I have to believe this is just posturing for the people at home on the part of Zelenskyy. He has to know immediate membership of Ukraine into NATO means direct war with Russia leading to nuclear escalation, as Ukraine would immediately invoke Article 5.

Just saying "Ukraine will be invited to NATO once the conflict is over" is enough; it means whatever territory Russia gets to keep over the course of this conflict is it, because then Ukraine becomes NATO territory. It forces Russia to try and win it all (which they can't) because there won't be another invasion of Ukraine.

[–] ritswd@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, that’s what I’ve been thinking too. Zelenskyy had to know that a NATO invitation right now is not realistic. I think it’s posturing to invite constituents in other countries to also act offended that Ukraine isn’t helped more, which then would be in the form of more war support, since it can’t really be much else. Can’t blame him for always taking all opportunities to get more support.

[–] Relo@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Since yesterday I've been wondering:

If NATO declares that Ukraine joins after the war, wouldn't that mean for Putin that he can't sell a peace deal to his people?

[–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I think you're right. And I think NATO wants Russia to completely commit to a war they can't win until the government collapses and/or rethinks its global strategy.

[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Not really. He controls the media narrative in Russia, he can tell his people whatever he wants, and hypocrisy and contradictions has never been any problem for him. He has already long since altered his reasons for attacking Ukraine and succesfully fed the Russian population those reasons, and he will keep doing it every time reality threatens to undermine his lies.

[–] dudebro@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So tired of people saying we shouldn't fight Russia because they may fight back.

[–] eyy@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sure Zelenskyy knows this isn't realistic, it's just politicking.

[–] Waldhuette@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes absolutely. Nobody should expect them to join antyime soon

[–] PortableHotpocket@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If they offer an invitation right now, then this is no longer a war between Ukraine and Russia, it will be a war between NATO and Russia. How do you think that ends?

WW3 may be the last world war. No one is eager to start it.

[–] LegendofDragoon@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know with what weapons world war 3 will be fought, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.

It's usually attributed to Einstein but I'm not sure if that's true. It's hard to believe any quote that's attributed to him at this point, honestly.

[–] spitz@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

"Don't believe online quote attributions" - Albert Einstein.

[–] maporita@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It ends with Russia losing. As long as NATO makes it explicitly clear they will not attack Russian territory nor violate Russian sovereignty Russia has no basis to escalate beyond Ukraine. A nuclear war between Russia and NATO would result in the total destruction of Russia (and everything else of course). Russia wouldn't start one unless they felt their existence was threatened.

[–] dedale@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

They do feel their existence is threatened since NATO expended to the east in 1999.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Russia wouldn’t start one unless they felt their existence was threatened.

I'm really sorry, but a helicopter loaded with green money seems more likely an exit from such a situation.

I hope you do understand that people in Kremlin are degenerate thieves (also mass murderers, of course), they very strongly care for their own lives, but "Russia's existence being threatened" is their last concern. After all, they've contributed so much to that threat that nobody in 1993 would believe it's even possible.

So - no, nukes won't fly because of a threat. They may fly after there's no integral Russian state, then there's a little chance that somebody really delusional in a right way takes control of some nukes. I'm not sure if something like this can happen.

[–] BunkerBusterKeaton@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It already has been a war between Russia and Nato. Where do you think Ukraine is getting all of their military equipment?

[–] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think it’s obvious there’s a difference between lend-lease support of a nation defending itself and full on world war.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The difference is we can use Ukraine as a proxy and don't have to send our own children to die. This war could last for 100 years and the only cost is NATO treasure, plus Ukrainian and Russian blood.

[–] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It’s that and more. But yes

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually there's no military difference except Russia will implode because of the news alone.

Now, until it implodes there's simply no realistic chance any nukes will fly from Russia. After it implodes, the chance is minimal, though there may be some nuclear blackmail like what North Korea does, always ending with a humanitarian shipment of grain or something.

The whole point of all this maneuvering is to preserve Russia's integrity. This is why weaponry given to Ukraine is limited in class and modernity.

This is rather cruel to Ukrainians (and Russians, because also means that NATO countries are not interested in real regime change, they are interested in controlling the current regime), but is really obvious.

[–] ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree with most of what you said. But NATO getting fully and directly involved - As in moving in with 10s of thousands of troops to take part of Ukraine that Russia has claimed (Eg Crimea) would be a massive escalation, and I don’t think there’s a credible military or geopolitics expert who would disagree.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

I don't see NATO putting boots on the ground TBF. Bombs, missile strikes, limited activity of special forces, jamming etc, - possible.

It's just too convenient to have Ukraine pay the price in lives. Ukrainian military may be getting more experience than any spectator, even a spectator with access to data from them, but it's less qualified to use that experience for improvement, while NATO militaries are very well qualified.

Also the war going on is in some sense stability, while the war ending would be destabilization in the same sense. They just prefer things moving slowly.

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“It’s unprecedented and absurd when a timeframe is not set, neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership,” he wrote.

Well, maybe that's because there doesn't exist a clear timeline for when the war will be over. Or, as Stoltenberg put it:

Because if Ukraine doesn't prevail, then there's no membership issue to discuss.

Sorry but it was simply incredibly naive to expect an invitation at this summit. Literally nobody but Ukrainian politicians have said something about that, and of course, they were just speculating. It also would've been way too surprising given the positions of Turkey and Hungary...

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Turkey is actually hands and feet up for accepting Ukraine, since Ukraine basically uncritically supports them on every issue important for them.

It's just that nobody is voluntarily signing up for a war if they don't have to. Not sure if we'll see NATO sink to ignoring a real attack on a member followed by article 5 or maybe pressuring such a member not to invoke article 5, seems unlikely, but frankly humans are the same everywhere.

Ah, I'm not impartial, but it's actually good news for NATO that Ukraine is not getting accepted. It would get a member in which high-ranking officials can be sold and bought almost openly, with mass media culture similar to that of Russia, with still quite chauvinistic and uneducated population, similar to that of Russia.

And to a lesser extent it's good news for Ukraine that it's not getting accepted into an alliance which doesn't seem sufficiently agile to accommodate modern threats. In terms of technical cooperation with NATO countries they don't really need it, and in terms of actual military participation - ah, there's a long way from an obligation to an action.

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure if we’ll see NATO sink to ignoring a real attack on a member followed by article 5 or maybe pressuring such a member not to invoke article 5, seems unlikely, but frankly humans are the same everywhere.

I've been asking myself the very same question ever since

Frankly, North Stream and the missile strike in Poland convinced me that NATO will do everything, even lying and cover ups, to prevent having to intervene in this war. Even though in the beginning, the US loudly proclaimed that the U.S. and its allies will “defend every inch” of the NATO territory and would respond even in the event of an accidental or unintentional strike by Russia.

[–] f15h@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was also under the impression that it was standard practice not to admit new NATO members currently engaged in a conflict. Quickly skimming through the literature though, doesn't seem like it's a hard and fast rule.

[–] Ab_intra@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yes and NATO will not admit them unless the war is over. But I would imagine when the war is over they might make a quick proses out of it.

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Does Zelensky actually think he's joining NATO? America won't let go of such an easy proxy war puppet otherwise NATO would have 60+ members by now.

load more comments