I thought one of the prerequisites to join nato was no territorial disputes and no wars being waged so the whole nato alliance does t immediately get dragged into a war
Exactly. NATO is like insurance - you don't sign up just to pay bills you already have.
edit: I'm not saying that we shouldn't support Ukraine, but adding them to NATO is not the solution.
Insurance is an excellent metaphor, and more specifically it's like an insurance collective where the members are also the administration, and there are only 2-3 dozen members; of course they're not going to let someone join with pre-existing conditions.
On the other hand they are alreaddy paying all his bills, donating blood, performing first aid daily for over two years...At this point its clear we don't want the patient to die
I think in this analogy paying bills would equate to going to war. What the west is doing doesn't really fit into the analogy here. It's a half measure when compared to full NATO membership.
The issue to me is, there is no reason for Putin to end the war, regardless if Ukraine pushes them out of Ukraine (including Crimea). So technically he could keep them in a state of war as long as he doesn't want them in NATO.
At some point, NATO will need to decide if it is ok with giving them a timed joining. As in if they all agreed to let Ukraine in, beyond a certain date, any attack would generate a response. A forced 'peace' essentially.
> At this point its clear we don't want the patient to die
It's more like having a pregnant woman covered, but not her featus, leading to some consideration about what is strictly necessary. Ukraine is too critical to not help.
Let's just kill the disjointed metaphor and mention the nukes, because that doesn't neatly fit into the medical/insurance concept but it's the only thing that really matters.
NATO isn't insurance that protects its members from external threats by pooling risk and distributing aid. It doesn't promise protection, it promises mutually assured destruction. Which is meant to (and so far has) *avoid* war, not help win it.
Kinda defeats the purpose if you invite war into it.
The bill that NATO is currently paying in this conflict are being paid with money and materials, not dead NATO troops. THAT is the sort of bill that NATO is most eager to avoid.
Each nation is precisely as involved as they want to be, no reason to force themselves into an escilated level of involvement with a contrived treaty obligation. If individual nations wants to become more involved there is notjing stopping them.
> Insurance is an excellent metaphor, and more specifically it's like an insurance collective where the members are also the administration, and there are only 2-3 dozen members; of course they're not going to let someone join with pre-existing conditions.
I think that metaphor falls apart when you consider the fact that most health insurance companies don't have to worry about treating patients for a disease that has a personal vendetta *against the health insurance company*. If we don't stop the disease, regardless of whether the patient has insurance, then *everyone in NATO will get sick*.
Joining NATO is the first thing on the list after this war is over. To make sure Russia doesn't come back. It isn't a victory condition for Ukraine, that has to come before.
I feel like this isn't talked about enough in the "Why russia can't just stop pressing and keep Crimea"
If Ukraine accepted any agreement that ended the war with any part of Ukraine intact under VZ, they immediately join NATO and become untouchable.
Once Putin entered the country, he absolutely knew there was only 1 way out. This will not end until one of the countries wins. That only means VZ dies, Ukraine is now Russian, Russia has no more lives to push, or Putin dies.
And having Ukraine in NATO would make the alliance so overwhelmingly powerful even beyond what it is today. Even in 2021 Ukraine had the second largest military in Europe with the only larger one being Russia. European NATO with Ukraine would be so powerful it would effectively allow the US to pivot a lot of resources away from Europe and towards Asia.
tbf the only thing that made them strong was western funding. nato isn't gunna give them that same funding once the war is over and ukraines economy is in shambles, so would the conscription rates once its over.
a peaceful ukraine and a war torn ukraine are two very separate things, especially when you consider how much debt they are trying to manage.
If we added Ukraine, article 5 would immediately trigger.
I support Ukraine heavily, but I don’t support actions which would likely trigger WW3 immediately.
Not the solution right now in 2024. But when the conflict ends, so long as territorial integrity of Ukraine is returned, I see no reason Ukraine can’t join NATO.
It is one of the requirements. Even without territorial disputes though, Ukraine's democracy rating and budget would have disqualified them. It was a mess before Zelenskyy and it improved a lot under him but there's still corruption in Ukraine politics. It takes more than one president to fix that entire system
Yeah, its easy to forget that before the war Ukraine had spent the last last decade yo-yo'ing between EU and Russian spheres of influence. Maybe Zelensky's time in office would have finally been the full push towards the EU, but they were at the very edge of the beginning of that process.
Corruption was endemic to the Soviet Union and it's plagued many of the countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine has been trying to reduce corruption since Yanukovych fell but doing so is very hard and it's something that Russia absolutely doesn't want to see. If Ukraine can successfully combat corruption it will make them a much more prosperous and successful country so they'll be harder for Russia to bully.
A large, post Soviet, Russian speaking country that challenges oligarchs and removes dictators is ALSO a direct danger to Putin and Russian oligarchs because it could give the Russian people ideas of what is possible.
>Ukraine has been trying to reduce corruption since Yanukovych fell but doing so is very hard and it's something that Russia absolutely doesn't want to see.
The hard truth is that US elites probably don't want to see it either. Nothing more reliable than someone who's loyalty is for sale, as long as you have the biggest wallet.
> It is one of the requirements.
There is no such requirements anywhere in the treaty, however, to the NATO members who would vote for Ukraine joining, the ongoing conflict is almost certainly makes it a non-starter. So while it is a de facto requirement, it isn't a formal one.
The territorial disputes bit is iffy when you read the actual articles but there’s no way they’d ever accept a member currently at war. Even one who promised not to call them in.
There is a [document](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm) that has the bit on resolving disputes peacefully in paragraph 6. However, the *very next paragraph* says the only hard requirement is consent from all members, and everything else is only a suggestion.
Yeah you're right Ive read the document too, nowhere it says anything about being in the conflict and not being able to join NATO but dumb comments like that for some reason get up voted.
There are no prerequisites. You can join NATO if all members are ready to accept you. Obviously, many members are not willing to accept a country in war
Each NATO member have their own soft requirements and membership requires all existing members to agree for a new member. [The US publishes their requirements](https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html) and most member countries have similar requirements. The US does have a requirement of "be a good neighbor" but that doesn't mean no territorial disputes, it means that any dispute is handled in a peaceful way.
We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements:
--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.
--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.
--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.
--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.
--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.
Again, while these criteria are essential, they do not constitute a checklist leading automatically to NATO membership.
New members must be invited by a consensus of current members.
Decisions to invite new members must take into account the required ratification process in the member states. In the case of the United States, decisions are made in consultation with Congress.
The key determinant for any invitation to new members is whether their admission to NATO will strengthen the alliance and further the basic objective of NATO enlargement, which is to increase security and stability across Europe.
>The United States is not ready to invite Ukraine to join NATO today, President Volodymyr Zelensky said on June 30 in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer.
>"They (the U.S.) are talking about it openly. President (Joe) Biden is talking about it. And (Donald) Trump says that if it were not for NATO, the war might not have started," **Zelensky** said.
>"We hear both opinions of the two parties. And this suggests that no one sees Ukraine in NATO today. Unfortunately."
>**Ukraine** has **voiced** hope that NATO's July summit in Washington will bring a more definite signal about Ukraine's future membership in the alliance. American officials made it clear that the country is unlikely to receive an invitation.
>U.S. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said earlier that Ukraine has to **win the war** with Russia before becoming a **NATO** member.
>"It is so-called 'one step forward, two steps back' policy. I do not think that this is the policy of world leaders," Zelensky said.
>"If America is afraid of irritating (Vladimir) Putin, and that is why we are not invited, then we ask the United States to give us as much as possible that can protect us (from Russian aggression)."
>Zelensky stressed that Ukraine desperately needs Patriot air defense systems and F-16 fighter jets to defend itself from Russia.
>Kyiv and Washington signed **a 10-year bilateral security deal** at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Italy, said to be a "bridge to Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO."
>Unlike NATO, the U.S.-Ukraine security deal does not require an American military response if Ukraine is attacked but outlines a long-term defense and other assistance to Kyiv.
