Should Ukraine join NATO?

[Ferguson97]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

[Big Abraham]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

I oppose NATO expansion on realist grounds. I am in principle opposed to all military alliances, but NATO is protected under international law and isn't going anywhere. Therefore my efforts are on containing NATO to its present sphere, and Russia their sphere, in order to preserve the balance of power.

[HisGrace]

At this point Russia has reached the point of no return with Ukraine and them joining NATO would just bring everyone else into the war and turn it into WWIII. The idea of big alliances like NATO is that you join before something like this happens, not after.

As another poster said making Ukraine officially neutral like Switzerland would be a compromise to get out of this but Ukraine needs to somehow turn it into a military stalemate to draw Russia to the negotiating table and I don't see that happening without some degree of US military support, at the very least air support to neutralize Russia's advantage there and turn it into a defense ground war.

[HisGrace]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

I oppose NATO expansion on realist grounds. I am in principle opposed to all military alliances, but NATO is protected under international law and isn't going anywhere. Therefore my efforts are on containing NATO to its present sphere, and Russia their sphere, in order to preserve the balance of power.

Ukraine currently has a mostly pro western government despite not being a NATO member and Russia is trying to expand their sphere by invading them and putting in a pro Kremlin government. Russia is the one disrupting the current balance of power, not Ukraine by defending themselves. 

[Ferguson97]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

I oppose NATO expansion on realist grounds. I am in principle opposed to all military alliances, but NATO is protected under international law and isn't going anywhere. Therefore my efforts are on containing NATO to its present sphere, and Russia their sphere, in order to preserve the balance of power.

There is no opposition to NATO expansion that operates under a realist philosophy, unless your allegiance is to Russia.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

I oppose NATO expansion on realist grounds. I am in principle opposed to all military alliances, but NATO is protected under international law and isn't going anywhere. Therefore my efforts are on containing NATO to its present sphere, and Russia their sphere, in order to preserve the balance of power.

There is no opposition to NATO expansion that operates under a realist philosophy, unless your allegiance is to Russia.

NATO expansion is not an open-and-shut case. Reasoned realist arguments can be made for and against it.

[Ferguson97]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

I oppose NATO expansion on realist grounds. I am in principle opposed to all military alliances, but NATO is protected under international law and isn't going anywhere. Therefore my efforts are on containing NATO to its present sphere, and Russia their sphere, in order to preserve the balance of power.

There is no opposition to NATO expansion that operates under a realist philosophy, unless your allegiance is to Russia.

NATO expansion is not an open-and-shut case. Reasoned realist arguments can be made for and against it.

Not really. The basic idea of realism is that nations will act in their self-interest above all else.

It is in the self-interest of most nations to join NATO, since its existence serves as a deterrent against non-members attacking member states.

[lfromnj]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

I oppose NATO expansion on realist grounds. I am in principle opposed to all military alliances, but NATO is protected under international law and isn't going anywhere. Therefore my efforts are on containing NATO to its present sphere, and Russia their sphere, in order to preserve the balance of power.

There is no opposition to NATO expansion that operates under a realist philosophy, unless your allegiance is to Russia.

NATO expansion is not an open-and-shut case. Reasoned realist arguments can be made for and against it.

Not really. The basic idea of realism is that nations will act in their self-interest above all else.

It is in the self-interest of most nations to join NATO, since its existence serves as a deterrent against non-members attacking member states.

That is unless you don't want to get pulled into a war similar to how WW1 started.

[Ferguson97]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

I oppose NATO expansion on realist grounds. I am in principle opposed to all military alliances, but NATO is protected under international law and isn't going anywhere. Therefore my efforts are on containing NATO to its present sphere, and Russia their sphere, in order to preserve the balance of power.

There is no opposition to NATO expansion that operates under a realist philosophy, unless your allegiance is to Russia.

NATO expansion is not an open-and-shut case. Reasoned realist arguments can be made for and against it.

Not really. The basic idea of realism is that nations will act in their self-interest above all else.

It is in the self-interest of most nations to join NATO, since its existence serves as a deterrent against non-members attacking member states.

That is unless you don't want to get pulled into a war similar to how WW1 started.

The larger NATO becomes, the less likely a World War is.

[lfromnj]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

If you were actually a realist, you wouldn’t oppose NATO.

I oppose NATO expansion on realist grounds. I am in principle opposed to all military alliances, but NATO is protected under international law and isn't going anywhere. Therefore my efforts are on containing NATO to its present sphere, and Russia their sphere, in order to preserve the balance of power.

There is no opposition to NATO expansion that operates under a realist philosophy, unless your allegiance is to Russia.

NATO expansion is not an open-and-shut case. Reasoned realist arguments can be made for and against it.

Not really. The basic idea of realism is that nations will act in their self-interest above all else.

It is in the self-interest of most nations to join NATO, since its existence serves as a deterrent against non-members attacking member states.

That is unless you don't want to get pulled into a war similar to how WW1 started.

The larger NATO becomes, the less likely a World War is.

The less likely a war will occur but it is more likely any such war will be a world war.