[Goose]

I'm sure you know far more than I do about the internal economic and security situation in Ukraine.

I am certainly no expert, and can't claim to be anything close, unfortunately.

But you're describing only the status quo.  I don't see a principled reason that NATO and Ukraine could not use some imagination to come up with a new, and more stable, equilibrium.  NATO would need to develop the will to do more, but will is not fixed, as we're learning from Finland and Sweden.  Edit:  I also note that Ukraine is discussing the possibility of accession to the EU.  I understand that's a different animal from NATO, but the ongoing discussions make me think there's an opportunity to expand the discussion under the right conditions.

It depends on what you mean by a "principled reason". I can tell you that Germany and other European nations are worried about getting drug into a war by some fairly weak country that does something to piss off Russia. The Ukraine prior to the "Madian revolution" (and somewhat so still after many would argue) was not a "stable" country. It was ruled by a Russian sympathizing President. Corruption was rife (and still exists to some extent). Many Europeans felt it was a potential liability and could not be trusted to stick to the rules of NATO or the EU. Lots of them still feel that way. Zelenskyy has shown such great leadership that we tend to forget Ukraine has not always been in such good hands. It can be argued that the current situation is the anomaly and that a return to form is possible. If that happens, where does it leave NATO?

Ukraine is also not easy to defend. There is lots of open land and the transportation links overland to Europe aren't great. The railroads are a different gauge. They are bordered by Russia and Russian Clients on two sides. Ukraine is also not a wealthy country, so how much they can contribute to their own defense is questionable. The Black Sea is a "no go" for NATO during a war with Russia, so that is three sides. Actually fighting a limited war in Ukraine, where NATO wasn't globally at war with Russia, is a bad tactical position to be in. The generals want no part of it.

So, if you are Ukraine, do you trust NATO to actually defend you under Article 5? This is assuming you can twist enough arms to get you in, which as of now I am virtually certain you can't. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-...-join-2022 is a good read IMHO. The operative statement is "And a new country can be inducted only if the full alliance, which employs consensus decision-making, is in agreement.". I can tell you right now that Hungary will say no. Others probably would too but don't have to. Zelenskyy says they are afraid. He is right.

The question is what is the best way forward for Ukraine? Also, what is the best way forward for NATO? As some of you may have gathered, I am not at all sure that NATO getting bigger equates to it getting better. In some cases NATO has accepted members based on the idea it was morally right, no matter whether it increased NATO's strength and/or increased the potential for conflict. A NATO that Russia (correctly or incorrectly) believes will not act is not a good thing. That is one reason why NATO requires all member states to agree with accepting new members. All the members have to be "trustworthy" in their willingness to "die for Danzig". I don't think NATO is there yet for Ukraine. IMHO it is hard to see them being so any time soon. I would settle for all the NATO countries turning off the Russian gas. If they won't even do that, does anybody think they would actually go to war and risk their cities getting hit like Kiev?

[Goose]

I'm sure you know far more than I do about the internal economic and security situation in Ukraine.

I am certainly no expert, and can't claim to be anything close, unfortunately.

But you're describing only the status quo.  I don't see a principled reason that NATO and Ukraine could not use some imagination to come up with a new, and more stable, equilibrium.  NATO would need to develop the will to do more, but will is not fixed, as we're learning from Finland and Sweden.  Edit:  I also note that Ukraine is discussing the possibility of accession to the EU.  I understand that's a different animal from NATO, but the ongoing discussions make me think there's an opportunity to expand the discussion under the right conditions.

It depends on what you mean by a "principled reason". I can tell you that Germany and other European nations are worried about getting drug into a war by some fairly weak country that does something to piss off Russia. The Ukraine prior to the "Madian revolution" (and somewhat so still after many would argue) was not a "stable" country. It was ruled by a Russian sympathizing President. Corruption was rife (and still exists to some extent). Many Europeans felt it was a potential liability and could not be trusted to stick to the rules of NATO or the EU. Lots of them still feel that way. Zelenskyy has shown such great leadership that we tend to forget Ukraine has not always been in such good hands. It can be argued that the current situation is the anomaly and that a return to form is possible. If that happens, where does it leave NATO?

Ukraine is also not easy to defend. There is lots of open land and the transportation links overland to Europe aren't great. The railroads are a different gauge. They are bordered by Russia and Russian Clients on two sides. Ukraine is also not a wealthy country, so how much they can contribute to their own defense is questionable. The Black Sea is a "no go" for NATO during a war with Russia, so that is three sides. Actually fighting a limited war in Ukraine, where NATO wasn't globally at war with Russia, is a bad tactical position to be in. The generals want no part of it.

So, if you are Ukraine, do you trust NATO to actually defend you under Article 5? This is assuming you can twist enough arms to get you in, which as of now I am virtually certain you can't. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-...-join-2022 is a good read IMHO. The operative statement is "And a new country can be inducted only if the full alliance, which employs consensus decision-making, is in agreement.". I can tell you right now that Hungary will say no. Others probably would too but don't have to. Zelenskyy says they are afraid. He is right.

The question is what is the best way forward for Ukraine? Also, what is the best way forward for NATO? As some of you may have gathered, I am not at all sure that NATO getting bigger equates to it getting better. In some cases NATO has accepted members based on the idea it was morally right, no matter whether it increased NATO's strength and/or increased the potential for conflict. A NATO that Russia (correctly or incorrectly) believes will not act is not a good thing. That is one reason why NATO requires all member states to agree with accepting new members. All the members have to be "trustworthy" in their willingness to "die for Danzig". I don't think NATO is there yet for Ukraine. IMHO it is hard to see them being so any time soon. I would settle for all the NATO countries turning off the Russian gas. If they won't even do that, does anybody think they would actually go to war and risk their cities getting hit like Kiev?