It is said that conflicts can be avoided by dialogue and dissuasion. I am deeply regretful of the severe and worsening conflict in Europe. I can't help to wonder what steps should have been taken to avoid actual military incursion at all.

Perhaps we can apply those theories to other regions of the world that are currently at risk of escalation.

What could have been done to avoid and dissuade the escalation?

  • 19
    How is this not an invitation to debates and opinion-sharing, with no objectively "correct" answer? One could equally accuse the hubris of US neocons pushing US advantage at Russian expense in late 90s/early 2000s as one could blame Russia's inability to develop as a normal, democratic and prosperous country, without graft and imperialist ambitions. Or European pusillanimity at ignoring Russia aggression. By the time it came to 2022, the decision to invade was Putin's alone's but the way there was paved with mistakes all around and votes on answers here will just reflect voters' prejudices. Jun 10, 2023 at 19:20
  • 2
    It's impossible to know objectively what would have happened differently had different choices been made, so this question is subject to a lot of opinion and speculation. The question would be more objectively answerable if it asked something like "what have political scientists identified as the strategic mistakes that led to the war?" Now, whether the political scientists are right is a matter of opinion of course, but we can at least get an objectively correct answer identifying what political scientists have said.
    – T Hummus
    Jun 10, 2023 at 19:35
  • Voting to close - The question is too broad and needs more focus so that it can be answered with some semblance of facts, and not opinions.
    – sfxedit
    Jun 11, 2023 at 4:19
  • 1
    Can you narrow down the time frame for answers? I noticed @alamar suggested mistakes in USSR policy before 1991, which is over 30 years ago. How far back is your period of interest? Also, agree that this opens too much of an opinion-based discussion. Perhaps you could rephrase it to ask for identification of key strategic decisions which were made, which led to the conflagaration in 2022.
    – einpoklum
    Jun 11, 2023 at 16:17
  • 1
    On an unrelated note: Your phrasing of the title is biased. Russia intervened in an ongoing armed conflict within Ukraine. Yes, its intervension included an invasion of otherwise-uncontested Ukrainian territory, but it has also been an intervension in aid of the irredentist breakaway republics, engaged in a (civil) war.
    – einpoklum
    Jun 11, 2023 at 16:21

10 Answers 10


By accepting Ukraine to NATO, the current conflict could have been avoided.

Out of the former Soviet Republics, all the countries that later became NATO members (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) have not been invaded by Russia since the Soviet Union collapse. Conversely, all the countries that have been invaded by Russia since that time have not been NATO members (Moldova in the 1990s, Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014 and 2022).


Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday that if his country had been admitted into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance earlier, then Russia would not have invaded the country.

“If we were a NATO member, a war wouldn't have started. I'd like to receive security guarantees for my country, for my people,” Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on “GPS [...].”

CNN's Chandelis Duster "Zelensky: ‘If we were a NATO member, a war wouldn't have started’", CNN, March 20, 2022

  • 3
    "Conversely, all the countries that have been invaded by Russia since that time have not been NATO members" - this is the same thing that was said in the previous sentence. It would be much more compelling if all non-NATO members had been invaded by Russia Jun 12, 2023 at 13:44

An avenue to avoid further escalation would have been better deterrence from the US and Europe before the invasion, making the cost of the invasion clearly prohibitive.

This covers not only military help to Ukraine, but the messaging as well: US and Europe stated what they would NOT do (heavy equipment delivery and direct military intervention). This would have reduced the risk and uncertainty of an invasion for the russian leadership, as argued by the Wall Street Journal. On the contrary, "strategic ambiguity" has been a staple of the US position on a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

As answered by Thomas Koelle, a better estimation of the russian military strength would have resulted in stronger deterrence as well.

On the other hand, some argue that deterrence succeeded somewhat in avoiding a larger European conflict (War on the Rocks). It is, of course, impossible to know for certain.

It is unlikely that more concessions would have helped, as they didn't help Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Similarly, Russia does not fear a NATO invasion (otherwise their troops would be at the Finnish border, not in Ukraine).

