Public opinion on Ukraine's potential NATO membership is deeply divided and emotionally charged. While many strongly support Ukraine's accession into NATO—citing Ukraine's resilience and the strategic benefits of challenging Russian aggression—there is prevalent skepticism and concern about escalating geopolitical tensions. Critics argue that NATO's actions have contributed to these tensions and express distrust towards NATO's historic military interventions and intentions. The discourse is marked by frustration over perceived international manipulation, fear of nuclear escalation, and criticism of NATO's current policies and past treaties. Some voices support Ukraine developing nuclear deterrence as a means of self-defense due to perceived inadequacies in current and past international security guarantees.

Ukraine

NATO

Russia

Headline is complete nonsense. Ukraine didn't meet the standards for ascending to NATO prior to the current conflict and won't likely meet those standards for a very long time after that conflict. 

NATO doesn't just let you join because you fought Russia.

[deleted]

How many NATO countries are actually ready and how many are just virtue signaling because they know it won't happen? Because let's be honest, it's not happening in the near future. Even one member state being against it means it won't happen.

Most NATO countries outright rejected the idea of sending troops to Ukraine. Many are reluctant to provide any aid at all 


I have a feeling that if America went all "let Ukraine join" a lot of countries would be far less enthusiastic than they are now.

Ikkon

Most countries are willing to accept Ukraine in NATO with a bunch of caveats which by design are not presently true nor will realistically become true in the near term.

Unfortunately for Ukraine the same is going to be true of their EU aspirations, when a bunch of nations realise that a country which effectively going to be rendered bankrupt as a result of this war will completely upend the cohesion funding, before we even get to the CAP.

deploy_at_night

This is illusion. Stoltenberg recently said that NATO will need guarantees from Russia that there will be no new war. 

Which means that NATO doesn't see itself as a source of guarantees of any kind, it sees itself as a receiver so it's meaningless to seek membership. 

NATO is not a deterrent for Ukraine, only nukes are.

concerned-potato

That is not true. NATO cannot let countries with territorial disputes with RUS in.

bandwagonguy83

It won't join NATO. Doing this would basically force other countries into war if they were to uphold the mutual defence part of the pact. If they choose not to uphold it, it would be a bad precedent.

Idk in what way do people see a realistic scenario of Ukraine randomly joining NATO and the alliance sending troops to secure the country, it won't happen and it's an blatant act of agression agains Russia from the alliance, nobody wants their people to die. We are already helping out Ukraine a lot through donations.

Mateiizzeu

lol it was Western Europe who blocked it in 2008 when the us was pushing for it. Now that there is active war they expect the US to let Ukraine into NATO full well knowing it’s the US who will have to deal with the responsibility.

Creative_Hope_4690

actctually

Ukraine in NATO, means Russia out of Ukraine.

It would mean the end of genocide in Europe, we should all fully support this.

All those people who claim to be against war, while supporting genocidal Russia, should agree that stopping war is the most important objective, which would be achieved if NATO told Russia, Ukraine is one of them and the Russian military will leave Ukraine no matter what, up to Russia how it happens.

It would also mean Moldova would be safe, as the Russians have already started making public moves to invade another European nation.

BS with an active war... even I would be against that. It could either spiral out of control or render article 5 a toothless tiger.

sch0k0

Hungary and Slovakia won't approve it. Hungary didn't want to approve Sweden. Imagine Ukraine, from which they want to take a piece if russia wins.

Ramental

Nobody wants to send boots on the ground against Russia because then we would risk a nuclear conflict. So I think we're content to just send them the weapon systems and supply intelligence.

baby_budda

Merica makes money off of war. War is good. How is that so hard to understand?

Miserable-Property38

Ukraine will never be in nato when lijes of jake sullivan have any say about it, and the other party is even  worse

thedizls

It sounds good, but what will Japan actually do?

Will they send serious forces to Europe while China is building up? Do they have long distance striking capabilities?

I just don't see what they would effectively do

Dietmeister

Reminder: Japan has never signed a peace treaty with Soviet Union after WW2. And they still have an open territorial dispute with Russia.

oritfx

I mean Japan shares a maritime border with Russia, so I could see their motivations.

