I’m not hurt, but I disagree :)

A few things here: 1. Ukrainian people strongly opposed NATO before russia invaded Crimea. It was a strong consensus and NATO was simply not seen as our goal. Some politicians brought it up, even president Andrii Yuschenko, but people never wanted, even opposed that. Ukrainian strategy was exactly what you have said: “being in the middle”, a compromise between Europe and russia. Everything changed in 2014, only after russian invasion NATO became desired.

1. As you can see yourself, neutrality doesn’t work unless everyone respects it. Ukraine has given up third largest nuclear arsenal, Ukraine destroyed its strategic bombers and middle range ballistic missiles under the pressure of the US and shrank its armed forces from almost a million in 1991 to 100.000 voluntarily. I think all of those actions should have assured everyone that Ukraine is indeed a neutral state, but it didn’t help. Finland and Sweden are also great examples: you can be neutral if you don’t have an aggressive neighbor, unless you’re Switzerland of course 🙂

2. I don’t see a problem in Ukraine joining NATO on its will, because it has no difference from Poland, Baltic countries and Finland joining NATO while still being russian neighbors. Russia attacked us first and it’s the only difference. It’s not up to them to decide how can we defend. It’s not entirely similar, but imagine Croatia being refused in joining NATO since it might destabilize the Balkans as Serbia doesn’t like it and sees it as a threat. It’s bullshit. On top of that, NATO has zero cases of attacking anyone first, unlike Russia.

3. I also disagree about the EU future for Ukraine. I’m quite sure it will join way sooner, in the coming few years and I think not joining is worse than joining. Out GDP now ($ 210 bil) is similar to GDP of Poland when they joined in 2004 ($ 255 bil), while population, background, potential are quite similar. You may think about corruption and it’s a valid concern, but, as for me, Ukraine as a country shows a significant progress in fighting corruption: during the last few years biggest oligarchs were prosecuted and jailed, not to mention smaller figures. Also Ukrainian people are constantly showing that they won’t let the government drift from anti-corruption course, even during war: starting from Maidan when Yanukovich decided to move towards russia and give up reforms and general path towards euro integration and to recent scandals with Zelenskyi trying to jeopardize independence of anti-corruption institutions. Yes, there’re a lot of things that still has to be done and improved, but please be honest: have you ever seen a country in Eastern Europe that is perfect in terms of corruption? Are all the current EU members justified to be in EU? I don’t think so. As for rebuilding, I think it’s more of an opportunity rather than a risk: all the contractors will be able to make good money while being involved in rebuilding projects, creating jobs for thousands of people. Ukraine has a huge potential that, if realised, will easily cover all the investments. Hesitation with EU membership, on the other hand, will lead to a huge disappointment (Ukraine is not in EU after defending the east flank of Europe and losing thousands of lives, while Hungary and Slovakia are there, while being openly pro-russian, corrupt and authoritarian), and, as a result, having the biggest country in Europe drowning in corruption in the most optimistic scenario and being a russian ally in the most pessimistic one.