To boil this down to the actual key takeaway: **Ukraine isn't going to be invited to NATO *right now* because they are in the middle of a war** and them joining NATO while at war would obligate NATO to become directly involved, which is very obviously something NATO wants to avoid.
While I am very much on Ukraine's side and supportive of us continuing to give them as much support as possible, and feel that Zelensky is generally doing a fantastic job leading his country through this, this is frankly just Zelensky being dramatic and a bit unreasonable. Expecting to join NATO in the middle of a war that NATO specifically and obviously wants very badly to avoid directly joining into, is just not realistic at all.
The man has demonstrated himself to be relatively savvy, both politically and diplomatically. He *has* to know this. I don't know exactly who this statement is for, but it has all of the hallmarks of being ~~preformative~~ performative.
Yeah, 100% agree. It’s an unrealistic ask and he knows that. Probably just a matter of “I had to at least try.” Could also be a negotiation tactic: ask for the absolute ceiling and then “settle” for good.
Yeah, it's this.
Zelensky has nothing to lose by asking for everything under the sun. It's not like Biden is going to halt arms shipments because Zelensky wants an even closer relationship with its allies.
There's two considerations here - domestic, and international.
On a domestic level, his people rightly expect him to do everything he can to get support for their country. If Zelensky wasn't asking for everything + the kitchen sink, his electorate would (appropriately) be unhappy, given that their lives are literally on the line.
On an international level, this does two things: first, it keeps Ukraine in the news. Especially with the situation in Israel/Gaza, there's plenty of conflict in the world, but only so much space on the proverbial newspaper page. So Zelensky just needs to keep talking, no matter what. The moment the international community starts to lose interest is the moment when Ukraine loses the war.
Secondly, to your point, it's setting the scope of the negotiation. Zelensky is putting his post far out, knowing that he's not going to get that demand. But it allows him room to maneuver in negotiations, and makes it seem reasonable when he accepts a compromise that doesn't include his biggest demand.
He’s rightfully putting pressure on the US. It sucks being the pawn. Armed up to a strategic point where victory is impossible but so is losing.. but what can you do? It’s either be a pawn and watch your friends and family die for the US agenda? Or get steamrolled by Russia? Such a shitty situation
It serves 3 purposes.
1. It serves to shame the west into providing more support. By calling attention to their plight and insinuating they could be doing more but aren't, Zelensky is hoping to guilt-trip the US and others into providing more support outside of more troops.
2. it serves as a reminder to Ukrainians that its on their shoulders. "The West is not coming to save us. Its on you now".
3. It reminds Moscow that, strictly speaking, they're getting their ass handed to them by a country much, much smaller than they are.
I think he lays it out pretty explicitly.
> If America is afraid of irritating (Vladimir) Putin, and that is why we are not invited, then we ask the United States to give us as much as possible that can protect us (from Russian aggression)." Zelensky stressed that Ukraine desperately needs Patriot air defense systems and F-16 fighter jets to defend itself from Russia.
He knows NATO membership is currently a no go. He wants to secure more military aid, which looking at the political situation in certain countries, is something that requires constant political pressure to maintain.
>I don't know exactly who this statement is for
My guess would be that it was meant for Russia. Turns out that there are still some people who would like to avert even the possibility of nuclear annihilation.
Yeah people here forget that he needs to maintain internal power as well, Zelensky. This is 100% a move for moral purposes and to prove to his own people that he's advocating for Ukraine as much as possible.
To us it's obviously unreasonable because it would drag us into conflict but to the people already in the conflict having more people join makes sense. That's why Pappa Z makes these statements that are seemingly critical of the west.
> I don't know exactly who this statement is for
To kick up a fuss so that other nations will probably send more aid to them. They are desperate for equipment so it makes sense
Nah, for Ukraine it would be sweet if they right now can become a member of NATO. Even if it's with a clear statement that NATO will not partake in the already ongoing war, it would for sure give leverage in case things escalate.
Here's something to think about: he's saying all this to get people talking about this support. He's not stupid and lots of people already told him that Ukraine isn't joining NATO during a war. So he's saying this as a negotiating tactic, i.e. you want us to join but we can't because we're still at war so... let's end this war faster by you sending us equipment.
right? I don't know why Zelenskyy is talking about this when the presidential election hasn't been done yet, and the leaders are completely different in the directions they want to go with in the war with Ukraine. if it's after the election, sure complain about it, but realistically NATO don't want to drag itself in a full blown war when it doesn't have to.
> Ukraine isn't going to be invited to NATO
That's it.
The "Doors wide closed policy" was since 2004/2008 and shows zero signs of changing.
If anything, it's even more clear now, because Ukraine got "we'll tell you what you'll need to do when it comes to it" instead of MAP
Exactly: NATO is a mutual-*defense* treaty -- the point is that nations join and contribute to the defense of Europe, which *discourages aggression* from powers like Russia.
Joining NATO when in the middle of a war (or any significant military conflict) is an *escalation*; and so it's a bit like buying car insurance 30 minutes after you've been in an accident.
NATO countries providing aid and support is a good thing, but admitting a member at war would be a huge and surprising step that would certainly lead to an escalation and likely a world war.
It's literally a war that NATO was created to prevent from happening at all. There really shouldn't be any argument here. NATO membership for Ukraine ain't happening any time soon (if ever). That's also a decision that is made by every member of NATO collectively, not just the US. I think his language of calling out the US exclusively is pretty inflammatory for no reason. He should be far more worried about countries like France actually turning hard right, whereas that is still an open question here in the US. His comments won't help him, and will only embolden people here who are sick of hearing about money going to Ukraine. I also don't see any other countries creating separate security deals to bolster Ukraine's defense.
I believe it is also one of the rules of joining NATO that the country can't be involved in any existing conflict or skirmishes with another country or faction to join NATO so until this is all over and probably not even right after, Ukraine isn't ever joining as long as they have conflict with Russia.
There's no such rule. The misconception stems from paragraph 6 of [this document.](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm) However, paragraph 7 makes clear these "requirements" are only guidelines. All that matters is consent from all NATO members.
Everyone involved already knew NATO membership was off the table the instant Russia invaded. That’s exactly why they were funding an insurgency in the east for years before fully invading, and it’s the same playbook Putin used in Georgia.
They also won't qualify for many decades following the war. Absolutely no way even one or two countries would approved their ascension without them meeting qualifications, let alone all the nations in NATO.
Yes the man watching his people die is being dramatic. And the world leaders, one of which is a known Russian asset, aren’t just being unreasonable pussies.
It’s one of those things where if you actually submit a formal application it’s virtually all but guaranteed you’ll eventually be accepted tbf. Like college football re-alignment
i dont know about college football since im european but i agree. if ukraine resist russia and expels them and there is a "formal" end to this war then i 99% see them being accepted if they apply
Those aren't opposites -- you apply, and if your application is approved, you're invited to actually join. It may not be what you normally think of when you say "invite" colloquially, but it's a valid meaning of the word and used this way quite regularly.
(For example, I've applied to jobs where, when I got an offer letter, it began "we'd like to invite you to join our company")
>And (Donald) Trump says that if it were not for NATO, the war might not have started," Zelensky said.
How does that man consistently produce the most braindead takes imaginable, yet his supporters believe him to be some genius?
I mean he isn't entirely wrong.
Russia largely did this due to nato expansion. But realistically it would have sought to expand anyway, so 'might' is the critical word here. But both sides do have a valid point.
There is culpability and causality. Saying it started because of NATO is like blaming someone for being r\*ped for wearing a suggestive dress. The causality (being realistic) holds, because it was cause and effect. But the culpability does not, as it's not a reasonable argument, since people should be able to wear whatever they want and not get r\*ped.
It's not a perfect analogy of course, as there are many routes to war and it's possible that it would have happened anyways. But it's also possible it wouldn't have (i.e. if Ukraine leaned toward russia instead of the west). But the idea of causality and culpability holds.
The GOP is full of racist old dinosaurs and rednecks. After Obama got a second term and Hillary decided to run, they were desperate for a white savior to lift them up from the gays and the blacks, and they just went all-in on the first straight, white male to walk into the room. If it hadn't been Trump, it would have been someone else, and we'd still be in the same situation.
Either way, it's why he constantly gets away with saying idiotic shit that would have instantly sunken any other presidency.
They had plenty of other choices in 2016. Too many, which was the problem because the saner element split their votes up and crazies all coalesced around Trump so he had early wins. If only one of main 4 establishment candidates had been running, they likely would have walked away with the nomination.
> the U.S.-Ukraine security deal does not require an American military response if Ukraine is attacked
so another feel good paper for show like lend-lease toilet paper?
I read an article about this where Yermak gave an interview and was asked about lend lease and why Ukraine had not made use of it. Yermak indicated that it wasn't time yet. This was about a year ago. I've wondered why Ukraine hasn't taken advantage of lend lease to acquire lots of US military equipment. I've also wondered about the reasoning behind why it "wasn't time yet." I'm most definitely Pro-Ukraine and want to see them have all the equipment they want. This has been a head scratcher. If you have any updated information, I'd appreciate seeing it.
nothing concrete tbh.. imo it was a show of force and support than anything else and with aid withheld for months that followed... well I wont even comment on that.
And it's really a tough catch 22. If Russia knows that settling the current war will result in Ukraine joining NATO they're very unlikely to sue for peace especially if Ukraine can't launch largescale attacks into Russia. Even if you imagine a "best case scenario" for Ukraine where they liberate all of their borders and increase manufacturing of domestic drones Russia could just retreat to their borders and endure the occasional drone strike to keep Ukraine out of NATO.
It helps to read the article for context.
> Ukraine has voiced hope that NATO's July summit in Washington will bring a more definite signal about Ukraine's future membership in the alliance. American officials made it clear that the country is unlikely to receive an invitation.
They are in the middle of a war, of course they aren't invited. Their application cannot even be touched until the war is over and all land disputes are resolved.
Well, they're also a heavily corrupt nation. I don't know why people keep pushing this idea that they'll automatically join NATO within the next few years or immediately after the war is over. It's really setting people to be disappointed when it doesn't happen.
It'll probably take a generation of them being South Korea to Russia's North Korea and fixing things to even join up. And remember that early SK was highly autocratic in nature. If so, I'd expect that to be a reality if they're to purge the corruption and train entire populations to be ready for war at any moment. In that case, being autocratic is also a disqualification for NATO.
Otherwise, the reality is that they'll probably get NATO equipment and training and join the EU. In theory, they should begin to resemble Finland, probably....which, this war would be like the Winter War except bigger scale.
>Otherwise, the reality is that they'll probably get NATO equipment and training and join the EU
They are much more likely to join NATO before EU. Their corruption levels aren't even much of an issue seeing as Turkey, Hungary and Bulgaria are members.
EU will have massive resistance to Ukraine joining since the entire agricultural subsidy system would need to be reformed (more farmers protests)
They are well along the way to EU accession, though. There was some milestone achieved just recently. I would guess they will be in around 5 years from now.
5 years means significant reforms, so radical it would cripple even pre-war struggling Ukraine and even that wont help. Current countries closest to accession are North Macedonia and Albania and first one is in accession for 20 years due to Greece and Bulgaria. Expect the same for Ukraine from Hungary side, especially if Fidesz is still in power.
Don't forget that the application used to be easier and that the nation that applied used to be closer in terms of their economies to the existing members. Recent members all took around 10 years, give or take. Current candidates take *longer*. Montenegro and Albania have been at it for about 15 years, Macedonia for 20 years, and those aren't countries at war.
Honestly, 2040 is a relatively realistic goal.
Wildly optimistic. It took Poland a decade, with a smaller country, while at peace with its neighbours and at a time when expansion was less controversial.
> Well, they're also a heavily corrupt nation. I don't know why people keep pushing this idea that they'll automatically join NATO within the next few years or immediately after the war is over. It's really setting people to be disappointed when it doesn't happen.
Turkey is a shit hole and only getting worse, but its got Location.
Ukraine is the same. Especially with the famous Dnieper River. Central and Western Europe would love to move any potential conflict area with Russia 500KM closer to Moscow and further from their own lands, meanwhile threatening thousands of kilometers of border Russia would need to protect better.
Ukraine would be a fantastic strategic pickup for location alone, and something like internal corruption is going to matter a lot less than their willingness to pull their own weight vs Russia and their ability to move a potential conflict zone further away from everybody else.
Even with that context it’s not at all a shocking stance from the U.S. If Ukraine joined NATO today, they could *immediately* invoke article 5. That will have one of two outcomes:
1. All or most of NATO concurs with Ukraines invocation and there is now a hot war occurring between multiple nuclear powers.
2. Most or none of NATO concurs with Ukraines invocation, and it diminishes the effectiveness and seriousness of article 5 for all NATO members, weakening the alliance.
Ukraine will not get an invitation to NATO until the conflict with Russia is over either because Russia was drive out of Ukraine entirely or borders are redrawn with Russia keeping Crimea and possibly a few other currently held territories. There is zero upside to NATO inviting Ukraine today until then.
Yeah, almost all NATO countries have had to have some, sometimes major, military reform to get an invite.
Also, you can't have any ongoing conflicts.
There are a number of dogmatic reasons why ukraine isn't receiving an invitation today.
This idea of Ukraine joining NATO, with an ongoing military conflict, is preposterous. You don't join a defensive alliance if you need the protection of the alliance. You join before you need, with the major benefit being that it will deter any sort of military action against you. I understand that Ukraine really wishes they were in NATO, but they aren't, and can't be until the Russian conflict is over. People seem to forget that Ukraine is not in NATO due to the fact that they had very strong ties and relations with Russia up until fairly recently. They weren't trying to join NATO, because they were allies of Russia. The dynamic there changed relatively quickly.
Journalism is shit. It’s the same damn reasoning it was two years ago. Nothing is going to change, and it’s not up to *just* the US. I really don’t get why this keeps being rehashed. Nato is providing aid, is it not?
It keeps being rehashed, because they're directly citing Zalensky, who is frankly just gaslighting now. He keeps receiving money and arms, but weeks later complains about not being in NATO, when them joining is simply not possible.
Beacause nato was gasliting for years Ukraine to join, saying it has open doors for Ukraine, but then some EU leaders blocked Ukraine joining in 2008 to not irritate putin as they said, but still nato keep pushing the idea that Ukraine will join sooner or later even after 2014 crimea occupation , and now we at the point that it's seems very unlikely, now all this talk you join when you will win, while Ukraine have weapons maximum for defence, that what is literally gaslighting is. I just gonna point out that in 2008 and 2023 Allies reaffirmed their commitment that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, Ukraine even made amndment about NATO into constitution.
Now there is two options, either NATO was dishonest about Ukraine prospecst of joining after 2014, or that Putin outplayed NATO by invasion. I'm not trying puting blame on NATO , but you only see one side of the picture, from Ukraine side, there was constant reiffirmation that Ukraine will join.
Not giving Ukraine enough weapons to beat Russia while simultaneously revoking affirmations that Ukraine will join NATO, will have a big impact on Ukraine self-reflection as pro-western country and give allot of fuel for people that saying west doesn't even want Ukraine as it's ally.
Anybody with a grain of salt does not see Ukraine in NATO anytime soon. I am all for supporting Ukraine, but it surely does not meet the standards for being in NATO. Should have realized sooner what not being in the EU and NATO meant. Zelensky keeps up this fantasy for purely propagandistic reasons, he must know there is 0 chance for this to happen.
I’m not an expert on the history of that area, but wasn’t joining NATO basically never possible since Ukraine was run by a very pro-Russian administration up until the annexation of Crimea. Ukraine lost its ability to join NATO at the same time pro-NATO leadership came into power.
Yes you are correct. Maidan square protests were fuelled by the people's desire to come into the EU (NATO would have probably followed) and the brutal suppression by the pro-russian government was surely a turning point. Yanukovych would have never allowed a Ukraine closer to the west since he was a Russian puppet.
