[TrumpCard]

This scenario is a nice one, but the problem is that NATO really doesn't at present have the resources or will to defend Ukraine. That is why Germany and others basically nixed their application years ago. Rightly or wrongly, most of NATO views it as a bridge too far. That will be even more true with Russia in an even better strategic position. Zelenskyy has realized this. It makes him mad, but he is not expecting NATO to step up and take Ukraine into it's numbers. I suspect he has been repeatedly told NO and the message has been received.

The unfortunate fact is that Ukraine cannot receive meaningful security guarantees unless the guarantors actually station forces on Ukrainian soil in significant numbers. If your own citizens are going to get killed, you mean it. If, when the war starts, you can just say "Sorry, too hard to do", these assurances are meaningless. Zelenskyy knows this too. It has already happened to his country. He also knows Russia would never sit still for US troops in Ukraine. Therefore, he wants the tools for Ukraine to defend itself to be guaranteed. How that can work is through bilateral treaties that allow the US (for one) to provide military hardware to Ukraine without restrictions. Will we do it? Will Ukraine trust us to give them what they need to make Russian aggression too costly to contemplate? I don't know.

However, with the threat of hostilities always present, Ukraine will always be a poor investment risk. Even if they win the next war, it just isn't worth the risk of having your factory destroyed or being unable to ship product. Shell pulled out of potentially lucrative properties for good reason. Some kind of a stable political and economic settlement has to be reached, and that can't happen with Russia in the Donbas and Ukraine cut off from the Sea of Azov. Russia not keeping much land is a prerequisite for viability because only that indicates Russian goodwill and mitigates the threat of continued aggression in the future. The seeds of the next war need to be removed. I didn't say it would be easy.

I'm sure you know far more than I do about the internal economic and security situation in Ukraine.  But you're describing only the status quo.  I don't see a principled reason that NATO and Ukraine could not use some imagination to come up with a new, and more stable, equilibrium.  NATO would need to develop the will to do more, but will is not fixed, as we're learning from Finland and Sweden. Edit: I also note that Ukraine is discussing the possibility of accession to the EU. I understand that's a different animal from NATO, but the ongoing discussions make me think there's an opportunity to expand the discussion under the right conditions.

[TrumpCard]

This scenario is a nice one, but the problem is that NATO really doesn't at present have the resources or will to defend Ukraine. That is why Germany and others basically nixed their application years ago. Rightly or wrongly, most of NATO views it as a bridge too far. That will be even more true with Russia in an even better strategic position. Zelenskyy has realized this. It makes him mad, but he is not expecting NATO to step up and take Ukraine into it's numbers. I suspect he has been repeatedly told NO and the message has been received.

The unfortunate fact is that Ukraine cannot receive meaningful security guarantees unless the guarantors actually station forces on Ukrainian soil in significant numbers. If your own citizens are going to get killed, you mean it. If, when the war starts, you can just say "Sorry, too hard to do", these assurances are meaningless. Zelenskyy knows this too. It has already happened to his country. He also knows Russia would never sit still for US troops in Ukraine. Therefore, he wants the tools for Ukraine to defend itself to be guaranteed. How that can work is through bilateral treaties that allow the US (for one) to provide military hardware to Ukraine without restrictions. Will we do it? Will Ukraine trust us to give them what they need to make Russian aggression too costly to contemplate? I don't know.

However, with the threat of hostilities always present, Ukraine will always be a poor investment risk. Even if they win the next war, it just isn't worth the risk of having your factory destroyed or being unable to ship product. Shell pulled out of potentially lucrative properties for good reason. Some kind of a stable political and economic settlement has to be reached, and that can't happen with Russia in the Donbas and Ukraine cut off from the Sea of Azov. Russia not keeping much land is a prerequisite for viability because only that indicates Russian goodwill and mitigates the threat of continued aggression in the future. The seeds of the next war need to be removed. I didn't say it would be easy.

I'm sure you know far more than I do about the internal economic and security situation in Ukraine.  But you're describing only the status quo.  I don't see a principled reason that NATO and Ukraine could not use some imagination to come up with a new, and more stable, equilibrium.  NATO would need to develop the will to do more, but will is not fixed, as we're learning from Finland and Sweden. Edit: I also note that Ukraine is discussing the possibility of accession to the EU. I understand that's a different animal from NATO, but the ongoing discussions make me think there's an opportunity to expand the discussion under the right conditions.