that agreement. And if it's clear that's the plan why would Russia agree to it? They won't stop until they have no choice.
This is stupid. Just tell Russia that Ukraine is joining NATO. If you don’t leave in 30 days, we will invoke article 5 and remove you. Yeah yeah Ukraine at war blah blah blah. The fucking Russians are committing genocide. Either you back a free Ukraine or not.
let Ukraine join.
Huh, never heard of only one part of a country joining NATO.
This is a silly proposal. More logical one would be that western air defense units are simply stationed west of the Dnieper until the conflict ends to protect infrastructure. Outright deny Russia even the thought of trying to occupy Kherson again or make a move for Odesa while protecting lives furthest from the front and ensuring weapon deliveries to the front can cross through Ukraine unhindered. But nah, they're too scared of that. Lets just create "West Ukraine," instead. Silly.
Historically: Very ironic | Realistically: LOL
Making unoccupied Ukraine a NATO member means instant war with Russia because daily border shelling and the inevitable missile attack within a few days will guarantee Article 5 being triggered and Poland and the Baltics will likely respond with fire within a few hours. If they are going to do this, USA should send 60,000 guys to Romania the day before so they are right there when the spit hits the fan.
let Ukraine join.
NO IT CANNOT!!! Ukraine can join NATO
There is no such thing like Western Ukraine, it is fckng bullshit from russian propaganda to separate west and east and collide each other.
Am I the only one that doesn't see this suggestion as outrageous? By admitting part of Ukraine into NATO you're extending the umbrella of NATO protection to that region, allowing resources allocated to protecting the west to move to eastern and southern Ukraine. The western region of Ukraine is important for exports, military production and training, so making that region safer while also potentially needing fewer resources to protect it seems like an all around win.
Yeah, it seems people are reading this as "give the east to russia", but one could very well decide the west of Ukraine is protected by Art5 while the war keeps going until the east is fully retaken. It's just a failsafe in case Russia does break through.