KevinTheCarver

So if I see my neighbor cleaning his gun in his own house though a window and I kick in the door and shoot him. Does my neighbor get partial blame for me killing him?

gothpunkboy89

Sure Russia wants to control the former USSR countries and prevent them from being free but I don't see why that is a legitimate view that NATO has to respect? 

What gives Russia the right to control Ukraine?

FreeSM_Regicide

The only needed counterpoint to this is that NATO is a voluntary organization that nations can join (if approved by other members). Meanwhile Russia has invaded a country twice because it thinks it has a right to dictate the foreign policy of other sovereign nations.

These are not remotely comparable and the mere suggestion that anyone is to blame other than an expansionist country that has literally invaded other countries within the last decade is nonsense. Though Russia has made the best argument possible for why countries who may be neutral leaning should consider joining NATO: to keep them safe from the egomaniac.

NotMyBestMistake

Here we go again.

&gt;NATO is an organisation created to protect the west, by aiming a lot of nukes towards the eastern countries. 

This is a terrible simplification. And most NATO countries neither have their own nor host nukes.m

After the fall of the USSR, Russia and NATO agreed not to expand their area, but NATO expanded [a lot.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg)

&gt;This is upsetting for Putin since he 

Wishes to recreate a sort of Russian empire.

&gt;has personally witnessed this expansion and he sees this a threat to his and his countries safety. 

He knows full well that NATO isn’t a threat. But he doesn5 like the fact that it limits his ability to intimidate and threaten his neighbours. 

&gt;Now nuclear missiles can be as close as 1000 km away from the capital meaning that nukes can now travel in less than 10 minutes from launch to Moscow.

The expansion of NATO is really completely irrelevant to nuclear weapon timings. I’m sure Turkey was and is close enough. 

&gt;After many smaller countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania join NATO, NATO set their eyes Ukraine. Ukraine is a larger country that is highly interesting for NATO to get their hands on. 

Such a lie. Countries worried about the threat from Russia. A threat that has oppressed them historically and carried out attacks in modern times, *asking* to join is not NATO somehow stealing them. 

&gt;Putin of course doesn't like this so he uses dirty tactics..

Yes

&gt;NATO instead of backing down keeps pushing 

Russia attacks neighbours and supports dictatorships , neighbours feel threatened and want to join NATO - sorry who exactly is at fault here? 

&gt;* If Ukraine joins NATO, NATO get's an ally very close to Russia.

Maybe Russia should have been less threatening then. But who are you or Russia to overrule the will of a democratically elected government?

&gt;* If Russia attacks Ukraine, you have a very good reason to keep NATO and increase their funding.

Pretty stupid way of behaving if you fear NATO then, isn’t it. 

&gt;NATO keeps using Ukraine as a chesspiece 

Nope. 

&gt;and here we are today with Ukraine getting attacked, and some countries now considering to join NATO.

Funny that.

&gt;Ukraine was a personal country to Russia. 

Ukraine is a democratic country that gets to make its own choices and no one believed it was joining NATO any time soon. It doesn’t be,ing to Putin. 


Basically I can summarise your argument.

Criminals kidnap someone in your family and threaten to harm them if you call the police. You call the police for help and the terrorists  say ‘that’s it we warned you, it’s your fault if we shoot the hostage now’. 

But who exactly is to blame in this scenario? Especially since we know that giving into blackmailers and hostage takers *doesn’t stop them it only makes them continue*.  Is it the family? The police? Or do you think that maybe we should be blaming the criminals?

Edit 

can’t seem to reply so for u/cryptoyeeyee

&gt;What u all fall to either realize or admit with ur “sovereign democratic states like Ukraine should be able to choose what they do” argument, is how America has sponsored and assisted in an unconstitutional overthrow of a government in Ukraine. 

What you fail to understand is that this is simply propaganda. The people of Ukraine made their choice and have validated in free and fair elections. You know the sort you don’t  get in Russia. 

And so this gives Russia the mandate for mass murder and war crimes does it? 

