comment: >
  
  I’m fully in support of Ukraine, however let’s not pretend that pre invasion Ukraine was some liberal utopia. 
  Corruption & ultra nationalism has been a major problem of theirs much more than any current member state.
context: It feels bizarre that we had a reclusive drunk for a president for ten years, now Pavel hasn't even been sworn in and he's already in major international news every single day. With Miloš Zeman leaving the office, some of the final remnants of our East-aligned past are finally fading out. I really hope that in some time, Czechia will become a true Western liberal democracy. >
  
  Imma be real, while his foreign policy positions are very positive and newsworthy, part of the reason is that he's very handsome. >
  
  I showed a picture of him to partner and all she said was, “Woof.” >
  
  Well yeah dogs tend to make that noise no? /s >
  
  We're all dogs in the presence of great beauty. >
  
  “Woof” to that >
  
  Otherwise Russia might try this again in 10, 20 or 30 years? >
  
  Exactly. >
  
  Ukraine joining NATO as part of a peace deal is the only option.  It would insure prolonged peace.  Without it, it’s just another delay in the inevitable Russian expansion. >
  
  And any deal where Russia accepts that Ukraine will join NATO is only possible when Russia loses. Which is why Ukraine needs western weapons. >
  
  Why would either Ukraine or NATO need Russian permission? We avoided courting nations on Russia's border to preserve the peace. Russia has demonstrated that doesn't work. Nothing stopping us now. >
  
  Permission no. Perhaps concession.
  In other words, there needs to be a situation where Russia doesn't view Ukraine joining NATO as provocation or escalation of the conflict. Which means the conflict needs to be resolved with a scenario that isn't "Russia won".
  But we are still very far from any resolution anyway. >
  
  I get your point, but I still disagree. Russia needs to be told that if Ukraine seeks NATO protection, then so long as it's accepted by NATO, that's what is happening. Russia can kick and scream, hold its breath. Whatever, but that's not their decision to make. Their concession is irrelevant, unless they're really willing to risk MAD over Ukraine and Crimea. >
  
  Well, either Russia needs to lose so badly that they have no other option than to concede Ukraine joining NATO. Or NATO needs to realise, that Russian warnings to NATO are just as threatening as China's final warnings.
  With the first one being the scenario that I think NATO prefers because it doesn't require NATO to grow any balls and doesn't risk a direct conflict with Russia. And both of them require the war in Ukraine to be somewhat resolved, which at the moment it's nowhere near to. >
  
  It surely feels nice to be finally proud when Czech politics or politicians are mentioned. 
  Okay, I guess PM Fiala's train journey to Kiyv was the first such occasion, but Petr Pavel is now taking it to a whole new level. >
  
  I think Vystrčil's trip to Taiwan was the first spark >
  
  Imho: Don't know about deserving, but joining would make sense given the whole purpose of the NATO was protection from the Soviet Union / Russia. When Ukraine will start rebuilding their society and economy things would be better without the fear of a return by their murderous neighbors. Plus it would give the world some peace of mind about all the military hardware left there (being NATO would go a long way preventing Russia from trying to obtain it). >
  
  It's exactly the opposite.
  NATO isn't a charity looking for getting involved in problems with countries that have nothing but problems to offer. That's what most people thought in the past: that adding countries like Ukraine would bring NATO Ukraine's problems but not advantages.
  Ukraine has more than shown that they are an asset to NATO. They have shown they are able to defend themselves on their own against a much stronger oppressor. Not only they resisted an invasion but they also retaken large parts of lost territory.
  They have shown ability to quickly learn and adapt both strategically and technologically to both soviet and nato equipment.
  Last but not least they are getting real war experience in an extremely tough situation that most NATO countries have never seen since ww2 (and for many of those we need to go even further back in time to see a real full scale war fought by the country itself) with maybe the exceptions of US in Korea and Vietnam. But that's 50 years ago with very different technologies.
  They are absolutely a great asset to NATO, if someone attacked a NATO country triggering article 5 I would definitely feel great that Ukrainians are fighting on my side rather than staying neutral or being on the opposite side. >
  
  Petr Pavel said in an interview that when this conflict ends the Ukrainian army will be the most experienced military force in the world, as they will be the only ones who engaged in something at least resembling a major modern armed conflict. Sound reasoning IMO. >
  
  That war seems more than "resembling" a major modern armed conflict.
  The only huge thing missing in this conflict is airforce, but there's only one airforce on the planet which actively trains complex war simulations involving bombers, fighters, anti aa aircradt, etc in combination with infantry and mechanized troops and that's Nato itself.
  E.g. Russia, albeit possessing good aircrafts, it never does such trainings, most you'll see in Syria or Ukraine are pilots flying in pairs. That's part of Russian military doctrine, as they always assumed since Soviet times that NATO forces would dominate the sky, thus they never developed actively such capabilities, but instead focused on anti aircraft and mechanized forces. >
  
  As much as they lie, they know their aircrafts don't match last gen NATO tech and it is harder to fake air superiority. We've seen their doctrine for tanks and infantry doesn't translate well on the ground but can at least be brute forced to work. >
  
  I don't think tech is the issue. Russia has good airplanes.
  But it takes more than having few good aircrafts to actually control the skies which was my point. >
  
  They have mid planes. They're a gen behind easily on many features. >
  
  If Nato is a defensive alliance Ukraine has most definitely shown that they can defend themselves.
  They're an asset rather than a liability to the union. That's a fact. >
  
  Their defensive abilities aren’t needed. NATO can destroy Russia in conventional warfare many times over. Their location and history with Russia make them a liability. >
  
  Czechs, I love you. I fucking love you. >
  
  Stay United my friends >
  
  As I understand it, Pavel was one of (the?) leaders of NATO. Meaning his recommendation should go a long way. And FWIW, I agree. >
  
  Can we trade turkey for Ukraine? >
  
  Josef Prusa recently uploaded a 3D bust of this guy to Printables. Comes in casual and business attire >
  
  Either return nuclear weapons to Ukraine (because Budapest memorandum obviously not workin)
  Either take to the NATO >
  
  Ukraine is unofficially already in NATO >
  
  Oh good, they can swap out with Turkey. >
  
  Ukraine should have been in NATO for many years. If it was in NATO therw would be no war now. >
  
  That’s not how this works, you have to meet the requirements and they didn’t before hand. >
  
  Yep. They were working on them before 2014 but then russia invaded. If they hadnt, i can very well see them in NATO/EU today >
  
  It’s incredibly unfair to Ukraine since the 2014 Maidan revolution was a massive turning point. I think your right and Ukraine has come a long way in such a short time. Ofc there are still questions to answer regarding the Donbas and what to do about Russians in Crimea but I hope Ukraine can win in the next year or so. >
  
  As much as I'd like for Ukraine to be part of NATO, they have specific rules about becoming a member, and being part of a current conflict/territory dispute makes them in ineligible. 
  Side note: Petr Pavel is a fucking cool name. >
  
  It doesn't mean there shouldn't be any conditions. But NATO should absolutely strive to have Ukraine join. Post-war Ukraine will be a great long term asset. >
  
  Agreed. But after ending the war, this should be the easy part. >
  
  I think the West can't wait to do that. >
  
  Don't think this will happen. NATO requires stable territorial borders, which is obviously something Ukraine doesn't have. I'm not saying they SHOULDNT be in NATO - I think the WORLD should be united against aggressor states like Russia (it's 2023 ffs) - I just don't think this will happen. Hopefully tho, NATO will still support Ukraine