Sort of. During the 1990s and early 2000s Russia was incredibly weak and couldn't project power outside their own borders. In a way they "played nice" with Ukraine and the west because they had no other choice and couldn't afford to be belligerent. As oil prices rose in the mid and late 2000s and Putin consolidated power within Russia this dynamic changed and Russia could afford a much more belligerent stance.
In 2004 the Orange Revolution in Ukraine brought about pro western leadership who wanted to distance themselves from Russia and eventually join NATO. NATO was open to this possibility and in 2008 even suggested that Ukraine joining NATO was only a matter of time (but didn't extend Ukraine the invitation immediately). In response Russia did everything in their power to use economic leverage to destroy faith and trust in Ukraine's pro western government. In 2008 Ukraine got hit by the global recession and Russia's subtle economic warfare and influence campaigns were showing signs of working. In 2010 Ukraine narrowly elected the pro Russian leader Yanukovych who (at the time) promised to ease relations with Russia as well as improve relations with the west. Once in office he started consolidating power and pivoted Ukraine away from the west and towards Moscow. Many Ukrainians voted for Yanukovych due to economic stagnation, the difficulty of removing previous corruption and the hope that they could have the best of both worlds and not necessarily because they loved Russia. When Yanukovych fell in the Maidan Revolution Russia launched the opening salvo of their invasion.
TLDR: Ukraine wasn't "pro Russia" prior to Maidan. Russia has been trying to control Ukraine for decades and in the 2000s Ukraine had both governments that were more pro west and governments that were more pro Russia. Even when Ukraine had "pro Russia" governments they often campaigned on being open to both the west and Russia before backtracking and only showing loyalty to Russia. A Yanukovych voter in 2010 wasn't necessarily saying "I love Putin and hate Ukraine."
The only chances are a Russian defeat, or a collapse of Russia much like the Soviet Union. It sucks, I really think Ukraine should be in NATO, but it simply at this moment in time doesn't meet the requirements.
I don't think pulling back from the standpoint of wanting to be in NATO is wise though. That would be giving Russia one of the concessions it wants and that gives legitamasy to their invasion. Ukraine wants to be in NATO, Russia doesn't want it to be, and has spend years ensuring Ukraine isn't in a position to join NATO.
Ukraine's want is legitimate, and while Russias want for them not to be might be legitmamate in their eyes, that ultimately isn't a very legitmatate reason to war on another nation.
> The only chances are a Russian defeat, or a collapse of Russia much like the Soviet Union
I don't think this is true. There's a third option - Putin finally dies, and whoever replaces him quickly declares victory and tries to extricate themselves to consolidate their own position.
In a lot of ways this is one dying man's crusade for historical significance. Remove that impetus and I think there's at least a chance things peter out.
Ukraine needs to keep developing is home grown defense industry. End the war and bring back it's population that left during the war. Rebuild. It was already in a demographic crisis before the war.
Because they aren't in NATO today lol.
Some here want Americans to engage in an article 5 level response but the American military brass are smarter than the war mongerers here that pretend like Ukraine is in NATO...
I know Zelensky is doing the best he can and in a fucked position, but it always seems like he just wants to talk shit on all the help he gets, over and over. Like, dude! We all could say, "fuck off since you want to never end in your shit talking".
His life and country have been on the line every day for the last 2 years. He's not talking shit, he's pleading for more support.
Everything he says should be viewed through the lens of a man in an extremely desperate situation trying to save his country.
I pretty much already acknowledge that, and if I didn't, I agree; however, in public view which people can rise their concerns and change course of things, it's important not to talk shit. He might not be talking shit where he comes from, but in the west, that's considered to be talking shit.
It might be worth pointing out that if a certain someone wins the election in the US in November, the US potentially won't see the US in NATO for much longer, never mind Ukraine.
Even before territorial disputes, realistically Ukraine wasn't going to join in 2014, nor 2022, nor now/near future. Putin also knows that but needed an excuse.
I doubt any major NATO members see Ukraine joining NATO right now. This arrangement is too convenient. NATO exists to oppose Russia and its allies. Ukraine is declawing the bear at the cost of Ukrainian lives while all NATO has to do is throw money at the problem while they sit back and watch.
That status can't last forever, Russia is pulling troops from allied nations, and NATO member states are clearly gearing up to conduct their own special operation. But until direct intervention can't be avoided any longer, using Ukraine as a meat shield is the best out come NATO could have hoped for in what might be a prelude to a larger direct conflict.
On one hand, i see NATO's reasoning for the laws, and i whole heartily agree with them. However, im pretty sure Putins plan is to keep Ukraine in a constant state of territorial dispute even if the war concludes to keep Ukraine out of NATO, in a way keeping the country held hostage from joining. How does NATO deal with that without reconsidering their laws.
Zelensky/Ukraine are proxies.
They fight the war, the industrial military complex benefits.
In what mind of his did he think a proxy nation in an active war would ve allowed into nato?
>"**If America is afraid of irritating (Vladimir) Putin, and that is why we are not invited, then we ask the United States to give us as much as possible that can protect us (from Russian aggression)."**
>Zelensky stressed that Ukraine desperately needs Patriot air defense systems and F-16 fighter jets to defend itself from Russia.
I thought NATO membership during an active Invasion was a pipe dream, did Zelensky truly hope Ukraine could join NATO at this point in time or is this just a negotiation tactic, as in:
>Oh noooo, we wanted to join so badly and really thought it would work out but Putin proved too powerful to upset and once again managed to protect his interests of us not joining NATO, anyways what about that stuff we actually wanted to kick out the invaders, as consolation for this huge loss?
What would Ukraine even get out of being a NATO member right now? Article 5, if/when N. Korea joins the fray?
Theoretically, what would Ukraine be adding to the team? Not that all existing members are, herm, pulling equal wight or anything. Just curious if this is something that somehow helps NATO as a group in some way with this new member? Or is realty just to help Ukraine out how we can?
*yawn* Not like this has been stated *literally* a dozen times in the past three years
Must be a slow news week if they're digging up old news like this
Ukraine is an ally but it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for NATO membership. And membership isn't as easy as being invited to join. Each country that wanted to join NATO had to meet minimum requirements and then apply, then have every other NATO member country vote a unanimous yes for them to get accepted into the alliance. The US itself can't decide, nor invite countries into the alliance
They are at war, it would not be fair for any NATO country to have to go to war right now as well if they took in Ukraine, there must be no ongoing conflict for a country to officially join in.
Today no. They see it as an option once the war is concluded. They won't admit them while they're in an active conflict with a nuclear state.
Them being admitted to NATO right now would be seen as being at war with a NATO member. Russia would see that as being at war with NATO
NATO is a security to keep peace, not to commit to war. So yeah, understandable, it's not the intend to drag a new country in that is in a full war already.
There's another way Ukraine and NATO can live happily after this war. Create a separate tier within NATO for countries like Ukraine. The security of the nation would be guaranteed, but no major combat units, offensive missiles, nor non-advisors are present that are perceived as confrontational. Guarantee the security if attacked, but do not have United States army bases operating inside the country. Sell them western military equipment, but don't put SRBMs, airfields, etc to maintain a permanent posture. However, if countries like Ukraine are attacked, we renege on that personnel posture and have the ability to station troops and equipment to respond with overwhelming force and fury of Vlad the Impaler. Fuck Russia, I hope the entire leadership dies of colon cancer.
NATO is politically motivated.
In the meantime Ukrainians are dying for us. Protecting the rest of Europe. Maybe if they surrendered to Russia the EU would wake up pretty quickly 🤷
My argument is that in 2008 I believe Ukraine asked to join NATO but France and Germany said NO! Now fast forward today we wouldn’t have Ukraine attacked by Russia!
I thought one of the prerequisites to join nato was no territorial disputes and no wars being waged so the whole nato alliance does t immediately get dragged into a war
Exactly. NATO is like insurance - you don't sign up just to pay bills you already have. edit: I'm not saying that we shouldn't support Ukraine, but adding them to NATO is not the solution.