The rest is blah blah bal. Ukraine has had free and fair elections. It ain’t perfect but it’s been distend off by international observers. It’s also made strides in improving  corruption the rules of law etc. 

&gt;To say America/Nato have no hand in this current conflict is beyond delusional and shows the propaganda works here as well. 

Nope. You can keep selling this BS. I don’t know whether that makes you a Tankie or a useful idiot. But the people of Ukraine support their government, supertanker NATO membership, support EU membership. You support a murderous imperialist with delusion of grandeur who is committing mass murder. That’s on you. 

&gt;All these governments, Russia/America/Nato etc are all the same evil entities with their only concern being that of power n control over land and trade. 

Complete false equivalence bollocks. Laughably , stupidly simplistic. No Ines perfect that’s for sure. But right now. Right here and now. An imperialist mass murderer is committing war crimes purely because of delusions of empires and the desire to prevent a successful democracy from being a bad example to his own population. And to kill that democracy off before it can get to safety. 

&gt;What Russia is doing is not ok 

What kind of moral cripple can watch people being dig out form a maternity hospital and say ‘ oh it’s not *oookay* but….’

&gt;Oh right, NATO doesn’t willfully expand, countries “choose” to join. 

Got one thing right but those like you who can’t tell the difference between democracies and dictatorships will never understand.

Basically all it takes for evil to flourish is useful idiots to spout false equivalence and whatabouts, trying to play political ideological games and spreading the apologetics and propaganda of monsters , while children burn. 

You should be treated like a tiny version of Russia and be isolated from civilised life until you learn better. And I’ll be happy to start.

Mkwdr

&gt;NATO instead of backing down keeps pushing and using huge funds to get Ukraine to leave their neutral stance since this is a win-win situation for NATO.

This is all over reddit and it's a fucking russian propaganda that seems to have gotten the most traction. NATO does not expand by conquering nations and deposing leaders, it expands by having nations APPLY to join them. There is NO WORLD where you can equate NATO expansion with Russia's military actions these past 20 years. 

Not to mention, that Ukraine's application was REJECTED by NATO to not antagonise Russia.

NATO does NOT set eyes on countries or bribes them to join, countries have to bend over backwards to join NATO. And it's worth it because you have a murderer psychopath running a country with one of the biggest military in the world and an economy in a decline. And that is not a good combination.  

The only reason Putin is enraged by more and more countries joining NATO is because it makes his dream of making "Russia great again" (yes that was his phrasing) impossible without starting WWIII.

Edit: also, please enlighten me how many nukes there are in your mentioned Baltic states that have been in NATO ALMOST 20 YEARS.

0TheSpirit0

&gt;	After the fall of the USSR, Russia and NATO agreed not to expand their area,

No they didn't.

&gt;	The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev didn't see it that way. It wasn’t codified into a treaty and the person being addressed did not see it as a promise or that it was broken.

So that is entirely a false narrative by Putin.

Phage0070

NATO certainly desires Ukraine as a member, you’re not wrong that account. But your entire argument ignores the agency of Ukraine. You even go so far as to state that Ukraine is a chess piece being moved by NATO. 

Yet Ukraine’s people clearly desire their new government that is free of Russian puppets. Russia has a problem with that because they desire their puppet states. So Ukraine is seeking refuge, that is, allies with whom to stand against Russia. Well there’s no better option than NATO.

The people want to be free of the Russian Oligarchy. It why their people are fighting instead of running. Laying down their lives instead of their guns. They know what life is like under Russian rule and they want no more of it.

Now down the line, Ukraine will likely join NATO. Putin hasn’t given them a reason to not join, he attacked anyways. And Sweden and Finland will likely join to because they have seen what happens when you comply with Russia’s demands anyways: invasion.

Edit: Final thought: NATO isn’t the reason Russia invaded Ukraine. NATO is the reason Russia didn’t invade sooner.

benm421

Former Soviet/Eastern Bloc states want to join NATO because they fear Russian imperialism.

Recent events confirm that fear to be very justified.

barthiebarth

&gt; to protect the west, by aiming a lot of nukes towards the eastern countries.

