Nato members have pledged their support for an “irreversible path” to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.

While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance’s 32 members said they had “unwavering” support for Ukraine’s war effort.

Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine’s military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.

The bloc’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest.”

    • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I didn’t say that. I don’t think the options must necessarily be limited to either escalation or appeasement.

      • illi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ok, I’ll bite - how do you imagine that? It’s pretty much down to Ukraine and all othet countries laying down weapons if attacked or fighting back and defend their territory. Would love to hear what you imagine being the 3rd option

        • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think what really scares Russia isn’t Ukraine defending their territory, it’s Ukraine allying with the West. I think Russia sees all these countries joining NATO and it looks to them like their neighbors are joining their enemy, against them. I think that makes them nervous and afraid. I think the only solution is diplomacy.

          • ik5pvx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            In the last 30-ish years nobody in Europe had considered Russia “the enemy”, on the contrary a lot of people were happy of doing business with them and putain could have chosen a path to integration with the rest of Europe and “the West” in general. I even dreamt of them being a civilised part of EU, along with the rest of the countries on the continent. But no, he had to revive the tsarist empire instead.

            • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              In the last 30-ish years nobody in Europe had considered Russia “the enemy”

              I don’t doubt that, but I do think there has remained a fair amount of mistrust and animosity between Russia and the United States, possibly a hold over from the cold war era, and I don’t think Russia sees much, if any, distinction between NATO and their enemy the United States.

              • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Before Russia did their heel turn in the aughts, they almost joined NATO after a period of significant cooperation. Russia seeing the U.S., or it’s allies, as enemies is a symptom of Putin turning a fledgling democracy into a dictatorship, not the natural state of affairs.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–NATO_relations

                Go to the “Development of post-Cold War cooperation (1990–2004)” section and check out “NATO-Russia Founding Act”, “NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council”, and “NATO-Russia Council”.

                Back then the talk was pearl clutching over NATO with Russia being seen as some racist white alliance against China, MENA, India, and others in the global south.

                Russia only sees us as enemies because Putin needed to create enemies to seize and consolidate power.

                • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  It looks like there was mistrust developing before the NATO-Russia Council, with the bombings of Yugoslavia.

                  In 1999, Russia condemned the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which was done without a prior authorization by the United Nations Security Council, required by the international law. For many in Moscow, a combination of NATO’s incorporation of Eastern Europe and its military attack on sovereign Yugoslavia exposed American promises of Russia’s inclusion into a new European security architecture as a deceit. Yeltsin’s critics said: ‘Belgrade today, Moscow tomorrow!’

                  • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    There were normal diplomatic disagreements that all allies have. And consider the source of that statement. Yeltsin’s critics would have included any anti-democratic groups. This was a period of unprecedented cooperation and trust that was growing until Russia turned its back.

          • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Now why would they fear Ukraine joining a non-confontational alliance?

            And how do you rationalize the fear of your neighbour making new friends by physically attacking them?

            I don’t know if you are a russian bot or actually conflicted so I’m giving you a chance to explain what you think Ukraine should really do. In my mind, bowing down to a bully is never ever the answer and support any aid they get in their purely defensive war.

            • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Now why would they fear Ukraine joining a non-confontational alliance?

              I don’t think Russia sees NATO as non-confrontational.

              And how do you rationalize the fear of your neighbour making new friends by physically attacking them?

              I don’t think Russia sees it merely as a “neighbor making new friends,” I think they see it as a neighbor, that they feel culturally connected to, making alliances with their enemy.

              I don’t know if you are a russian bot

              I am not. I’ve never been to Russia, I don’t know any Russian people. I’m American, I’ve lived in the US my entire life. I’m just trying to look at things from Russia’s perspective, because I think that’s critical, regardless of how we proceed.

              explain what you think Ukraine should really do.

              I am not against Ukraine defending itself from invasion, nor am I necessarily against them joining NATO. I completely understand why they would want to do that, and I would probably want to do the same. I simply want to find a solution that will result in the least possible loss of life and an end to the conflict as quickly as possible.

              • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Try to empathize with the Russian people and not with the Russian state and things will make a lot more sense.

                • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  What makes you think I don’t empathize with the Russian people? The Russian state are the ones making the decisions so they are who we have to deal with. Neither I nor the Russian people have much control over that.

                  • ik5pvx@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    And why is that? Why don’t the russian federation people have any control on that? They should be able to get informed and vote, no?

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Now why would they fear Ukraine joining a non-confontational alliance?

                I don’t think Russia sees NATO as non-confrontational.

                If Russia is so afraid of NATO attacking them, then why did they withdraw pretty much all troops from the Finnish border? There’s barely border guards there.

              • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt then, mostly because I agree with you that the best solution is the one where the fewest amount of people die.

                I think where we diverge is how to achieve this. From what we’ve seen so far, Ukraine surrendering would probably not end the war. At least long term. Russia would use the time to re-arm and retry. Even if they don’t, the people in these new russian territories would be poorly treated and potentially murdered, especially those disagreeing with the peace agreement. That is my honest opinion. Therefore, the only other ways are Russia going home or Ukraine beating them.

                The first one isn’t happening, so we end up alternative three.

