•

Nato official suggests Ukraine could give up land in exchange for membership

Nato official apologises over suggestion Ukraine could give up land for membership

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/16/nato-official-suggests-ukraine-could-give-up-territory-in-exchange-for-membership

Secretary general’s chief of staff says statement was ‘mistake’ and part of wider discussion – but does not completely rule out idea

Nato official apologises over suggestion Ukraine could give up land for membership

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1335364

Oh hey, we're back to where it all begun. Only took a couple million displaced.

49 comments

Snackuleata

•

Giving up land to Russia = bad

Giving up land to corporate interests = good

SensualHonkey

•

Privatizing children's hospitals = VERY good ☝️

jack

•

But the war must be continued at all costs so that Ukraine's territorial integrity isn't violated

mim

•

Interesting how tankies keep saying that the west is forcing Ukraine to keep fighting. But when NATO suggests they give some land to Russia to stop the war, the Ukrainians get offended and want to keep fighting. 🤔

FuckyWucky

•

Ukrainians get offended and want to keep fighting

'Ukrainians' are not a monolith. The Ukrainian government doesn't necessarily reflect opinions of the Ukrainian people (especially if you compare between regions within Ukraine).

west is forcing Ukraine to keep fighting

If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don't you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?

mim

•

If NATO wants to stop the war, then why does it keep supplying Ukraine with weapons? Don't you think that indicates they want the war to go on indefinitely (and help out U.S. military industrial complex)?

NATO wants to give assurances to their Eastern European members that they won't bail on them when Russia starts eyeing their territory.

If they wanted to keep the war going, they wouldn't have made the offer in the first place.

FuckyWucky

•

after he said publicly that Ukraine could give up territory to Russia in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.

Key part " in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.". NATO didn't let Ukraine join the last time they asked because NATO is well aware that it could lead to multiple countries having nuclear weapons (U.S., UK and France) going against Russia.

Why do you think NATO would want to give remaining parts of Ukraine the NATO membership if such a peace agreement where the NATO Ukraine remains in war with Russia? This will result in a very sensitive situation where a NATO member (Ukraine) and Russia are in a frozen war with each other. If Ukraine were to try to take their territory back, it'll be a war between entire NATO and Russia.

I believe NATO is well aware of the fact that such a 'deal' is not possible.

Ukraine has consistently called for a restoration of its internationally recognised pre-2014 borders

What Ukrainian Government 'wants' is very unrealistic considering how strong the Russian presence is in Crimea.

mim

•

Yes, NATO doesn't want a deal that could spark another war. And they also offered Ukraine a way to settle a dispute, lose territory, and stop a current war.

Explain to me then: How is the west forcing Ukraine to keep fighting? And don't say "stop supplying weapons", NATO has to assure their members that they would stand by them.

FuckyWucky

•

NATO has to assure their members that they would stand by them.

Ukraine isnt in NATO officially.

Are you saying NATO wants to give 'assurance' to its own members that they'll provide help if Russia were to enter NATO territory by 'helping' a non-NATO country? Don't you think its a bit ridiculous to give billions of dollars of weapons (thus weakening themselves) to a non-NATO country just to 'prove' to its eastern European members that NATO will 'help'? U.S. already has military bases in Germany, Poland and Baltics, one would think large number of U.S. soldiers just being in Eastern Europe and multiple NATO countries having nuclear weapons would be enough of a deterrence for Russia to not invade.

mim

•

Public opinion in Eastern European NATO countries is very much pro-Ukraine. They want NATO to send more weapons.

In fact, they have gone above and beyond to send them more weapons (percent-wise), than other countries.

modulus

•

But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.

mim

•

But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.

Assurance to the other Eastern European countries that are members (read my previous response). The other Eastern European countries want to supply weapons to Ukraine (they have gone above and beyond to send extra to Ukraine).

Flaps

•

Bruh nato sending ukraine weapons is a good argument to point to when asked how nato keeps this war going. We're not pro Russia, neither are we pro nato. We want an end to the bloodshed, where as you look at thousands of dead Ukrainians and then pretend this is a good thing because you care so much about Poland or something. You wipe a solid argument off the table because you gave it some vague explenation (show members they'd stand by them? Even if that were the reason, it doesn't justify the tens of thousands of dead you seem to not take into account at all).

mim

•

Read the article mate.

NATO literally proposed to Ukraine to give up territory to stop the war. Answer this, and don't dodge the question: Why would NATO ever put forth that proposition if they wanted the war to keep going?

Staines

•

Interesting how dronies keep saying that the east is forcing Donbas to keep fighting. But when Russia suggests they give some land to Ukraine to stop the war, Donbas gets offended and want to keep fighting. smuglord

mim

•

But when Russia suggests they give some land to Ukraine to stop the war, Donbas gets offended and want to keep fighting.

LOL When did that happen tankie? Russia is the one that propped up the separatist movement in the Donbas in the first place.

Staines

•

You acknowledge that people have a right to defend themselves, and be supplied weapons to that effect. Your usage of "propped up" also suggests you acknowledge that there were legitimate separatist sentiments in Ukraine in 2014. Why do your principles of armed self determination break down when applied to Donbas? Seems that "tankie" is your word for "someone that believes in self determination".