Aiming nukes isn't firing nukes. We already have enough nukes aimed at each other to blow each other up 50x over anyway. In fact the nukes are the only reason we've had peace, that's mutually assured destruction for you.

Putin absolutely is not afraid of NATO attacking him, he is afraid of NATO preventing him from planting his boot on more peoples' necks even harder. One can argue it's wiser to cave into his oppressive demands, but that doesn't absolve him from blame for being the hostage-taker and recklessly violent aggressor.

Alt_North

&gt;NATO is an organisation created to protect the west, by aiming a lot of nukes towards the eastern countries.

No, it's a defense pact. NATO forces aren't a threat to anyone who don't want to attack NATO. They don't even have any offensive capabilities, if a NATO country decides it's time to attack non-NATO county, they are free to don't give a shit.  


&gt;This of course is a threat to the eastern countries that they don't like.

The sole idea that a voluntary defensive pact with no offensive capabilities is a "threat" to the "eastern countries" a bogus. First, it's not a "threat". NATO has no way of using their pact offensively, it can only respond to aggression on NATO country. Second, to which "eastern countries" is is a threat? Apart from Russia, there are no countries that do have direct problem with NATO.

So your point boils down to "NATO is a threat yo Russia geopolitical imperialism".  


&gt;This is upsetting for Putin since he has personally witnessed this expansion and he sees this a threat to his and his countries safety.

How a defensive pact is a threat to Russia safety? NATO countries were perfectly ok with leaving Russia to do their things and be an economic partner - buying resources from them, selling needed products for them.   


&gt;After many smaller countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania join NATO, NATO set their eyes Ukraine.

Ah yes, because those countries are subordinate entities without any agency. The min thing as to why they have joined NATO is that Russia is a threat, as they don't view them as sovereign entities, but rather as ex-soviet republics that were taken away from them and will need to come back to them.  


&gt;Putin of course doesn't like this so he uses dirty tactics to gain control of one small part of Ukraine, the Crimea peninsula.

Which of course does not justify in any way their desire to join NATO?  


All in all, let's be straight. NATO expansion was fuelled by the fact that Russia still wants to expand to cover their old USSR borders and have influence in countries that were a part of Warsaw Pact.

Russia couldn't accept that they lost the Cold War and still tries to play superpower, which actually pushes countries to join NATO. Sweden and Finland did not feel need to join NATO, until Russia acted. Ukraine was ok with being a neutral state that is being won over by both sides, until Russia acted.

Those so called "threats" to Russia, are cause directly by their actions and decisions. Trying to pin the blame on NATO is silly, as they were the ones pushing countries into NATO hands.

poprostumort

this has nothing to do with nato.

nato is essentially the us + sidekicks(except France).

America currently has perhaps the weakest president in history.

if the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, etc had a weak leader Russia wouldn't care.

Putin was just waiting for a weak us president, that's it.

Feisty-Wealth5372

So I'vve been thinking a lot about this.

After World War II, Russia used force and the threat of force to take control of eastern Europe. We spent 50 years fighting the cold war, and we won.

Now, imagine how often those guys fighting the cold war wished, that the west controled Poland, or Latvia or any of the countries that joined Nato after the cold war.

The thing is, after we won, some people must have thought, let's get these countries into Nato, so that when  Russia recovers from its defeat, it won't snatch them up a second time. Not to mention that these Eastern European countries ran to Nato like a battered woman to a women's shelter, they joined because they didn't want to be under Russian control again.

Ukraine wants to be a western democracy. Are we supposed to tell them, "Sorry, you have to be a Russian slave state?"

I agree with the reasons you list for why Putin and Russia did this. 

I'm just not sure those reasons matter.

NATO is not a threat to economy smaller than Italy. 

Russia is shithole that has any power only because of nukes.

dreamrpg

It's undeniable that NATO expansion made the Russian dictatorship more aggressive. But, paradoxically, had NATO expanded even more rapidly, then they would have saved many thousands of lives and livlihoods, including Russian ones. Today some 1 - 3 thousand Russian young men and an unknown number of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are all lying dead, and *none* of them would be if Ukraine had joined NATO last year. Today, Estonians and Latvians and Poles and Slovaks are all resting pretty easy knowing that while Russian invasion is possible, well, it probably won't happen because they are NATO members. They have that peace of mind. 