  • 5
    Doesn't this analysis simply presuppose that Russia would allow itself to be "deterred" and for NATO to roll up at its doorstep? More "deterrence" may simply have caused war sooner, as soon as it was threatened.
    – Steve
    Jun 10, 2023 at 14:56
  • 2
    Russian officials made many threats against NATO regarding arms delivery since their invasion, but have always backed down. There's no reason to think they would have attacked if there was a risk of a NATO reaction
    – Ggouvine
    Jun 10, 2023 at 15:11
  • 1
    I don't see a single occasion on which they have in fact backed down - you seem to be confusing continuation of war, or moderate instead of total escalation, as being a backing-down. My point is that I don't believe there was any occasion in the past 20 years when the NATO umbrella could have been extended to Ukraine without Russia objecting, and enforcing their objection if it wasn't heeded. The most likely outcome of the attempt would have been a veto by an existing member, but a serious lasting escalation of temperature.
    – Steve
    Jun 10, 2023 at 16:37
  • 3
    The War on the Rocks article brings to thought the question of whether Russia is a "desperate Japan" as painted, or a "grander goals" Germany (or a "confused Italy" or someone else). Which of course is both hard to answer, and overgeneralizes even those situations. And reminds that, outside perhaps the common suggestion that WWII was in part due to the weight of reparations set after WWI, there's fairly little agreement on the causes/"strategic mistakes" that led even to that war or other old ones.... If there are obvious mistakes to be drawn, you'd think they'd have been realized at the time. Jun 10, 2023 at 19:11
  • 1
    @Steve Most egregiously, the nuclear threats, and retaliation for arms delivery. NATO accession wouldn't have been necessary for deterrence. Communication or ambiguity on possible arms delivery would have gone a long way already.
    – Ggouvine
    Jun 10, 2023 at 22:35

I will not focus on what could have been done pre-Euromaidan.

After the war in 2014 especially Merkel did not want to escalate the conflict and wanted to stop the current war.

That resulted in Minsk II agreement that was a very hard negotiation where both parties gave more than they would. Nothing could have been negotiated further after that. After that I don't see how more negotiations could come much further.

The other answer to the question is of course that Russia would not have invaded if they had correctly estimated the amount of weapons especially USA was willing to commit to Ukraine.

  • 1
    If the Russians had estimated how many US weapons were really committed to Ukraine, why would they have not attacked Ukraine sooner, perhaps with a nuclear weapon to make the result more sudden and decisive (and shocking)? The logic of the MAD doctrine doesn't apply when one power is already fully at the gates of the other. When the US stationed nuclear weapons in Turkey in the 60s and the USSR responded by stationing in Cuba, all parties concede that the world came closest to a nuclear confrontation than at any other time during the Cold War.
    – Steve
    Jun 10, 2023 at 15:01
  • No. It was not Merkel decision. European countries have no decision power at this level, they are just puppets and execute the decisions taken in the USA.
    – FluidCode
    Jun 11, 2023 at 13:31
  • 1
    @Steve Because you don't just start global thermonuclear war for funsies. Are yoy really suggesting that if the US had a nuclear weapon stationed ready to launch at Russia - but not actually launching at Russia - then Russia should provoke them to launch it? Don't be absurd Jun 12, 2023 at 13:45
  • @user253751, well I don't have to speculate on that point, since exactly the same prospect arose in 1961-62, and it was disarmed by both sides withdrawing their nuclear weapons to a greater distance. My earlier remark did not suppose the US threatened a nuclear strike, just some kind of overwhelming force. The assumption seems to be that Russia would have backed down from such threats being brought to bear on its doorstep, rather than raising the ante even further.
    – Steve
    Jun 12, 2023 at 14:00
  • @Steve Did the USA launch nukes at Cuba, like you're recommending Russia should do? No. It pointed nukes at Cuba "just in case"... it did not have any reason to launch them. Jun 12, 2023 at 15:36

Frame challenge the basic premise of the question start from an

It is said that (etc.)

with no source and no connection to the real situation on the ground. It seems just a made up rumour to justify the answers that quickly followed and make a case that does not exist.

Although now the Americans deny that Bush promised Gorbachev not to enlarge NATO the decision to accept Eastern Europe countries in the early '90s depended on the delicate balance of a cold war that was ending. But that is not the only issue. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was caught in a power struggle that caused economic crises, rigged elections, revolutions and eventually civil war (although current propaganda paints it as a pro-russia unrest).

