The Russkies have reportedly cut power for the cooling pumps at Chernobyl. Looks like they are turning the screws a bit more.

Sure the idea has been floated

But it won't work for one main reason: membership in the EU requires pretty stringent laws being implemented about rule of law, market fairness, respect of human rights, working democratic institutions, protection of environment, etc, etc. These rules have always been incompatible with the cleptocratic authoritarian Russian ruling elites of which Putin is the prime representative.

Plus this would also mean EU law overriding russian law. Never gonna happen. See Brexit story

We see how much pain EU has enforcing the EU rules with the eastern states where similar elites still exist, while there may be a chance to slowly get them in line, with Russia that would just be impossible.

In reality Russians may have wanted to join EU for the money, but not for what it represents.

Russia did apply to join NATO before.

There's various arguments going around whether that is really dangerous or not, such old spent nuclear fuel may not be in danger of overheating even without cooling.

But what do we know? And of course, it doesn't mean that nasty things can't be done with spent nuclear fuel if one is stupid enough...

Hatd to understand, Chernobyl was shutdown over 20 years ago so what is left to disconnect?

It didn't quite "apply", it wanted to be invited, according to diplomatic sources at least
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-in-his-rule

I have the feeling this was just Putin talk, don't think there was ever a formal process initiated. This is NATO's side of the story
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

Wish I could see a well articulated Russian view, rather than the blabbing of Putin's recent speech

The old fuel rods still need to be cooled. That needs power.

i think it was more of a troll than a serious expectation to join.

Looks like UA is backing down on NATO membership.

Absolutely ridiculous that it took a war to get to here given that there was no realistic prospect of UA ever joining.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-new...ato-membership

"President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine, a delicate issue that was one of Russia's stated reasons for invading its pro-Western neighbor.

In another apparent nod aimed at placating Moscow, Zelensky said he is open to "compromise" on the status of two breakaway pro-Russian territories that President Vladimir Putin recognized as independent just before unleashing the invasion on February 24."

So two of the 4 major items, I expected are now in play. Hopefully enough of a start to move from fighting to negotiated settlement.

The problem is, these and many other conditions have been already agreed and signed bilaterally by Russia and Ukraine in 1999 and 2014, some even with guarantees from Germany and France, and then almost immediately violated by Ukraine, with full silence from Europe.

So, the question is not about the signature, but about implementation and control.

Failure to stick to the Minsk agreements was a contributing factor, but not joining NATO is new (even if only symbolic in practice).

Of course

I personally doubt these are really the "issues" at play, these are just hiding the underlying problem. NATO membership (which was never on the cards) and the small eastern regions were never the real issue for Putin/Russia. Not even Crimea, which was pretty much annexed and done with, is an issue.

The main issue and want of Putin is to change regime in Ukraine. So it can control it as it does with Belarus. An unfriendly regime in Ukraine (which Zelenski is) is a major problem for him, for a million of reasons, political, economical, strategical, etc. All the russian "demands" are just means put forward to hide their opposition to the current Ukrainian government.

This conflict will end when either regime changes in Ukraine or in Russia. Anything in the middle remains possible but it would just be postponing one of these outcomes.

Because you clerarly stated



"It's clear to everyone that wars finish on the negotiation table, not on the battlefield, BUT the battlefield performance sets the cards on the table"


Which is not really true

Sounds like we're going to find out soonish

Not exactly.
Neutral (no block membership) and non-nuclear status was agreed and signed by all USSR members at separation from RF in 1999.
Ukraine violated both - NATO membership as a strategic objective added to constitution, and non-nuclear commitment abandoned early this year

Where did you read this? All I could see us that Zelensky floated the neutrality idea but refuses any territorial concessions.

Don't forget the bio weapons labs at the border to Russia.

Strange business

Putin still seems to be promoting his delusion that the Ukrainians and Russians are one people and so his forces are to be welcomed as the great liberator.

Meanwhile, his forces seem to be ignoring standard military doctrines and are doing fast advances past major Ukraine units so leaving them in the rear and able to attack the Russian supply lines.

Almost two weeks, and no Russian major victories announced and the ever persistent stories of Russian troops selling fuel in Belarus.

Lots of pictures around of destroyed or captured Russian heavy armour.

Probably sometime in the future, or never, before we know the truth of what really happened - it seems this will be a very long and ever more bloody war.

The US would do, probably have done, everything they can to prevent that.

Russia+EU would be strong enough, and independent enough on a resources level, to actually become independent. Compare that to now, with Russian fuels cut off someone else has to supply the EU/Europe, the world markets and the US have us by the nose. Likewise with very many other base materials and commodities.

And then there's the issue of nuclear weapons, after Brexit only France is a nuclear power, and they're probably too small to really count on a geostrategic level.
Not so Russia.
Russia did join the Partnership for Peace though, may be a founding member.

Putin held his speech before the Bundestag in 2001 in German, he didn't do that just because he liked the venue.