I hope that one day we can abolish NATO and every country can live in peace without such imperial organizations. It will be the same day that all murderous dictators and oligarchs are rotting in hell. I hope that they view NATO membership as a personal and physical attack. Fuck 'em, they can die mad about it

MercurianAspirations

It seems like countries like the Urkaine want to join Nato because Russia has this odd habit of invading them. Ukraine wasn't ever going to invade Russia. 

Seems like the problem comes from Russia not Nato.

anewleaf1234

I agree. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia should never have been invited into NATO. Europe can offer security guarantees to countries bordering Russia without offering them NATO memberships. I also believe NATO should evolve into a post cold-war organization and include Russia. Having said that, NATO and Europe also have legitimate concerns about the degradation of Russian democracy with attacks against their journalists and free press, and opposition political leaders. Putin should exit the political stage, and NATO should evolve and potentially include Russia.

bill_b4

Chris714n_8

I think i agree, but one thing doesn't add up. Why *is* Ukraine important to NATO? If NATO was created as a so called defense treaty for the West, why push it all the way up to the Russian border making a once neutral Ukraine Western-Allied? They had to of known it would probe Russia into action, unless you were to make a really long shot leap of faith and assume the West wanted to probe Russia.

operation-casserole

Asking any sort of question like this on a forum like reddit is gonna result in lots of bias towards the pro NATO and Western side

daoghg20

Even if NATO had never allowed Eastern European countries to join NATO, it wouldn't have changed anything. If Eastern European countries couldn't join NATO, they probably would have formed a sort of reverse Warsaw Pact against Russia, and we'd be stuck in the same place we are now with Russia accusing this reverse Warsaw Pact of being anti-Russian, and still invading anyways.

Finally, its not NATO's fault that Eastern Europe ran as far and fast away from Russia as possible.

Yep. This is what all countries are going to learn from this. No nukes and your borders aren't guaranteed. I bet we see an explosion of countries starting nuke programs.

Hep_C_for_me

Good. I know this is probably mostly an emotional response and a way to put pressure on the west to allow them entry into NATO, but if NATO won't sack up and accept the country that is literally doing their job in terms of suppressing russian aggression in Europe, I fully support Ukraine firing up the reactors and developing their own nuclear arsenal. 

Never before in the history of the world has there ever been as justifiable a reason to produce nuclear weapons as a deterrent. This isn't a case of the Iranians wanting to make a nuke to kill all the jews, or NK wanting to keep their dear leader in power via a nuke program. This is an existential threat to a country that literally had a nuclear arsenal and gave them up the country that is literally invading them. The other signees on the contract, while UA is grateful for the aid, simply aren't doing enough to help AND are holding Ukraine back from defending itself. NATO won't give a clear pathway to membership. All but guaranteed russian stools like Hungary and Slovakia will vote against them. Germany is too busy quivering in fear in the corner. Other member states can't/won't/don't have the resources to help further.

Ukraine has been tossing the west lifeline after lifeline to prove they are worthy of being accepted into the west's club. They fight within the rules of war and with honor. They fight within the frame of the Geneva convention. They do all of this while their opponent does the complete opposite and without remorse. They do all this while aid is drip-fed to them and when they do get it, they are forced to adhere to western fears of escalation and watch their citizen die day after day by attacks that could be be stopped by simply telling them "yes go ahead". Don't think I have ever witnessed an entity fight back with such restraint and within such nonsense escalatory rules before and still have a fighting chance. 

Simply put, UA will do what is best for itself and better to ask forgiveness later then permission now. The west has had chance after chance after chance to nip the russian problem in the bud dating back to the 90s, and still thought it was wise to do business with them and extend them non-stop olive branches. That very clearly isn't working, hasn't worked, and never will work. Russians only understand the language of force (something the west has failed to learn) and Ukraine is the only one speaking that same language. The west is so afraid of russian redlines, but perhaps it's time they learn Ukrainian ones. Show them a pathway to membership, help them get there ASAP, or learn to have another nuclear state in Europe.