The result is that Ukraine was not fit to join the NATO as internal conflicts were too strong. And in any case joining the NATO would not have solved the situation.

Nobody really knows how stable the Russian government was before the war, but the fact that they quickly exploited the war to marshal harsh laws against internal dissent, shows their weakness and their need to stabilise their position. Another factor that helped to stabilise their position is the high number of young people who were forced to flee abroad to avoid conscription. Many of those who could have provided manpower to revolts or revolution are now abroad or on the front line. This war has been very convenient for the oligarchs in Moscow.

So the truth is that it is not true that:

conflicts can be avoided by dialogue or dissuasion.

The question is based on a false premise.

  • 1
    This post looks like a comment to criticize another answer. Its last paragraph also criticizes the question, too. It does not, however, seem to stand as an answer on its own. Jun 11, 2023 at 12:09
  • 2
    @BeBraveBeLikeUkraine The answer of the type: There is no answer to a question based on false premises is still a valid answer.
    – FluidCode
    Jun 11, 2023 at 12:11
  • 2
    @BeBraveBeLikeUkraine No it is not criticising NATO. It is just explaining why accepting Ukraine into NATO was infeasible and useless. Furthermore it is not just about NATO. It also explains that internal disorder made external help impossible.
    – FluidCode
    Jun 11, 2023 at 12:20
  • 1
    @BeBraveBeLikeUkraine BTW by internal disorder I also mean foreign meddling by strong powers that cannot be easily dissuaded. The value of the mines in the contested regions was too high.
    – FluidCode
    Jun 11, 2023 at 12:25
  • 1
    This answer seems to be based on the false premise that a supposed promise 30 years ago has any impact on Ukraine joining NATO while ignoring the very public promise from Russia to respect the independence of Ukraine. It is also making false claims about the Ukraine being fit to join NATO. It just seems like a propaganda post trying to justify the invasion by making it about others actions instead of what Russia did.
    – Joe W
    Jun 11, 2023 at 15:26

It's true that conflicts can be avoided with dialog and discussion, but dialog and discussion are impossible if one side chooses not to engage in them. Russia used a period of Ukrainian political instability to annex Crimea (rebuffing attempts by the Obama administration to negotiate the matter, and suffering through the subsequent economic sanctions), and then tried to solidify that control over Crimea by invading the eastern half of Ukraine, securing land routes the territory (which the Trump administration, with its weak 'cult of personality' foreign policy, more or less shrugged off). Russia's strategy was to secure quick victories, dig itself in, and refuse to discuss the matter, giving itself access to economically strategic Crimean ports without actually having to confront Western powers (diplomatically or militarily) at all.

Not a bad strategy, ethical issues aside, except that Putin overestimated the stature of the Russian military, underestimated Ukrainian resolve, and mistakenly assumed that American political polarization would delay the US from offering and organizing military support (which, honestly, was true throughout the Trump administration and the early Biden administration).

The annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine were a vanity project, meant to bolster Putin's image, maintain Russian hegemony over Ukraine, and provide economic windfalls for wealthy Russian partisans. Nothing was going to stop it short of some intervention prior to the annexation, but prior to the annexation Ukraine was one of those 'far away places' that had little impact on Western minds. Oddly enough, I suspect US involvement (and consequently the involvement of its allies) would have been far slower except that Trumpist political actors focused so much attention on Ukraine — conspiracy theories around Burisma and Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton's supposed email server, and Biden's effort as vice president to get rid of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor — that Ukraine became an integral part of US political polarization.

  • This is not a question of ethics because there is nothing ethical or unethical in governments holding territories or failing to do so. Ukraine is not entitled to hold any lands and so is Russian Federation.
    – alamar
    Jun 11, 2023 at 15:37
  • 5
    @alamar: You have an odd understanding of ethics. Jun 11, 2023 at 16:02
  • 1
    "one side chooses not to engage in them" <- You mean, NATO; which also got Ukraine to quit the negotiations after the Feb 2022 invasion.
    – einpoklum
    Jun 11, 2023 at 16:14
  • 4
    @einsupportsModeratorStrike: that's eight years after Russia first invaded Ukrainian territory; eight years in which Russia refused any negotiation with anyone. Bt feel free to spin it anyway that makes you happy - LOL. Jun 11, 2023 at 17:58
  • @TedWrigley: Russia has done the opposite of refuse negotiations. It is constantly asking for negotiated security arrangements, and is being refused. Actually, after the 2014 events, there was a process of negotiations - which resulted in the Minsk I agreement. It was not respected (nor did the OSCE guarantee its observation). Then a second round resulted in Minsk II, which was also not respected, see the Wikipedia page....
    – einpoklum
    Jun 11, 2023 at 18:51

This question seems to ask for a possibly unlimited list of causes, each of which could have bigger or smaller impact or be more or less avoidable. I'm going to address several ones, in separate answers, the way as it is seen here in Ukraine.

