Biden got the political win by demonstrating his leadership of the free world; Zelenskyy got the policy win of “irreversible” into the communique about Ukraine’s path to NATO membership
Forgive me, but I think there might be an important typo: "With NATO membership, Ukraine will have to worry forever about another future Russian attack." Should this not be "WithOUT..." (or "...Ukraine will NOT have to worry..."
In your summary, there is a part I didn't understand: "And if Zelenskyy has to agree to not try to reunify his country by force to achieve a ceasefire, he is going to need a big deliverable as compensation. NATO membership must be that. With NATO membership, Ukraine will have to worry forever about another future Russian attack. " What you are saying is that IF Zelenskyy / Ukraine gives up annexed territory to Russia for a ceasefire, THEN the rest of Ukraine must be in NATO but could still be attacked by Russia in the future?
Isn't that just a similar appeasement that has whet Putin's appetite for more in every situation?
Putin is exploiting our weakness, our lack of a clear objective to say "Ukraine Must Win" or "Russia must be defeated". It seems to me NATO has gone soft and lost credibility it used to have.
Two things I wanted, or hoped for, from the Summit: 1. An invitation to join NATO for Ukraine. 2. Removing restrictions the US and Germany have placed on long range munitions to hit Russian airfields and the Russian planes launching glide bombs. (this 2nd one seems ridiculous and I have yet to hear an real explanation for it, other than Jake Sullivan's escalation management ) A lot of Ukrainian lives lost because they don't have permission to fire on those military targets!
Great to read this summary, thank you.
Forgive me, but I think there might be an important typo: "With NATO membership, Ukraine will have to worry forever about another future Russian attack." Should this not be "WithOUT..." (or "...Ukraine will NOT have to worry..."
Dear Michael;
{please sjhare with me what you mean by "policy win" in enough detail for me spot one if it happened.
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, California
2-650-519-6636 *niibuke(
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com (email)
In your summary, there is a part I didn't understand: "And if Zelenskyy has to agree to not try to reunify his country by force to achieve a ceasefire, he is going to need a big deliverable as compensation. NATO membership must be that. With NATO membership, Ukraine will have to worry forever about another future Russian attack. " What you are saying is that IF Zelenskyy / Ukraine gives up annexed territory to Russia for a ceasefire, THEN the rest of Ukraine must be in NATO but could still be attacked by Russia in the future?
Isn't that just a similar appeasement that has whet Putin's appetite for more in every situation?
Putin is exploiting our weakness, our lack of a clear objective to say "Ukraine Must Win" or "Russia must be defeated". It seems to me NATO has gone soft and lost credibility it used to have.
Two things I wanted, or hoped for, from the Summit: 1. An invitation to join NATO for Ukraine. 2. Removing restrictions the US and Germany have placed on long range munitions to hit Russian airfields and the Russian planes launching glide bombs. (this 2nd one seems ridiculous and I have yet to hear an real explanation for it, other than Jake Sullivan's escalation management ) A lot of Ukrainian lives lost because they don't have permission to fire on those military targets!