5d ago

Ukraine on ‘irreversible path’ to NATO membership, Starmer tells Zelenskyy

www.theguardian.com Ukraine on ‘irreversible path’ to Nato membership, Starmer tells Zelenskyy

Prime minister uses call with Ukraine president to restate UK support in face of Trump interventions

Summary

UK Labour leader Keir Starmer reaffirmed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukraine is on an "irreversible path" to NATO membership.

This stance contrasts with recent U.S. signals, where Donald Trump suggested potential concessions to Russia, including accepting Ukraine's non-NATO status.

European leaders, including Emmanuel Macron, have criticized such concessions, insisting on Ukraine's right to negotiate its future.

The UK also imposed new sanctions on Russian officials and entities.

News & Events Surrounding Russia's Invasion of Ukraine @lemmit.online

Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online

BOT

4d ago

Ukraine on ‘irreversible path’ to Nato membership, Starmer tells Zelenskyy in Munich

www.theguardian.com /world/2025/feb/14/ukraine-on-irreversible-path-to-nato-membership-starmer-tells-zelenskyy

2 0

World News @lemmit.online

Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online

BOT

5d ago

Ukraine on ‘irreversible path’ to Nato membership, Starmer tells Zelenskyy

www.theguardian.com /world/2025/feb/14/ukraine-on-irreversible-path-to-nato-membership-starmer-tells-zelenskyy

1 0

News & Events Surrounding Russia's Invasion of Ukraine @lemmit.online

Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online

BOT

5d ago

Ukraine on ‘irreversible path’ to Nato membership, Starmer tells Zelenskyy

www.theguardian.com /world/2025/feb/14/ukraine-on-irreversible-path-to-nato-membership-starmer-tells-zelenskyy

1 0

29 comments

Ukraine in, USA out, and let's start bunkering up.
- From what Zelensky said, it's also Germany and Hungary that aren't on board.
  
  Hungary is Orban, right? European Trump? That makes sense. Why isn't Germany onboard though?
- You want the US, the world's only super power, out of the defense treaty that protects these other countries from the very aggressive Russia? You think that's a good idea? Ok buddy...
  
  Yes.

It either ends with a NATO allied Ukraine or a nuclear armed Ukraine, the only language dictators like Putin understand is violence or the threat of violence.

The real question is whether they'll still want in after the US is done with whatever it is they're doing to it.
- the real question is if the US will still be a NATO member by the end of this year
  
  Would the US leave the NATO military bases in Europe? Because that would be huge and would reduce a lot the US military presence in Europe. And, with that, influence in Europe…
- It would still be better than no defensive pact.
  
  Yeah, whatever Trump decides to do with the US membership, there's nothing he can do about everyone else. He can pick ~~his~~ the US' toys and leave, NATO will be weaker, but Europe will still want an alliance to defend themselves, even if Trump tries to pressure individual members.
  People claiming it's dead are delusional.

Couldn’t EU and other countries form their own defense pact with whoever they want? What makes them specifically need to be in nato?
- NATO has a lot of infrastructure already including designated response forces, a command structure etc. In addition to that, a European alliance exists(CSDP), though unsurprisingly, it's not the same as Europe's NATO efforts, as it would have been basically duplicated effort since most EU members are also part of NATO.
  An example of coordinated European defence is the fact that the Netherland's armed forces are now under command of the German military. So efforts are underway.
  
  CSDP is specifically a EU thing and result of the French drive for a EU army... which it arguably is: Political and strategic command, check, even if it has to outsource much military matters to the national armies. It's been boosted quite a bit since the first Trump term and by now even the most atlanticist Atlanticist isn't working against it any more. Also, the US isn't working against it any more, they were worried about a EU army sidelining the likes of Turkey. This gets often overlooked, especially by Trumpists, how much the US invested into not having to compete in security matters with a big European blob.
  That's different from a potential European defence treaty, though: Not all of Europe is in the EU and there's definitely a couple of NATO allies we'd like to keep, and others to add.
  An example of coordinated European defence is the fact that the Netherland’s armed forces are now under command of the German military.
  That's actually a separate thing, that's bilateral cooperation, not EU level. Long story short the Dutch land forces were so tiny it just didn't make sense to have an independent strategic command. Also Dutch is a dialect anyway so it doesn't make sense for them to have an army. They'll probably definitely want to keep their fleet, even when there's a EU army.
- Probably, but it would be a lot of bickering first.

The geopolitical theater unfolds like a poorly scripted drama where everyone's reading from different pages. Starmer's "irreversible path" rhetoric reeks of reheated platitudes served cold—comfort food for a conflict that's entering its fourth year of stalemate. Meanwhile, Trump casually redraws borders over brunch with Putin, reducing sovereignty to a bargaining chip. The transatlantic alliance isn't crumbling; it's reverting to its natural state of transactional pragmatism.
Boris Johnson's GB News cameo as the voice of reason? A surreal twist even Kafka would reject. His "headless chicken-ism" quip about Europe perfectly encapsulates the West's strategic dissonance—flapping wings masking the absence of flight. Macron's "no capitulation" stance echoes like a man shouting into a hurricane of realpolitik.
The UK's latest sanctions package targets mid-tier bureaucrats and Rosatom subsidiaries—symbolic gestures in a game of thermonuclear chess. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy circles the Munich Security Conference circuit, the geopolitical equivalent of a street performer collecting coins from indifferent passersby.

This is going to piss off Russia something awful and escalate tensions big time.
- Ukraine existing pisses off Russia. Them defending their country "escalates tensions"...
  
  I don't disagree with you. People assumed I was against this but I was highlighting the fact that Russia is going to be more aggressive as Ukraine gets closer to being part of NATO.
- Did Russia consider how much it would escalate tension in Europe when he invaded Ukraine?
  I don't really understand how people forget that Russia has the primary ability and responsibility of maintaining good relations with their neighbors.
- Russia should have thought of that before they invaded in 2014 and invaded later again in 2022. Actions have consequences and Russia's actions have been disastrous to Russians.
- Time for another final warning

29 comments