Another answer focuses on those mistakes made after the Euromaidan (2013-2014). I strongly believe that the real strategic mistakes were made after the collapse of Moscow's "USSR" in the 1990's:

The Failure of Nuclear Disarmament of Russia

  • Allowing Russia to keep its enormous and ever-growing nuclear pile (instead of the decommission);
  • Passing back to Russia the nuclear weapons that Russia has lost control of as they were stored on the territory of the recently liberated states.
  • This includes, by the terms of Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine's nuclear arsenal, third largest in the world;
  • Failure to amend the UN Charter as it was no longer serving the purpose;

The modern political institutions have been established by the winners of the WW2.

These institutions served the single major goal: preventing the nuclear war.

The main instrument of the nuclear containment was the UNSC veto power. It served as a substitute: a nuclear power pursuing its interest uses its veto right instead of doing so by launching the nuclear strike.

The Moscow's USSR has lost the Cold War and subsequently collapsed. It could have been the time to establish the new rules based on Russia's nuclear disarmament. Including other types of WMD like chemical and biological weapons that Russians still use in today's war in Europe (cf. the Salisbury attack).

The disarmament has failed miserably. Instead of decommissioning the WMD, Russia effortlessly received all nukes intact. This included all nuclear weapons the Moscow's "USSR" stored in Europe (so-called "Warsaw Pact" states) and 14 states liberated from the "USSR" rule. This included the nuclear arsenal stored on Ukraine's territory and passed to Russia was third largest in the world. Including dozens of Tu-95 and Tu-22 strategic bombers it uses today against Ukraine.

There were discussions on possible policy, which involved thinkers like Zbigniew Brzeziński and Henry Kissinger, and the final outcome was that the West does not interfere with the sustained Russian nuclear threat.


  • 6
    The answer seems to be based on some misinterpretations of the events of 1991. USSR was not defeated, it just colapsed. There were no liberation armies in the countries which got their independance and even NATO army has not occupied parts of Russia. So how should the demand mentioned be achieved?
    – convert
    Jun 10, 2023 at 17:02
  • 8
    -1 this is ridiculous. One does not "disarm" a nuclear power that doesn't want to be disarmed. Not without bringing to mind Charlton Heston's "cold, dead hands". Jun 10, 2023 at 19:23
  • 1
    There was never in history any reasonable suggestion by any politicians of forbidding or banning Russia from keeping nuclear weapons. The soviet union just shrunk it's borders by 23%, it's colonies lost it 51% population and it switched to capitalism. Jun 11, 2023 at 8:25
  • 5
    Nobody "allowed" Russia to keep its nukes and there hasn't been a credible plan to disarm it by force, other than by invasion
    – Valorum
    Jun 11, 2023 at 9:57

There is any number of actions that Russia could have taken to avoid this war.

Or was the question trying to imply that Russia has no agency and can only react? Well, if that's the case, I would disagree. Russia has its goals which it pursues regardless of external circumstances. It may point to those circumstances as excuses, but had they been different, that would just result in different excuses.

In order to not have the shortage of its own white Russian-speaking population, which is the sole reason Russia started this war, Russia could have pursued its own population-growth strategies.

Russia had plenty of warning time to know that its population was shrinking to the point where it would no longer service its territory. The demographic problem was being reported back in 2000s.

People everywhere respond to incentives. People start families when they feel a sense of security about the future and when they can find social support for raising children.

Most of Russia's wealth is concentrated in Moscow. The money flows there through administration of selling of natural resources extracted from the rest of the country.

Had Russia maintained more educational and industrial institutions around the country, it could have subsidized a middle-class lifestyle which would be more conducive to starting families. Instead it elected to allow the Moscow consumerism to dictate its economic decisions.

