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

[WarGamer]

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

A senior Nato official has apologised and clarified his comments a day after he said publicly that Ukraine could give up territory to Russia in exchange for Nato membership and an end to the war.

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.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

1. Allliance members, including USA!?, we're discussing how to end the war. What is the endgame?

Is an excellent question not asked much.

[WarGamer]

2. Don't forget Milley last year...

Got caught saying Ukraine had no chance and should negotiate.

He sure walked that back quickly.

[Torchlight]

5. Putin ordering a withdrawal of his troops from Ukrainian soil.

That is the endgame.

[wnylib]

9. End game - Ukraine defeats Russia and kicks their asses out of Ukraine.

[Hekate]

3. Jens should be asked how much land Norway should be expected to give up if Russia invades them

Hm?

Because as we all know, appeasement always works so well.

[NoRethugFriends]

4. Yeh. Norway had a stellar WWII record

[dsc]

10. they outlasted France

Norway Germany invaded 9 April, Norway surrendered 10 June. France, Germany invaded 10 May France surrendered 25 June. This is despite the fact Norway was and is a vastly smaller country both in terms of population and area. Other than Russia they resisted Germany better than any country that was invaded by them.

[bullimiami]

6. Sure pay off the murdering terror state.

[Beastly Boy]

7. Russia will never agree to it unless its defeat in the war is inevitable.

And if they do, this agreement will not be worth the paper it is written on. Such agreement would go against Russia's 60 year old military doctrine that draws the line of NATO expansion at Ukraine's border.

To Russia, Ukraine joining NATO at the expense of territorial concessions is indistinguishable from Ukraine joining NATO without any concessions. For as long as independent Ukraine holds on to any of its territory, the old doctrine will apply, and no formal agreement will change this.

And if Russia is soundly defeated to the point of being unable to demand terms, why would Ukraine make any concessions?

I don't know how anyone in NATO would still overlook this and seriously consider land for membership as a viable option.

What NATO is facing is either the surrender of all of Ukraine to Russia, or making all of Ukraine part of NATO. What Russia is facing is either take all of Ukraine, no matter how long it takes, or take none of it. What Ukraine is facing is either lose all of its independence or lose none of it. No player is in the position to sacrifice only part of its interests. Sadly, the alternative to total victory for any side is the Vietnamization of Ukraine until one of the players abandons its positions.

[WarGamer]

8. Which is why Russia would demand the land...

Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea along with a land bridge linking Russia to Crimea.

This land is a buffer zone between a possible NATO aligned Ukraine and Russia.

But... I'm not Ukrainian and it's not up to me.

As long as Ukraine wants to fight... let them.

[Beastly Boy]

11. This outcome is unacceptable to Russia. It goes against its entire military doctrine.

Getting Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea will still keep the NATO forces 200 miles away from Moscow should Ukraine become a member. It will not make a bit of difference to Russia's perception of NATO as an existential threat.

They may use the negotiations as a delaying tactic, they may even sign the agreement, fully intending to break it later, but they will never allow this agreement to take lasting effect.

[Wonder Why]

12. Open foot. Insert mouth. Couldn't even do it the right way.