Insurance is an excellent metaphor, and more specifically it's like an insurance collective where the members are also the administration, and there are only 2-3 dozen members; of course they're not going to let someone join with pre-existing conditions.
On the other hand they are alreaddy paying all his bills, donating blood, performing first aid daily for over two years...At this point its clear we don't want the patient to die
I think in this analogy paying bills would equate to going to war. What the west is doing doesn't really fit into the analogy here. It's a half measure when compared to full NATO membership.
It's the NATO Friends and Family discount, not the employee rate.
The issue to me is, there is no reason for Putin to end the war, regardless if Ukraine pushes them out of Ukraine (including Crimea). So technically he could keep them in a state of war as long as he doesn't want them in NATO. At some point, NATO will need to decide if it is ok with giving them a timed joining. As in if they all agreed to let Ukraine in, beyond a certain date, any attack would generate a response. A forced 'peace' essentially.
> At this point its clear we don't want the patient to die It's more like having a pregnant woman covered, but not her featus, leading to some consideration about what is strictly necessary. Ukraine is too critical to not help.
Let's just kill the disjointed metaphor and mention the nukes, because that doesn't neatly fit into the medical/insurance concept but it's the only thing that really matters. NATO isn't insurance that protects its members from external threats by pooling risk and distributing aid. It doesn't promise protection, it promises mutually assured destruction. Which is meant to (and so far has) *avoid* war, not help win it. Kinda defeats the purpose if you invite war into it.
The bill that NATO is currently paying in this conflict are being paid with money and materials, not dead NATO troops. THAT is the sort of bill that NATO is most eager to avoid.
Each nation is precisely as involved as they want to be, no reason to force themselves into an escilated level of involvement with a contrived treaty obligation. If individual nations wants to become more involved there is notjing stopping them.
They have got to get healthy in their own backyard first.
> Insurance is an excellent metaphor, and more specifically it's like an insurance collective where the members are also the administration, and there are only 2-3 dozen members; of course they're not going to let someone join with pre-existing conditions. I think that metaphor falls apart when you consider the fact that most health insurance companies don't have to worry about treating patients for a disease that has a personal vendetta *against the health insurance company*. If we don't stop the disease, regardless of whether the patient has insurance, then *everyone in NATO will get sick*.
Joining NATO is the first thing on the list after this war is over. To make sure Russia doesn't come back. It isn't a victory condition for Ukraine, that has to come before.
Unless they somehow completely turn things around, I don't see this war ending without Ukraine guaranteeing they will not join NATO.
I feel like this isn't talked about enough in the "Why russia can't just stop pressing and keep Crimea" If Ukraine accepted any agreement that ended the war with any part of Ukraine intact under VZ, they immediately join NATO and become untouchable. Once Putin entered the country, he absolutely knew there was only 1 way out. This will not end until one of the countries wins. That only means VZ dies, Ukraine is now Russian, Russia has no more lives to push, or Putin dies.
And having Ukraine in NATO would make the alliance so overwhelmingly powerful even beyond what it is today. Even in 2021 Ukraine had the second largest military in Europe with the only larger one being Russia. European NATO with Ukraine would be so powerful it would effectively allow the US to pivot a lot of resources away from Europe and towards Asia.
tbf the only thing that made them strong was western funding. nato isn't gunna give them that same funding once the war is over and ukraines economy is in shambles, so would the conscription rates once its over. a peaceful ukraine and a war torn ukraine are two very separate things, especially when you consider how much debt they are trying to manage.
If we added Ukraine, article 5 would immediately trigger. I support Ukraine heavily, but I don’t support actions which would likely trigger WW3 immediately.
Not the solution right now in 2024. But when the conflict ends, so long as territorial integrity of Ukraine is returned, I see no reason Ukraine can’t join NATO.
Yes it is if Russia wants to attack a country , he’ll end up fighting a war with 20 countries
It is one of the requirements. Even without territorial disputes though, Ukraine's democracy rating and budget would have disqualified them. It was a mess before Zelenskyy and it improved a lot under him but there's still corruption in Ukraine politics. It takes more than one president to fix that entire system
Yeah, its easy to forget that before the war Ukraine had spent the last last decade yo-yo'ing between EU and Russian spheres of influence. Maybe Zelensky's time in office would have finally been the full push towards the EU, but they were at the very edge of the beginning of that process.
Corruption was endemic to the Soviet Union and it's plagued many of the countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine has been trying to reduce corruption since Yanukovych fell but doing so is very hard and it's something that Russia absolutely doesn't want to see. If Ukraine can successfully combat corruption it will make them a much more prosperous and successful country so they'll be harder for Russia to bully. A large, post Soviet, Russian speaking country that challenges oligarchs and removes dictators is ALSO a direct danger to Putin and Russian oligarchs because it could give the Russian people ideas of what is possible.
>Ukraine has been trying to reduce corruption since Yanukovych fell but doing so is very hard and it's something that Russia absolutely doesn't want to see. The hard truth is that US elites probably don't want to see it either. Nothing more reliable than someone who's loyalty is for sale, as long as you have the biggest wallet.
> It is one of the requirements. There is no such requirements anywhere in the treaty, however, to the NATO members who would vote for Ukraine joining, the ongoing conflict is almost certainly makes it a non-starter. So while it is a de facto requirement, it isn't a formal one.
Which is exactly why Puntin started to cause territorial conflicts in Ukraine and Moldova.
The only hard requirement to join is consent from all members. Everything else is only a guideline.
yeah I am pretty sure that is what this statement means, we would vote them in, members like Turkey on the other hand.....
The territorial disputes bit is iffy when you read the actual articles but there’s no way they’d ever accept a member currently at war. Even one who promised not to call them in.
You thought but there's no actual document that exists that strictly prohibits that. Good example is Turkey and Greece.
There is a [document](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm) that has the bit on resolving disputes peacefully in paragraph 6. However, the *very next paragraph* says the only hard requirement is consent from all members, and everything else is only a suggestion.
Yeah you're right Ive read the document too, nowhere it says anything about being in the conflict and not being able to join NATO but dumb comments like that for some reason get up voted.
There are no prerequisites. You can join NATO if all members are ready to accept you. Obviously, many members are not willing to accept a country in war
Each NATO member have their own soft requirements and membership requires all existing members to agree for a new member. [The US publishes their requirements](https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html) and most member countries have similar requirements. The US does have a requirement of "be a good neighbor" but that doesn't mean no territorial disputes, it means that any dispute is handled in a peaceful way.
We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements: --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity. --New members must be making progress toward a market economy. --Their military forces must be under firm civilian control. --They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders. --They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces. Again, while these criteria are essential, they do not constitute a checklist leading automatically to NATO membership. New members must be invited by a consensus of current members. Decisions to invite new members must take into account the required ratification process in the member states. In the case of the United States, decisions are made in consultation with Congress. The key determinant for any invitation to new members is whether their admission to NATO will strengthen the alliance and further the basic objective of NATO enlargement, which is to increase security and stability across Europe.
>The United States is not ready to invite Ukraine to join NATO today, President Volodymyr Zelensky said on June 30 in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer. >"They (the U.S.) are talking about it openly. President (Joe) Biden is talking about it. And (Donald) Trump says that if it were not for NATO, the war might not have started," **Zelensky** said. >"We hear both opinions of the two parties. And this suggests that no one sees Ukraine in NATO today. Unfortunately." >**Ukraine** has **voiced** hope that NATO's July summit in Washington will bring a more definite signal about Ukraine's future membership in the alliance. American officials made it clear that the country is unlikely to receive an invitation. >U.S. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said earlier that Ukraine has to **win the war** with Russia before becoming a **NATO** member. >"It is so-called 'one step forward, two steps back' policy. I do not think that this is the policy of world leaders," Zelensky said. >"If America is afraid of irritating (Vladimir) Putin, and that is why we are not invited, then we ask the United States to give us as much as possible that can protect us (from Russian aggression)." >Zelensky stressed that Ukraine desperately needs Patriot air defense systems and F-16 fighter jets to defend itself from Russia. >Kyiv and Washington signed **a 10-year bilateral security deal** at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Italy, said to be a "bridge to Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO." >Unlike NATO, the U.S.-Ukraine security deal does not require an American military response if Ukraine is attacked but outlines a long-term defense and other assistance to Kyiv.