That meant cutthroat pricing on consumer goods. Essentially everything was outsourced and virtually nothing was produced. So people through out the country lost a sense of hope or purpose.

Which resulted in continued history, and eventually culture, of low birth rates.

For a while, Russia's solution was to keep corrupting Ukrainian politicians to keep Ukraine poor and within its sphere of influence. In 2014, Ukrainians protested for months. Eventually, the Russian puppet fled and Ukrainians elected a pro-Ukrainian politician.

Desperate to keep its source of cheap labor and general population replacement, Russia panicked and staged a laughable attempt at an infiltration.

Ukrainians, shocked by the fact that the so-called "brotherly nation" would send its army against them, simply didn't respond and let Russia take Crimea. Although some more-nationalist units fought back in the East and took back Mariupol, a city Russia also initially captured back then.

Eventually Russia went back to its old strategy of trying to corrupt local politicians and keeping a low-key conflict going in the East in the hopes that NATO would not consider Ukrainian membership because Ukraine was in a territorial conflict.

This strategy had a partial success until Ukraine elected Zelensky, who could be best described as a pot-hole President. He was spending most of his efforts on fixing roads and slowly fighting corruption.

This didn't work for Russia. Russia was hoping to present itself as a better value proposition to Ukraine (as in "we are the ones fixing the roads while your own government is corrupt"). So they invaded.


As a Russian I can identify two issues which fuelled this conflict:

  • Khrushchev should have not transferred Crimea from RSFSR to Ukraine. Of course he had zero incentive to not do that - Communist Party of USSR commanded RSFSR directly so there was nobody to object that move, and it made sense due to absense of land bridge between Crimea and RSFSR.
  • Ukraine should have acknowledged Russian as a state language along with Ukrainian back in 90s, as Belarus did. Again, the zapadenets who ruled Ukraine politicaly had zero incentive to do so. But that decision made Russian speakers second class citizens and created a huge amount of ressentment in both Russian-speaking population of Ukraine and Russian population of Russian Federation, that allowed Donbass separatism to manifest and gain support from the Russian side of the border.

I have an issue with other answers such as admitting Ukraine into NATO overnight or somehow forcing RF to give up its nukes/UNSC seat, because thinga obviously could get ugly much quicker leading to a hot nuclear war in this case.

  • 2
    The zapadenets? Poking at Google and the Russian Wiktionary, it seems you mean западенец, Western Ukrainians.
    – prosfilaes
    Jun 10, 2023 at 22:11

Other answers focus on 21st century events leading up to the war. It's important to also consider the broader historical context. This map summarizes NATO expansion post-1990. Note it's slightly out-dated as Finland and Sweden are now ratified NATO members. The "Possible Expansion" arrows across their borders will soon become physical movements of military forces and construction of military bases:

enter image description here

The eastward movement of NATO forces during the last 25 years is often viewed as part of a historical pattern, at least from a Russian perspective. Allied European armies have marched on Russia repeatedly over the 19th and 20th centuries:

WW2 (planned):
enter image description here WW2 (actual): enter image description here

WW1 (in French but a high-quality map): enter image description here

Napoleonic invasion:
enter image description here

Without linking dozens of resources to prove the point... in every single case, the invasion was foreshadowed by:

  • (often intentionally) Tangled alliances between central European powers with nation-states bordering Russia.
  • Increased armaments production in western Europe.
  • Large-scale movements of troops and material eastward.

Also in every single case, millions of people died. The worst single Russian loss of life occurred when an allied army besieged Leningrad (St Petersburg). Finnish forces attacked from the north while German, Italian, Spanish, and Rumanian forces closed the siege lines from the south.

The various pro-Nato expansion arguments can be valid, from a Western perspective.

  • NATO may be intended as a defensive alliance.
  • Large-scale eastward movements of NATO armies and supplies can raise the cost of Russian military action.
  • Russia has attempted its own expansionist military actions, particularly during Czarist and Soviet eras.