                Do you agree or disagree with my assessment?

                • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I think your assessment may very well be accurate, but I don’t think Russia is just going to go home, and if Ukraine does win the war, with the help of NATO member states, I don’t think that will just be the end for Russia, especially if they continue to feel threatened and encircled. They may try to strengthen their military, and their ties with China. It could result in another cold war. What do you think should be done to try and avoid that from happening?

                  • Bronzie@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Honestly, if another cold war is the outcome of us stepping up for what is right in this world, then I think it’s a better alternative than giving into any dicators demands.

                    Don’t get me wrong: I don’t want it, but the alternative is everlasting certainty for Putin and future cronies that attacking sovereign countries is totally fine as long as he has nukes.

                    So to answer your question: the general idea to avoid this is to make sure everybody knows the west wants no war, but we will not sit idly by and watch it unfold right on our doorstep. And we are strong enough to beat you if it comes to that.

                    You don’t need allways to fight the bully to make him stop. You just need to make sure he knows you will fight and he most likely will lose.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            If Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine they wouldn’t be joining NATO. Same with Finland and Sweden.

            Also, if they stopped being dickweeds they could have normal and friendly relations with the West. Russia’s paranoia is the problem, not NATO.

          • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Ukraine isn’t allying with the west per se, it’s allying with the countries that aren’t in violation of the Budapest accords.

            Thank you for the chance to clarify.

            • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Reality and Russia’s perception are likely at odds with one another, but even if Russia’s perception is inaccurate and based on delusion and paranoia, it is nonetheless their perception.

          • Freefall@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Russia should focus inward and become a country that people want to ally with and that people don’t fear will come for them. Start by putting a halt to invasions and murder. It’s some incel, victim-blaming shit from them…work on yourself Russia, be better so you aren’t the creepy guy noone trusts. Sorry if that takes generations of self sacrifice until a new population grows up only seeing your good acts for themselves and wondering why great!grandpa is so mad at a reasonable economic system that they don’t even use in Russia.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            You’re buying their excuses. Chechnya wasn’t joining NATO. South Ossetia wasn’t joining NATO. Ukraine wasn’t joining NATO before they lost Crimea in 2014.

            Russia is an aggressive power that uses military might to hold power over people that do not want to be ruled by Moscow.

            • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I’ve come to the realization that the only people truly believing ruZZian excuses, are people too young to know better. And not in a “hurr it’s all 12 year Olds” kind of way but in a “you have not paying attention to the wider world for long enough to know how some places just are”

              And yeah, sure we all know what we want the world to be, but unfortunately right now we have to deal with how things are.

              And how things are shows that Russia is clearly in the wrong here, full stop.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                They also have the support of the minority that wants to tear down democracy as a ruling principle. Some of those people are quite intelligent, they’re just mean and believe in power, violence and the importance of suffering. In their world the truth is not objective, what is true is whatever the strongest person says it is, because he will hurt you if you disagree. This destruction of objective factuality is a core part of their methodology and overall worldview.

                We had to defeat them in a World War just to get to where we are today, but they never did fully give up. Stubborn sorts.

              • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                It also tends to be people farthest away from what’s going on. The most anti-Russian countries tend to be those geographically closest to Russia. Those on the border with them know what’s at stake and why having military backing against Russian aggression is so important.

            • thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Funny how there was no reply to this comment. I wonder why they didn’t get back to you. Maybe they needed to cook dinner, or go to work, or rethink their entire life.

              I hope it’s the last one but I’m not counting on it.

          • illi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            You didn’t answer the question.

            Diplomacy was utilized before Russians crossed the Ukraine border to launch a full scale invasion. Also back when Russia was “intimidated” by Ukraine’s inherited nuclear arsenal and made agreement they will leave Ukraine alone - and this, among other things led us here.

          • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            We’ve tried this. Blair’s talks with Putin, Obama’s Russia Reset, energy cooperation in Europe, and that non aggression deal Russia signed with Ukraine.

            Putin threw all of that away when he invaded Crimea and then Ukraine.

            True peace in the region will be achieved by Putin being removed from power by the Russian people, ending the war at internationally recognised boarders, rebuilding Ukraine letting them choose their own path geopolitically, AND helping Russia rebuild from decades of corruption and kleptocracy.

            Until then the only way to stop Putin, who only recognises strength, is to fight back.

            • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              True peace in the region will be achieved by Putin being removed from power by the Russian people, ending the war at internationally recognised boarders, rebuilding Ukraine letting them choose their own path geopolitically, AND helping Russia rebuild from decades of corruption and kleptocracy.

              If that is the best path to peace, then I hope all of those things are achieved. But, if other possibilities need to be considered, I’m open to considering them.

              • Maalus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Medvedev literally said “we will invade Ukraine anyway after any peace deal goes through”. So how is your stance not appeasement of a warmongering dictator?

              • Seleni@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill

              • Kedly@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                There isnt, they’ve been tried and failed. Time to block you for outing yourself as a Tankie

              • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                He’s not interested in peace. Russia’s demands for a ceasefire are maximalist and would essentially erase Ukraine as a nation. They only pay lip service to diplomacy for international optics.