The west has no one else to blame but themselves that it has reached this stage.

huntingwhale

ukrainianhab

I just saw a poll on a Ukrainian Telegram channel ТСН with 855K subs: 89% support the idea of Ukraine regaining nuclear weapons.

Ukraine: "Hey Poland how did you get into NATO ?"
Poland:

Ja_Shi

The Manhattan project started in 1942 and in 1945 the bomb was dropped. It was something new that no one has ever done before. Ukraine has both nuclear power plants and their own missile program. There is no reason Ukraine can't do it in a shorter time frame. Who knows maybe a secret program is already underway?

reveil

CannonFodder58

We literally swore to protect them when they gave up their nukes back in the day.

Helping Ukraine win is the only way non proliferation has the slightest chance of remaining.

Codeworks

Ukraine already has a lot of the knowledge to make nukes. They may have kept the physics data, maybe even bomb designs. What they won't have is nuclear material. The easier bomb to make is Uranium, the best bomb to make is Plutonium... but Ukraine don't have any plutonium. Or at least... probably don't have any plutonium...

SomeoneRandom007

And which would they prefer? If they get nukes - i dont see why they wouldnt be afraid to use them because they are in an existential war.

PineBNorth85

It's not impossible that Ukraine already has nukes. Their ultimate Joker.

Affectionate_News796

100% right.

Until 2023 year there were hopes that West at lest somehow restore functionality of International Law, but Ukrainian war shown that West completely agree with Russian "WMD-Might make Right/True" logic.

PoliticalCanvas

etzel1200

I would even donate if United24 launched such nukes restoration fundraising

Beneficial_North1824

Could still have a few cores left over from Soviet days.  Just lost in some hole in the ground waiting to be discovered.  Zelensky may have found a few lost bombs that were never accounted for.   Biggest mistake any nation ever made,  giving them up.

sunshinebread52

I would personally donate most of my savings towards Ukrainian and Taiwanese nuclear program. It is killing two birds with one stone.

Armedfist

If I were Zelensky I'd be digging some very deep tunnels in West Ukraine to house potential Nuke development.

Polysticks

They should be building them as we speak.  its clear that others aren't going to take this seriously

AnyProgressIsGood

Where is the donation campaign for nukes to Ukraine?

wahlmank

Why not both? Booom booom *smiling flork*

OverThaHills

bconley1

If Ukraine needs nuclear weapons for self preservation, then so be it. The west is not doing enough to help them.

DrTh0ll

Absolutely yes. Why can't they have them?

candf8611

That’s the ONLY way!  He’s 💯 right on.

Ok_Salamander_354

If they have the resources to make their own nukes, then for sure they should go for it! There are few other similar near guarantees of peace in this world.

jebus197

President Zelenskyy made a fair point, but the Eastern and Northern Front countries of Poland, Finland, and perhaps Sweden should also start regardless of NATO. What Article 5 would even mean from 2025 onward has become too uncertain, it may not have the effect it was supposed to have when the critical moment comes.

At least Ukraine has fissile materials at hand. Poland in particular may not even have any fissile material to begin with, yet it's the one country that needs independent nuclear deterrence the most in NATO.

Spartan117_JC

Let Ukraine have both. This will deter anymore of Putin &amp; another Russia invasion/bully/terrorism. It's a great solution.

That's the only sane play for Ukraine.

After all, it once had the third-largest nuke arsenal and gave it away under the condition its sovereignty would be respected.

Putin wouldn't have pulled any of this shit had Ukraine held to a single nuke, even a tactical one.

And the thing is, if Russia gets to get away with a  land grab, it won't only be Ukraine getting nukes. It'd be Poland, Finland, Sweden and the Baltic States (and probably Georgia.)

All of these countries have the know-how to build nukes. Maybe not the material spring one right away, but they certainly have a shitload of scientists that can conjure ways to make them.

nunchyabeeswax

Ukraine doesn't need nukes. Ukraine need WMD MAD.  
  
Any form of WMD MAD.  
  
