[GK3]

Indeed a good point. There is a lot of real uncertainty out there. Add Vietnam to the nations that are actively and vocally worried about the behavior of China. Uncertainty also opens the door wider to miscalculations, so the danger grows. Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is a US military nightmare, but we may sooner rather than later be confronted with that reality.

I have never heard any chatter about letting Georgia join NATO. Why would NATO countries want to take on that obligation for a tiny country with little strategic value that is not at all feasible to defend from Russian aggression?

While tiny countries don’t offer as much in return as they are given, NATO sees itself as a peace enabling force. The more countries are members the less likely there will be conflict. The problem NATO had pre RU invasion was not enough countries were living up to their commitments to finance their defense and NATO forces were stretched thin. I remember before Russia’s attack on Ukraine that there was great concern a NATO country could be invaded by Russia, most likely Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, and even uncertainty NATO would have the balls to act if this happened. Would Germany with Russian appeaser Merkel and weakened military have gotten involved when so reliant on Russian energy? UK? U.S.?

I don’t mean to be harsh about this, but Ukraine and Georgia only have themselves to blame for not getting into NATO already. They got too close to Russia with Putin-friendly governments for a while and when war started Ukraine had Russian equipment. Nobody wants to talk about these important details when complaining about the 2008 “promise” not being kept.

If Zelenskyy can’t understand the difference between now and 2008 I don’t know what to say. His country is now totally pro-democracy, has been attacked by Russia and is getting ongoing support from NATO countries to beat Russia back. It is in NATO member interest to get Ukraine in NATO now in a much bigger way than before, to say nothing of the value an experienced fighting force Ukraine will bring.  But there are qualification standards that must be met too.

Those wanting to be more deliberate have sound reasoning. Putin and Russian oligarchs don’t want their lives to end in nuclear war, so do not believe fear of war with Russia -particularly after being ground down by Ukraine- is a valid concern. But Ukraine having acceptable political system and being ready to integrate with NATO military tactics is important. Tough to learn new tricks train with others when fighting a war, and nobody can predict when it will end, so no point of having a join timeline.

Zelenskyy will eventually accept what Ukraine is getting and if he truly wants in he will determine then address the concerns some members have about Ukraine NATO accession ASAP. The G7 NATO members are making some big spending commitments to help Ukraine fight in the interim, so even if Ukraine can’t get those things done ASAP, it’s still being given support to remain viable until it does.

My big question is how is all going to end?
Would Putin be willing to call off the hounds short of conquering Ukraine?  
Ukraine's losses have been such I am not sure they would agree to anything short of return to pre 2014 borders.  
Can Russian losses, both human and financial, cause Putin to be ousted and someone new to come in who is willing to end the war?
How long will the West continue to provide money and munitions?
The West seems better able to replace the equipment losses suffered by Ukraine that Russia is of replacing its equipment losses.
I just don't see this mess ending anytime soon.

[GK3]

Indeed a good point. There is a lot of real uncertainty out there. Add Vietnam to the nations that are actively and vocally worried about the behavior of China. Uncertainty also opens the door wider to miscalculations, so the danger grows. Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is a US military nightmare, but we may sooner rather than later be confronted with that reality.

I have never heard any chatter about letting Georgia join NATO. Why would NATO countries want to take on that obligation for a tiny country with little strategic value that is not at all feasible to defend from Russian aggression?

While tiny countries don’t offer as much in return as they are given, NATO sees itself as a peace enabling force. The more countries are members the less likely there will be conflict. The problem NATO had pre RU invasion was not enough countries were living up to their commitments to finance their defense and NATO forces were stretched thin. I remember before Russia’s attack on Ukraine that there was great concern a NATO country could be invaded by Russia, most likely Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, and even uncertainty NATO would have the balls to act if this happened. Would Germany with Russian appeaser Merkel and weakened military have gotten involved when so reliant on Russian energy? UK? U.S.?

I don’t mean to be harsh about this, but Ukraine and Georgia only have themselves to blame for not getting into NATO already. They got too close to Russia with Putin-friendly governments for a while and when war started Ukraine had Russian equipment. Nobody wants to talk about these important details when complaining about the 2008 “promise” not being kept.

If Zelenskyy can’t understand the difference between now and 2008 I don’t know what to say. His country is now totally pro-democracy, has been attacked by Russia and is getting ongoing support from NATO countries to beat Russia back. It is in NATO member interest to get Ukraine in NATO now in a much bigger way than before, to say nothing of the value an experienced fighting force Ukraine will bring.  But there are qualification standards that must be met too.

Those wanting to be more deliberate have sound reasoning. Putin and Russian oligarchs don’t want their lives to end in nuclear war, so do not believe fear of war with Russia -particularly after being ground down by Ukraine- is a valid concern. But Ukraine having acceptable political system and being ready to integrate with NATO military tactics is important. Tough to learn new tricks train with others when fighting a war, and nobody can predict when it will end, so no point of having a join timeline.

Zelenskyy will eventually accept what Ukraine is getting and if he truly wants in he will determine then address the concerns some members have about Ukraine NATO accession ASAP. The G7 NATO members are making some big spending commitments to help Ukraine fight in the interim, so even if Ukraine can’t get those things done ASAP, it’s still being given support to remain viable until it does.

My big question is how is all going to end?
Would Putin be willing to call off the hounds short of conquering Ukraine?  
Ukraine's losses have been such I am not sure they would agree to anything short of return to pre 2014 borders.  
Can Russian losses, both human and financial, cause Putin to be ousted and someone new to come in who is willing to end the war?
How long will the West continue to provide money and munitions?
The West seems better able to replace the equipment losses suffered by Ukraine that Russia is of replacing its equipment losses.
I just don't see this mess ending anytime soon.