While these points be valid, the fact remains that western armies have continuously moved towards Russian borders since the 1990s. No amount of diplomacy would make those military movements appear less threatening. Expecting zero military response from Russia is naive. Russian-occupied Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian territory arguably bought them enough time to survive WW2. What if Operation Barbarossa had begun from the Ukrainian border instead of the Polish demarcation line? This is not to say the Soviet invasion of Poland was morally justified, rather that Soviet authorities correctly realized they only had 2 options. Either (1) occupy part of Poland or (2) German forces would occupy and militarize all of Poland.

A final point is that Russia likely perceives Western military power as more threatening than ever before. Even during WW2, when Russia came closest to total annihilation, Germany was simultaneously fighting US, British, French forces. If a world war began today, Russia would be facing a far larger and more technologically advanced opponent.

  • 4
    3 downvotes so far. 0 comments showing where the post is incorrect. Very strange.
    – jrbe228
    Jun 11, 2023 at 21:03
  • 2
    It is not strange, it is entirely normal. Downvoters are under no obligation to explain their reasoning, and posters should not expect to have downvotes explained. Jun 11, 2023 at 21:24
  • 2
    Imagine if everyone took that approach - voting with no explanation. No one would ever learn where to improve a single post. Surely we can aspire to a better website experience.
    – jrbe228
    Jun 11, 2023 at 21:33
  • 3
    I didn't downvote but the whole premise of SE is that you downvote if you think the answer is wrong. Maybe it's just that. Jun 11, 2023 at 21:37
  • 4
    Not a down voter, but it may be because this post doesn't posit a way to avoid Russian invasions, beyond suggesting that it's the victims' fault for trying to save themselves.
    – bharring
    Jun 11, 2023 at 22:39

One of the mistakes was definitely what is called NATO expansion into the East and especially the idea of accepting Ukraine and Georgia as members. This article in The Week deals with this question. I will quote some parts which are of importance for the question.

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has sparked a heated debate about NATO that boiled over into the Senate last week. Some argue that NATO's eastward expansion precipitated the conflict by threatening Russian security. Others retort that because the alliance is purely defensive, the only "threat" it posed was to Russian President Vladimir Putin's irredentist aspirations.

The latter argument is flawed. Whether or not NATO threatened Russia, Putin believed it did, and this belief informed his decision to invade. Moreover, Putin's concerns were predictable, and the war might have been averted had Washington taken them seriously.

In the run-up to the invasion, the White House refused to discuss NATO expansion with Moscow. Senior official Derek Chollet defended the refusal. "NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO is not a threat to Russia," he said – implying the issue was none of Russia's business.

Even if NATO were a "defensive alliance," Ukraine's accession would have implicated Russian security. Before the invasion, Putin clarified why he thought Ukraine in NATO would pose an imminent threat: Since the West does not recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea, he reasoned, any conflict there might be seen as a Russian attack on Ukraine, triggering Article 5.

These were not the rantings of a "mad man." In 2008, Ambassador to Russia and current CIA Director William Burns reported that "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)." In two and a half years of talking to hardliners, liberals, and everyone in between, Burns was unable "to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests."

Back in Washington, intelligence analyst Fiona Hill advised President George W. Bush not to invite Ukraine into NATO. "So, you're telling me you're opposed to freedom and democracy," Vice President Dick Cheney snapped.

Unable to turn Ukraine into a NATO member, the U.S. turned it into a NATO outpost, delivering billions in military assistance, conducting joint military exercises, running clandestine paramilitary training programs, swapping intelligence, and even participating in cyber operations against the Russian government. The U.S. created the worst of all possible worlds for Ukraine – a provocative NATO proxy on Russia's doorstep, but without NATO's security umbrella.

Putin is culpable for his criminal attack on Ukraine. But the prospect of Ukraine in NATO heightened Moscow's threat perception and made a geopolitical explosion more likely. That the U.S. refused to discuss the issue with Russia is especially mystifying given that Western leaders privately told Kyiv "you're not going to be a NATO member." A more rational diplomatic strategy would have been to advertise that NATO won't bring Ukraine into the MAP unless and until Russia attacked.

  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Politics Meta, or in Politics Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – JJJ
    Jun 11, 2023 at 11:40
  • @JJJ I just asked for the reasons of the downvotes.
    – convert
    Jun 11, 2023 at 11:48
  • It became a whole discussion so I think it's better to move it to chat.
    – JJJ
    Jun 11, 2023 at 11:49

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .