No, this should be decided after the current war ends so we avoid a third world war

Arguments against Ukraine's NATO membership during the war often emphasize the risk of escalation and the potential for drawing NATO into a direct conflict with Russia. Proponents of this view suggest that Ukraine's membership could trigger an Article 5 contingency, which requires all NATO members to come to the defense of any member under attack. Given the ongoing conflict, bringing Ukraine in could immediately force NATO into a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia, something European Parliament Vice President Graff Lambsdorff noted as a scenario "the West is not…  Read more ready to defend Ukraine against".
A counterargument to this position is that freezing Ukraine's NATO aspirations might not lead to a lasting peace, and could even encourage further Russian aggression.
Here's why:
NATO membership is not the cause of the war: The argument that NATO enlargement is the root cause of the conflict has been empirically disproven. Ukraine was not on the verge of joining NATO when Russia invaded in 2022.
Russia's motivations extend beyond NATO: Russia's goals are not solely focused on Ukraine's neutrality. They also include the desire to weaken NATO and diminish US influence, as well as obtaining Western legitimacy for territorial gains and lifting sanctions.
Neutrality did not deter Russia in the past: In 2014, Ukraine was neutral and led by a pro-Russian president, yet Russia still annexed Crimea and initiated a covert invasion of Donbas.
Weakening Ukraine's security could embolden Russia: Excluding Ukraine from NATO and similar security arrangements could leave it vulnerable and potentially encourage Russia to pursue further expansionist goals.
NATO membership as a deterrent: Instead of provoking a wider conflict, Ukraine's inclusion in NATO could act as a deterrent, presenting Russia with a stronger and unified stance against aggression.
In summary, while concerns about immediate escalation are understandable, postponing Ukraine's NATO membership might not be the most effective strategy for achieving lasting peace. Some argue that by not providing Ukraine with strong security guarantees, the West could inadvertently embolden Russia and pave the way for future aggression. Instead, proponents of Ukraine's NATO aspirations believe that providing a clear path toward membership would strengthen Ukraine's security and deter further Russian expansionism.

Russia has been losing a bunch of its equipment in its war against Ukraine. Letting Ukraine join NATO now will either deter Russia and force them to leave or let us curb stomp whatever they have left of a military.

Russia has a history of breaking agreements they sign, include the Minsk I agreement and several times with Minsk II. Ukrainian sovereignty will not be secured and by extension the security of Europe and ourselves until Ukraine has join the EU and NATO. We can infer Russia intended to target the Baltic states like they did with Ukraine as Boris Yeltsin falsely claimed Estonia was running an apartheid regime against Russian speakers. Ukraine wants to prosper, they see the success of post soviet states like Poland and want that, however that means joining the EU which Russia doesn’t want…  Read more in spite of it not being up to them to decide for Ukraine. This discussion has been ongoing for 2 decades now, and evidence shows that Ukraine’s best card of safety is NATO because of article 5, they want to join nato and have been for several years, what’s the point in dragging this out?

This question seems irrelevant to me as there is no realistic possibility of Ukraine joining NATO while already in a war, with Russia no less.

If Russia gains Ukraine it has easy access to Transnistria and therefore Moldova, pushing Russian controlled territory up the the Carpathians.

Russia is aware their military cannot stand up to NATO. Russia could be given an ultimatum to retreat and restore pre-2014 borders within a certain period of time or face military intervention.

The real question is whether you see any strike on Ukraine as a new, separate attack or rather as the continuation of the attack from the 24th of February 2022.

In the latter case, which makes more sense, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty would only be triggered if a third party entered the war on the side of Russia. Continuing attacks from Russia wouldn't trigger collective defence of NATO since when Ukraine was attacked it wasn't part of NATO, yet.

Ukraine was an ally before the war began, and Russia was a borderline enemy of the US. Russia was also the aggressor at no provocation by Ukraine. I think the concern regarding a third world war has no substance to it and is unlikely to lead to a major conflict, given how poorly Russia has performed in Ukraine and how ill equipped and ill trained their military is. They are barely a threat to Ukraine, so they are certainly not a threat to the US or NATO. This was further demonstrated by how easily Wagner advanced on Moscow and how the Russian public cheered them on during their advance.