Saleh

Neutral Ukraine would mean a buffer between Russia and NATO. Russia claims it feels threatened by NATOs expansion to the East. While it is understandable for countries to prefer being in NATO over under Russian influence, that is how geopolitical security works. The US would never accept say Mexico to join a Russian or Chinese military pact.

There is only two ways to get Russia out of Ukraine:

Either defeat them and drive them out, or negotiate for them to withdraw.

The latter wont happen with categorically demanding Ukraine to join NATO. The first needs much more Western support, in particular more soldiers to fight the war. When you exclude negotiating, not being willing to support your demand of fighting with your own capabilities is cynical. And that also goes to show how the support so far worked. Making grand statements, but when it came to actually giving what was necessary to Ukraine to defend itself, the West always fell short. If Ukraine had gotten proper equipment right away, the war could be over with a military win of Ukraine. Now to not only hold the line, but push back Russia, Ukraine needs far far more support, that the West is clearly not willing to give.

I want a strong Ukraine with fully territorial integrity. Maybe this can be negotiated as the costs of the war for Russia keep increasing. But this needs to offer Russia an out. Denying that out means the only two options left are a military win or military defeat of Russia. Either will be incredibly costly for Ukraine.

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

Did you even read what i wrote?

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.

There is a fundamental difference between arming a country and permanently integrating it into one geopolitical side. If you are so eager to fight in a war Ukraine can use every fighter. But it is always easy to call for other people to go to war isn't it?

Which country would that be? Russia is not going for a direct confrontation with NATO as it would loose that for sure.

If they get Ukraine they would turn it into a compliant regime as a buffer zone. Using its war-economy is far more profitable in enforcing access to natural resource in Asia or Africa, rather than go to war with Poland or Finland.

Every military pact is a "defense pact". And no country with "superpower" or "regional power" ambition accepts another power right on its doorsteps.

I think the best historical example of the 20th century is the Cuban missile crisis. NATO-Nukes in Turkey, Warsaw-Pact-Nukes in Cuba. Both sides feeling threatened. The solution was to remove both missile threats.

And Finland now sharing a border with Russia certainly is not going to make them more fine with NATO in Ukraine. That is not how geopolitics work.

Question is, what options are there?

If the outcome is Ukrainian NATO membership, Russia has no motivation to accept a negotiated peace. This leaves only two options:

1. The West abandons Ukraine and Russia conquers all of it.

2. The West extremely ramps up its effort to support Ukraine, defeating Russia.

Now option 1 still ends up with the problem, that there is a direct NATO-Russia border. This flips around the threat and motivation to move it back. So now the NATO has a motivation to reconquer Ukraine, maybe in 10, maybe in 20 years.

Option 2 could end with the collapse of Russia. Then some 10.000 nuclear warheads are unaccounted for. This creates an incentive for NATO to try and put a stabilizing force into western Russia, while China would probably move in form the East. Imagine having the instability of the Middle East, but with 10.000 nuclear warheads...

A properly armed and neutral Ukraine with full territorial integrity including Crimea seems to be the best way to create stable security architecture.