For example, if most Ukrainians will start study all publicly available information about WMD-creation, even this will be basic form of MAD. Because of unprecedented possibilities of civil tech and enormous numbers of Ukraine expats.  
  
Even basic redistribution of Ukrainian nuclear waste and drones over territory of Ukraine will be very effective MAD against Russia, that essentially is just Moscow city-state and its colonies.

Well... They did have nuclear weapons and then a promise that those that had them would protect them when they gave them up. Now here we are. No country will ever make that mistake again.

dwolfe127

Ukraine has to defend itself if we won't help them.

Chudmont

THIS is the shoe I have been waiting to drop.   

Back up your promises or we go full bore to protect our citizens.  Three low yield nukes on the new drones.  One for Moscow, one for St Petersburg and one for Stalingrad.  

Game, set , match

kensmithpeng

First paragraph of that article is exactly what should have been broadcast ad nauseam in the public eye and to all global leaders.  If anything you crane needs to be beating the drums on exactly this. And super loudly.

mashbashhash

How to make Plutonium:

1. Have depleted uranium (U238) "fuel rods" that you put into a reactor for a short while so a bit of the U238 turns into Pu239.
2. Remove the rods and replace with fresh.
3. Chemically extract the Pu239, not easy, but you only want one element.
4. The remaining U238 can go back in the reactor as another "fuel rod". Everything else is nuclear waste.

Ukraine has long history of building much of ruZZias arsenal. This will not be hard for them to do.

DistortionPie

I listened to his speech and get which part is being talked about here but I don’t think this is the right way to present it. What he said looks more like a logical conclusion, not an ”either either” demand. He says, that if Ukraine can’t have nukes, it should be in NATO. And he stresses out right after saying this that “we choose NATO”.  To me this statement seems to be exaggerated in the press

michael98900

IndistinctChatters

Only two working things! He is so right! Good luck bro!

FinancialFlamingo117

Drones with nuclear reactor fuel  dirty bombs aimed at the Kremlin.  Little loss of civilian lives, renders Moscow uninhabitable.

Kokophelli

Haplo12345

IrishGandalf1

2lostnspace2

thelimeisgreen

If nato secured Ukraine’s airspace this would be a different war entirely

Far_Out_6and_2

Let's get a kick-starter going for them. I'll pitch in

DrDalenQuaice

I don't even know what a peace treaty is - Putler.

Gizmoed

As the USA didn’t uphold what was agreed in the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine shouldn’t just regain nukes, but U.S. taxpayers should also be responsible for paying for those nukes.

Extreme-Radio-348

Does Ukraine have nukes that they have never turned over

Tank20011

Rambos_Magnum_Dong

No russian invasion of ukraine, or annexation of crimea, but russia is far more paranoid, especially if nukes are stationed in ukraine. Other than that, not much changes, i think

This requires that Ukraine become more hostile towards Russia earlier

For this to happen, you would need to radically shift opinions in southern and eastern Ukraine on NATO. For a variety of understandable reasons, these regions were politically Russophone right up to 2014, when Russia began to do terrible things to them.


This early shift implies something happening in the 1990s that makes all Ukrainians come to a consensus that Russia needs to be guarded against. The Crimea dispute goes got earlier, perhaps?

RandyFMcDonald

It was possible only if Vyacheslav Chernovol won-either in 1991 or in 1994. He was WAY more pro-Western, than Leonid Kuchma.

Khabarovsk-One-Love

putins russia probably kicks into overdrive with the second chechen war, followed by fully anexing georgia, making more of a fuss in transnitsnia and all the other frozen conflicts around russia's sphere.

Traditional_Key_763

Before Baltic Countries join in Nato, Russia invades.

entertain sloppy quarrelsome degree water deserted advise toothbrush airport lip

 *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

abrowsing01

Russia joining NATO in 2000 would've been likelier.

The War in Ukraine could still escalate to a more global front. So we can't say for Certain if Ukraine joining in 1999 would've prevented the invasion of 2022. It would've prevented the invasion of Crimea in 2014 however.

Wazzup-2012

Debate within NATO over Ukraine's potential membership amid geopolitical tensions with Russia.

NATO and Ukraine Membership Controversy

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want