Yes carried the vote comfortably, yet the best-respected argument of the whole debate came from the No side, and it was a plea for a buffer rather than a membership card. Ukraine should decide its own fate, that voter wrote, but better it be “a UN protectorate and be the buffer between Russia & NATO”.
The most-respected Yes cases were short and almost casual. One was conditional: “Yes but only once the conflict is over.” The other was pure defiance: “Russia needs to go back in its box”. Longer Yes arguments made a deterrence case, that Ukraine's membership is “the only credible deterrent against future Russian aggression”, and one voter wondered why the US would rule membership out even "for now".
The No side leaned on escalation. Article 5 featured in one voter's argument that the question amounted to asking whether to declare war on Russia, and another warned of “a fast track towards a WW3 conflict.” Many No voters were not hostile in principle: they wrote “not right now” and allowed that membership could be reconsidered once the war ends. Corruption and Russian red lines came up too.
That overlap is the finding. Several Yes voters also wanted membership only after the fighting stops, so the two camps sometimes differed more on the verdict than on the timetable. Both pointed at the same obstacle, the war itself.
So the debate kept returning to one condition: when the guns stop, the door might open.
78 Opinions
Ukraine should decide what happens to Ukraine. Joining NATO I think would be highly provocative & I don't think Russia would react well. Better Ukraine be a UN protectorate and be the buffer between Russia & NATO
That would be a fast track towards a WW3 conflict.
Ukraine is without doubt a highly corrupt & undemocratic State with its leaders funded by you & I thanks to laughably weak UK PMs & HMG’s money laundering. We should stay well clear. Let’s bring Russia into NATO…….
If Ukraine joins NATO, Russia will simply attack again and then Europe will be in an overt war with Russia. What is the purpose of this? Are we after their oil and gas? Or is it just virtue signaling about Ukraine. If so it is yet another example of exceedingly expensive, futile and counter-productive virtue signaling.
The current situation makes Ukrainian membership impossible plus as a young man I remember the USSR/Russian Federation saying that if any of it's former satilite states joining NATO it would be seen as open and offensive aggression towards that and a prelude to war.
No, it would mean all NATO members join the war. The most NATO members are not even close to be in form and shape to enter conflict with Russia. For political reasons many members would refuse.
Certainly not. Ukraine is at present a corrupt dictatorship involved in a conflict that was deliberately provoked. NATO, the EU & the Ukrainian regime should be charged with war crimes, crimes against the people of Ukraine & Russia. The unnecessary slaughter of so many young men & the innocent civilians too, is depraved & sickening.
Ukraine joining NATO is just inviting more war.
This is such a nuanced subject. There is yes with an if, or no with a but. It's not as simple as should they join. When and under what circumstances? Joining now would require an immediate response to Russia beyond sanctions, but does that mean they should never join, of course not. Now is not the time, we cannot set the precedent of allowing countries who are at war join because they need back up in their conflict.
We seem to have reduced our armed forces to skeletal levels so why would we start antagonising an already difficult position by supporting this? As Russia regards NATO as its enemy nothing positive could come out of this.