When did that happen tankie?

Minsk 2, proposed by Russia, outlines that control of the border should be restored to Ukraine, and that Donbas should be reintegrated democratically back into Ukraine with a level of federalization to protect it from future lapses in Ukrainian democracy.

mim

•

with a level of federalization to protect it from future lapses in Ukrainian democracy.

With a puppet government, you mean.

Just like the "free" elections that they lead in an occupied territory.

Staines

•

Ah yes, "free" as opposed to »free« Ukrainian elections.

In free, western Ukrainian elections, the ruling party simply bans opposition parties that they don't approve of and seizes their assets.

mim

•

Don't change the subject with whatabouttisms tankie.

I can play that game too: Russia held elections at gunpoint in occupied territory. Do you also believe that the elections the US held in Afghanistan and Iraq were free? Or does that only apply to countries that you don't like?

Flaps

•

Sounds like a nato bot if you ask me

Bobsnoturuncle

•

That NATO official already has retracted and apologized for that statement. Fuck putin and fuck russia. They aren't going to get a thing except the contempt of the world.

modulus

•

That NATO official has apologised about the form and lack of context, then restated that territorial concessions are likely:

But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.

FuckyWucky

•

Ukraine is getting neither land nor NATO membership.

keepcarrot

•

But someone else might get land, silly tankie smuglord

EnsignRedshirt

•

This is genuinely very disheartening. A lot of people have died and more will continue to die, but NATO can’t even talk openly about how the conflict might be ended. They really do want Ukraine to be the next Afghanistan in the forever war.

Skua

•

Is NATO meant to tell Ukraine how to handle peace deals? It seems to me like the war is carrying on because Ukraine is quite understandably unwilling to have another chunk hacked out of it by Russia

Mindfury

•

i'd say lol if these fash cappie shitholes hadn't already ground hundreds of thousands of their working class into bloodmist

SensualHonkey

•

Technically, Russia is violating international law by the same amount they did at the start, so it's fine to negotiate with the territory they took 😶‍🌫️

I have been wondering how this will play out

Tarte

•

SensualHonkey

•

I say lol because I read the RAND corporation paper on this last year 🫵

Madison_rogue

•

Seriously, the comments were retracted and it's on the same page as this post. Please check the page you're contributing to before posting.

modulus

•

As far as I can tell, Stian Jenssen apologised about the way the comment had been made and interpreted, but not about the substance. Specifically:

A day later, he gave an interview to the same newspaper, VG, that had reported on his original comments. “My statement about this was part of a larger discussion about possible future scenarios in Ukraine, and I shouldn’t have said it that way. It was a mistake,” he said. But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.

So clearly at least some people in NATO consider that a peace deal may entail territorial concessions. Which like it or not is a realistic position to take.

Ram_The_Manparts

•

The weirdest part here is the idea that Ukraine could ever become a part of NATO in the first place.

Is every single person in the Zelensky regime so utterly incompetent that they genuinely believed that would actually happen while they were in a civil war between 2014 and 2022, not to mention now when they are in an all out war with a literal nuclear power? I very much doubt that.

Something doesn't add up here.

SensualHonkey

•

It is a weird way to backdoor discussion of ceding territory into it imo

Skua

•

Come on mate the answer to that is in literally the first sentence of the article.

"...[Jenssen] said publicly that Ukraine could give up territory to Russia in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war."

If it's part of a peace deal to end the war, they're not at war any more when Ukraine joins NATO.

FaceDeer

•

That official backed off from that idea real quick.

modulus

•

Just about the way of expressing it, the idea is still on.

FaceDeer

•

Uh-huh.

autotldr

•

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, told a Norwegian newspaper that he should not have spoken as simplistically as he did, after his initial comments prompted an angry reaction from Kyiv.

At a panel event in Norway on Tuesday, Jenssen had said that while any peace deal reached would have to be acceptable to Ukraine, alliance members were discussing how the 18-month war might be brought to an end.

“Precisely for this reason, it is crucially important that we support the Ukrainians with what they need,” the official continued as he sought to emphasise that Nato members remained behind Ukraine.

Ukraine has consistently called for a restoration of its internationally recognised pre-2014 borders and is engaged in a counteroffensive in an attempt to recapture large parts of its territory seized by Russia.

That means deliberately choosing the defeat of democracy, encouraging a global criminal, preserving the Russian regime, destroying international law and passing the war on to other generations.”

Although Kyiv has received donations of western tanks and long-range rockets and artillery, its forces have so far made only limited territorial gains against heavily defended Russia positions.

I'm a bot and I'm open source!

d4rknusw1ld

•

This is such old news. This is the downfall of the fediverse… very old posts from days ago making its way here. This was retracted and said as a mistake over 24 hours ago and this still got posted here? Reddit will continue to win with this low effort stuff.

Krause

•

This is such old news

It’s from August 16

checks profile picture

oh…

catharso

•

this happened on reddit all the time. only those posts usually die in "new".