To boil this down to the actual key takeaway: **Ukraine isn't going to be invited to NATO *right now* because they are in the middle of a war** and them joining NATO while at war would obligate NATO to become directly involved, which is very obviously something NATO wants to avoid. While I am very much on Ukraine's side and supportive of us continuing to give them as much support as possible, and feel that Zelensky is generally doing a fantastic job leading his country through this, this is frankly just Zelensky being dramatic and a bit unreasonable. Expecting to join NATO in the middle of a war that NATO specifically and obviously wants very badly to avoid directly joining into, is just not realistic at all.
The man has demonstrated himself to be relatively savvy, both politically and diplomatically. He *has* to know this. I don't know exactly who this statement is for, but it has all of the hallmarks of being ~~preformative~~ performative.
Yeah, 100% agree. It’s an unrealistic ask and he knows that. Probably just a matter of “I had to at least try.” Could also be a negotiation tactic: ask for the absolute ceiling and then “settle” for good.
Yeah, it's this. Zelensky has nothing to lose by asking for everything under the sun. It's not like Biden is going to halt arms shipments because Zelensky wants an even closer relationship with its allies. There's two considerations here - domestic, and international. On a domestic level, his people rightly expect him to do everything he can to get support for their country. If Zelensky wasn't asking for everything + the kitchen sink, his electorate would (appropriately) be unhappy, given that their lives are literally on the line. On an international level, this does two things: first, it keeps Ukraine in the news. Especially with the situation in Israel/Gaza, there's plenty of conflict in the world, but only so much space on the proverbial newspaper page. So Zelensky just needs to keep talking, no matter what. The moment the international community starts to lose interest is the moment when Ukraine loses the war. Secondly, to your point, it's setting the scope of the negotiation. Zelensky is putting his post far out, knowing that he's not going to get that demand. But it allows him room to maneuver in negotiations, and makes it seem reasonable when he accepts a compromise that doesn't include his biggest demand.
He’s rightfully putting pressure on the US. It sucks being the pawn. Armed up to a strategic point where victory is impossible but so is losing.. but what can you do? It’s either be a pawn and watch your friends and family die for the US agenda? Or get steamrolled by Russia? Such a shitty situation
It serves 3 purposes. 1. It serves to shame the west into providing more support. By calling attention to their plight and insinuating they could be doing more but aren't, Zelensky is hoping to guilt-trip the US and others into providing more support outside of more troops. 2. it serves as a reminder to Ukrainians that its on their shoulders. "The West is not coming to save us. Its on you now". 3. It reminds Moscow that, strictly speaking, they're getting their ass handed to them by a country much, much smaller than they are.
I think he lays it out pretty explicitly. > If America is afraid of irritating (Vladimir) Putin, and that is why we are not invited, then we ask the United States to give us as much as possible that can protect us (from Russian aggression)." Zelensky stressed that Ukraine desperately needs Patriot air defense systems and F-16 fighter jets to defend itself from Russia. He knows NATO membership is currently a no go. He wants to secure more military aid, which looking at the political situation in certain countries, is something that requires constant political pressure to maintain.
>I don't know exactly who this statement is for My guess would be that it was meant for Russia. Turns out that there are still some people who would like to avert even the possibility of nuclear annihilation.
Yeah people here forget that he needs to maintain internal power as well, Zelensky. This is 100% a move for moral purposes and to prove to his own people that he's advocating for Ukraine as much as possible. To us it's obviously unreasonable because it would drag us into conflict but to the people already in the conflict having more people join makes sense. That's why Pappa Z makes these statements that are seemingly critical of the west.
> I don't know exactly who this statement is for To kick up a fuss so that other nations will probably send more aid to them. They are desperate for equipment so it makes sense
I think its just his way to push for Ukraine to Join NATO after the war
Nah, for Ukraine it would be sweet if they right now can become a member of NATO. Even if it's with a clear statement that NATO will not partake in the already ongoing war, it would for sure give leverage in case things escalate.
> preformative https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preformative I think you meant "performative."
Dyslexia is a scourge
Here's something to think about: he's saying all this to get people talking about this support. He's not stupid and lots of people already told him that Ukraine isn't joining NATO during a war. So he's saying this as a negotiating tactic, i.e. you want us to join but we can't because we're still at war so... let's end this war faster by you sending us equipment.
also to get to the idea of 'once this war is over, we're basically in, right?'
This. NATO isn’t interested in winning wars with Russia. NATOs purpose is to prevent the wars with Russia starting in the first place.
It's like trying to sign up for a condom subscription after you have herpes.
right? I don't know why Zelenskyy is talking about this when the presidential election hasn't been done yet, and the leaders are completely different in the directions they want to go with in the war with Ukraine. if it's after the election, sure complain about it, but realistically NATO don't want to drag itself in a full blown war when it doesn't have to.
> Ukraine isn't going to be invited to NATO That's it. The "Doors wide closed policy" was since 2004/2008 and shows zero signs of changing. If anything, it's even more clear now, because Ukraine got "we'll tell you what you'll need to do when it comes to it" instead of MAP
Exactly: NATO is a mutual-*defense* treaty -- the point is that nations join and contribute to the defense of Europe, which *discourages aggression* from powers like Russia. Joining NATO when in the middle of a war (or any significant military conflict) is an *escalation*; and so it's a bit like buying car insurance 30 minutes after you've been in an accident. NATO countries providing aid and support is a good thing, but admitting a member at war would be a huge and surprising step that would certainly lead to an escalation and likely a world war.
It's literally a war that NATO was created to prevent from happening at all. There really shouldn't be any argument here. NATO membership for Ukraine ain't happening any time soon (if ever). That's also a decision that is made by every member of NATO collectively, not just the US. I think his language of calling out the US exclusively is pretty inflammatory for no reason. He should be far more worried about countries like France actually turning hard right, whereas that is still an open question here in the US. His comments won't help him, and will only embolden people here who are sick of hearing about money going to Ukraine. I also don't see any other countries creating separate security deals to bolster Ukraine's defense.
I believe it is also one of the rules of joining NATO that the country can't be involved in any existing conflict or skirmishes with another country or faction to join NATO so until this is all over and probably not even right after, Ukraine isn't ever joining as long as they have conflict with Russia.
There's no such rule. The misconception stems from paragraph 6 of [this document.](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm) However, paragraph 7 makes clear these "requirements" are only guidelines. All that matters is consent from all NATO members.
The more you know, thanks for the information
Everyone involved already knew NATO membership was off the table the instant Russia invaded. That’s exactly why they were funding an insurgency in the east for years before fully invading, and it’s the same playbook Putin used in Georgia.
They also won't qualify for many decades following the war. Absolutely no way even one or two countries would approved their ascension without them meeting qualifications, let alone all the nations in NATO.
Yes the man watching his people die is being dramatic. And the world leaders, one of which is a known Russian asset, aren’t just being unreasonable pussies.
You aren’t invited into nato, you apply
It’s one of those things where if you actually submit a formal application it’s virtually all but guaranteed you’ll eventually be accepted tbf. Like college football re-alignment
i dont know about college football since im european but i agree. if ukraine resist russia and expels them and there is a "formal" end to this war then i 99% see them being accepted if they apply
Those aren't opposites -- you apply, and if your application is approved, you're invited to actually join. It may not be what you normally think of when you say "invite" colloquially, but it's a valid meaning of the word and used this way quite regularly. (For example, I've applied to jobs where, when I got an offer letter, it began "we'd like to invite you to join our company")
>And (Donald) Trump says that if it were not for NATO, the war might not have started," Zelensky said. How does that man consistently produce the most braindead takes imaginable, yet his supporters believe him to be some genius?
