In his latest podcast Mark Galeotti says it would be more cost-effective for Nato governments to give Ukraine membership than for them to keep on sending billions in aid every few months.
I think he's overestimating how good these governments are at strategic thinking and how willing they are to invest political capital into long-term solutions.
I think the drip-drip of slightly too little support for Ukraine will continue; because it's a slow process, and a problem for future governments.
The other thing that makes his idea of Nato for Ukraine unrealistic is he says, rightly, only a Ukraine that had given up any claim to Donbass and Zaporozhya would be allowed to join Nato.
I think actually partitioning Ukraine would be too politically painful, both for the Ukrainian and the Nato leadership.
So, again, we're more likely to get a de facto partition based on weak support for Ukraine, than any actual attempt to say the quiet part out loud.
(I mean in the foreseeable future. Maybe after 30 years of semi-frozen conflict we'll get some kind of Cyprus membership for Ukraine where the occupied territories are effectively written off).
Add comment