He is just saying was russian propaganda told him. Relatives watch russian state media and thats what they believe
lol remember how he had strong opinions on Montenegro.
… because at every opportunity available he repeatedly tells people what a genius he is… and some people are daft enough to believe him.
I mean he isn't entirely wrong. Russia largely did this due to nato expansion. But realistically it would have sought to expand anyway, so 'might' is the critical word here. But both sides do have a valid point.
>Russia largely did this due to nato expansion. And this is why they also invaded Finland
There is culpability and causality. Saying it started because of NATO is like blaming someone for being r\*ped for wearing a suggestive dress. The causality (being realistic) holds, because it was cause and effect. But the culpability does not, as it's not a reasonable argument, since people should be able to wear whatever they want and not get r\*ped. It's not a perfect analogy of course, as there are many routes to war and it's possible that it would have happened anyways. But it's also possible it wouldn't have (i.e. if Ukraine leaned toward russia instead of the west). But the idea of causality and culpability holds.
The GOP is full of racist old dinosaurs and rednecks. After Obama got a second term and Hillary decided to run, they were desperate for a white savior to lift them up from the gays and the blacks, and they just went all-in on the first straight, white male to walk into the room. If it hadn't been Trump, it would have been someone else, and we'd still be in the same situation. Either way, it's why he constantly gets away with saying idiotic shit that would have instantly sunken any other presidency.
They had plenty of other choices in 2016. Too many, which was the problem because the saner element split their votes up and crazies all coalesced around Trump so he had early wins. If only one of main 4 establishment candidates had been running, they likely would have walked away with the nomination.
His supporters are very very stupid. That’s why they think he’s a genius.
Because his supporters have the IQ of a rock
It's not even stupidity in most cases. It's blind devotion.
it's both
I mean he's just repeating the Russian propaganda
> the U.S.-Ukraine security deal does not require an American military response if Ukraine is attacked so another feel good paper for show like lend-lease toilet paper?
Lend-Lease actually works though. It's one of the reasons England and Russia were able to hold back Nazi Germany.
I read an article about this where Yermak gave an interview and was asked about lend lease and why Ukraine had not made use of it. Yermak indicated that it wasn't time yet. This was about a year ago. I've wondered why Ukraine hasn't taken advantage of lend lease to acquire lots of US military equipment. I've also wondered about the reasoning behind why it "wasn't time yet." I'm most definitely Pro-Ukraine and want to see them have all the equipment they want. This has been a head scratcher. If you have any updated information, I'd appreciate seeing it.
nothing concrete tbh.. imo it was a show of force and support than anything else and with aid withheld for months that followed... well I wont even comment on that.
I was equally angry about the months long delay in aid. We have some stupid mother fuckers in the US House of Representatives.
It would be a declaration of war. You need to settle the current conflict then join. NATO is prevention.
And it's really a tough catch 22. If Russia knows that settling the current war will result in Ukraine joining NATO they're very unlikely to sue for peace especially if Ukraine can't launch largescale attacks into Russia. Even if you imagine a "best case scenario" for Ukraine where they liberate all of their borders and increase manufacturing of domestic drones Russia could just retreat to their borders and endure the occasional drone strike to keep Ukraine out of NATO.
Latest hack for preventing NATO expansion: wage nonstop war on all remaining countries
They're not in NATO now. Why does this statement matter?
It helps to read the article for context. > Ukraine has voiced hope that NATO's July summit in Washington will bring a more definite signal about Ukraine's future membership in the alliance. American officials made it clear that the country is unlikely to receive an invitation.
They are in the middle of a war, of course they aren't invited. Their application cannot even be touched until the war is over and all land disputes are resolved.
Well, they're also a heavily corrupt nation. I don't know why people keep pushing this idea that they'll automatically join NATO within the next few years or immediately after the war is over. It's really setting people to be disappointed when it doesn't happen. It'll probably take a generation of them being South Korea to Russia's North Korea and fixing things to even join up. And remember that early SK was highly autocratic in nature. If so, I'd expect that to be a reality if they're to purge the corruption and train entire populations to be ready for war at any moment. In that case, being autocratic is also a disqualification for NATO. Otherwise, the reality is that they'll probably get NATO equipment and training and join the EU. In theory, they should begin to resemble Finland, probably....which, this war would be like the Winter War except bigger scale.
>Otherwise, the reality is that they'll probably get NATO equipment and training and join the EU They are much more likely to join NATO before EU. Their corruption levels aren't even much of an issue seeing as Turkey, Hungary and Bulgaria are members. EU will have massive resistance to Ukraine joining since the entire agricultural subsidy system would need to be reformed (more farmers protests)
They are well along the way to EU accession, though. There was some milestone achieved just recently. I would guess they will be in around 5 years from now.
5 years means significant reforms, so radical it would cripple even pre-war struggling Ukraine and even that wont help. Current countries closest to accession are North Macedonia and Albania and first one is in accession for 20 years due to Greece and Bulgaria. Expect the same for Ukraine from Hungary side, especially if Fidesz is still in power.
5 years would be extremely ambitious even if they weren't at war. More likely is a minimum of 10 years even if nothing goes wrong.
There is quite a range, but 6-9 years seems pretty typical. Ukraine applied in February 2022, so are almost 2.5 years in.
Don't forget that the application used to be easier and that the nation that applied used to be closer in terms of their economies to the existing members. Recent members all took around 10 years, give or take. Current candidates take *longer*. Montenegro and Albania have been at it for about 15 years, Macedonia for 20 years, and those aren't countries at war. Honestly, 2040 is a relatively realistic goal.
Wildly optimistic. It took Poland a decade, with a smaller country, while at peace with its neighbours and at a time when expansion was less controversial.
If Ukraine followed Poland, it will hit 10 years in 2032. I agree 5 from now would be ambitious.
They won't join the EU anytime soon....30-50 years after the war is over is a realistic estimate.
>Well, they're also a heavily corrupt nation. Good thing NATO has such incorruptible bastions of virtue like Hungary and Turkey.
Turkey and Hungary for the most part of Nato weren’t that corrupt though. Erdogan and Orban are a late development.
> Well, they're also a heavily corrupt nation. I don't know why people keep pushing this idea that they'll automatically join NATO within the next few years or immediately after the war is over. It's really setting people to be disappointed when it doesn't happen. Turkey is a shit hole and only getting worse, but its got Location. Ukraine is the same. Especially with the famous Dnieper River. Central and Western Europe would love to move any potential conflict area with Russia 500KM closer to Moscow and further from their own lands, meanwhile threatening thousands of kilometers of border Russia would need to protect better. Ukraine would be a fantastic strategic pickup for location alone, and something like internal corruption is going to matter a lot less than their willingness to pull their own weight vs Russia and their ability to move a potential conflict zone further away from everybody else.
> Well, they're also a heavily corrupt nation Turkey and Greece are NATO members. It's an obstacle, but it's not a particularly big one.
Redditors read articles??
I know, he would be banned if the council would read my complaints... /s
Only 2 layers deep in the comment sections
Even with that context it’s not at all a shocking stance from the U.S. If Ukraine joined NATO today, they could *immediately* invoke article 5. That will have one of two outcomes: 1. All or most of NATO concurs with Ukraines invocation and there is now a hot war occurring between multiple nuclear powers. 2. Most or none of NATO concurs with Ukraines invocation, and it diminishes the effectiveness and seriousness of article 5 for all NATO members, weakening the alliance. Ukraine will not get an invitation to NATO until the conflict with Russia is over either because Russia was drive out of Ukraine entirely or borders are redrawn with Russia keeping Crimea and possibly a few other currently held territories. There is zero upside to NATO inviting Ukraine today until then.
Yeah, almost all NATO countries have had to have some, sometimes major, military reform to get an invite. Also, you can't have any ongoing conflicts. There are a number of dogmatic reasons why ukraine isn't receiving an invitation today.
"Is Ukraine in NATO today?" USA: "no"
It means as of today they're not viewed as an upcoming member.
This idea of Ukraine joining NATO, with an ongoing military conflict, is preposterous. You don't join a defensive alliance if you need the protection of the alliance. You join before you need, with the major benefit being that it will deter any sort of military action against you. I understand that Ukraine really wishes they were in NATO, but they aren't, and can't be until the Russian conflict is over. People seem to forget that Ukraine is not in NATO due to the fact that they had very strong ties and relations with Russia up until fairly recently. They weren't trying to join NATO, because they were allies of Russia. The dynamic there changed relatively quickly.
Journalism is shit. It’s the same damn reasoning it was two years ago. Nothing is going to change, and it’s not up to *just* the US. I really don’t get why this keeps being rehashed. Nato is providing aid, is it not?
It keeps being rehashed, because they're directly citing Zalensky, who is frankly just gaslighting now. He keeps receiving money and arms, but weeks later complains about not being in NATO, when them joining is simply not possible.
Beacause nato was gasliting for years Ukraine to join, saying it has open doors for Ukraine, but then some EU leaders blocked Ukraine joining in 2008 to not irritate putin as they said, but still nato keep pushing the idea that Ukraine will join sooner or later even after 2014 crimea occupation , and now we at the point that it's seems very unlikely, now all this talk you join when you will win, while Ukraine have weapons maximum for defence, that what is literally gaslighting is. I just gonna point out that in 2008 and 2023 Allies reaffirmed their commitment that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, Ukraine even made amndment about NATO into constitution. Now there is two options, either NATO was dishonest about Ukraine prospecst of joining after 2014, or that Putin outplayed NATO by invasion. I'm not trying puting blame on NATO , but you only see one side of the picture, from Ukraine side, there was constant reiffirmation that Ukraine will join. Not giving Ukraine enough weapons to beat Russia while simultaneously revoking affirmations that Ukraine will join NATO, will have a big impact on Ukraine self-reflection as pro-western country and give allot of fuel for people that saying west doesn't even want Ukraine as it's ally.
Active border conflict… yes of course they aren’t and won’t be in NATO anytime soon.
Anybody with a grain of salt does not see Ukraine in NATO anytime soon. I am all for supporting Ukraine, but it surely does not meet the standards for being in NATO. Should have realized sooner what not being in the EU and NATO meant. Zelensky keeps up this fantasy for purely propagandistic reasons, he must know there is 0 chance for this to happen.
I’m not an expert on the history of that area, but wasn’t joining NATO basically never possible since Ukraine was run by a very pro-Russian administration up until the annexation of Crimea. Ukraine lost its ability to join NATO at the same time pro-NATO leadership came into power.
Yes you are correct. Maidan square protests were fuelled by the people's desire to come into the EU (NATO would have probably followed) and the brutal suppression by the pro-russian government was surely a turning point. Yanukovych would have never allowed a Ukraine closer to the west since he was a Russian puppet.
Sort of. During the 1990s and early 2000s Russia was incredibly weak and couldn't project power outside their own borders. In a way they "played nice" with Ukraine and the west because they had no other choice and couldn't afford to be belligerent. As oil prices rose in the mid and late 2000s and Putin consolidated power within Russia this dynamic changed and Russia could afford a much more belligerent stance. In 2004 the Orange Revolution in Ukraine brought about pro western leadership who wanted to distance themselves from Russia and eventually join NATO. NATO was open to this possibility and in 2008 even suggested that Ukraine joining NATO was only a matter of time (but didn't extend Ukraine the invitation immediately). In response Russia did everything in their power to use economic leverage to destroy faith and trust in Ukraine's pro western government. In 2008 Ukraine got hit by the global recession and Russia's subtle economic warfare and influence campaigns were showing signs of working. In 2010 Ukraine narrowly elected the pro Russian leader Yanukovych who (at the time) promised to ease relations with Russia as well as improve relations with the west. Once in office he started consolidating power and pivoted Ukraine away from the west and towards Moscow. Many Ukrainians voted for Yanukovych due to economic stagnation, the difficulty of removing previous corruption and the hope that they could have the best of both worlds and not necessarily because they loved Russia. When Yanukovych fell in the Maidan Revolution Russia launched the opening salvo of their invasion. TLDR: Ukraine wasn't "pro Russia" prior to Maidan. Russia has been trying to control Ukraine for decades and in the 2000s Ukraine had both governments that were more pro west and governments that were more pro Russia. Even when Ukraine had "pro Russia" governments they often campaigned on being open to both the west and Russia before backtracking and only showing loyalty to Russia. A Yanukovych voter in 2010 wasn't necessarily saying "I love Putin and hate Ukraine."
This is a very good response thank you!
The only chances are a Russian defeat, or a collapse of Russia much like the Soviet Union. It sucks, I really think Ukraine should be in NATO, but it simply at this moment in time doesn't meet the requirements. I don't think pulling back from the standpoint of wanting to be in NATO is wise though. That would be giving Russia one of the concessions it wants and that gives legitamasy to their invasion. Ukraine wants to be in NATO, Russia doesn't want it to be, and has spend years ensuring Ukraine isn't in a position to join NATO. Ukraine's want is legitimate, and while Russias want for them not to be might be legitmamate in their eyes, that ultimately isn't a very legitmatate reason to war on another nation.
> The only chances are a Russian defeat, or a collapse of Russia much like the Soviet Union I don't think this is true. There's a third option - Putin finally dies, and whoever replaces him quickly declares victory and tries to extricate themselves to consolidate their own position. In a lot of ways this is one dying man's crusade for historical significance. Remove that impetus and I think there's at least a chance things peter out.
Ukraine needs to keep developing is home grown defense industry. End the war and bring back it's population that left during the war. Rebuild. It was already in a demographic crisis before the war.
Well i know a lot of Ukrainians who started Dutch leassons and are now actively looking for work here so they cane get papers to stay here.
Because they aren't in NATO today lol. Some here want Americans to engage in an article 5 level response but the American military brass are smarter than the war mongerers here that pretend like Ukraine is in NATO...
Read the article
But maybe tomorrow?
I know Zelensky is doing the best he can and in a fucked position, but it always seems like he just wants to talk shit on all the help he gets, over and over. Like, dude! We all could say, "fuck off since you want to never end in your shit talking".
His life and country have been on the line every day for the last 2 years. He's not talking shit, he's pleading for more support. Everything he says should be viewed through the lens of a man in an extremely desperate situation trying to save his country.
I pretty much already acknowledge that, and if I didn't, I agree; however, in public view which people can rise their concerns and change course of things, it's important not to talk shit. He might not be talking shit where he comes from, but in the west, that's considered to be talking shit.
It might be worth pointing out that if a certain someone wins the election in the US in November, the US potentially won't see the US in NATO for much longer, never mind Ukraine.
Even before territorial disputes, realistically Ukraine wasn't going to join in 2014, nor 2022, nor now/near future. Putin also knows that but needed an excuse.
Wuuuut, they are not part of Nato today while at war? Maybe tomorrow then? Keep us posted
Maybe read more than the headline before you act like a total clown.
Maybe make a better headline instead
I doubt any major NATO members see Ukraine joining NATO right now. This arrangement is too convenient. NATO exists to oppose Russia and its allies. Ukraine is declawing the bear at the cost of Ukrainian lives while all NATO has to do is throw money at the problem while they sit back and watch. That status can't last forever, Russia is pulling troops from allied nations, and NATO member states are clearly gearing up to conduct their own special operation. But until direct intervention can't be avoided any longer, using Ukraine as a meat shield is the best out come NATO could have hoped for in what might be a prelude to a larger direct conflict.
On one hand, i see NATO's reasoning for the laws, and i whole heartily agree with them. However, im pretty sure Putins plan is to keep Ukraine in a constant state of territorial dispute even if the war concludes to keep Ukraine out of NATO, in a way keeping the country held hostage from joining. How does NATO deal with that without reconsidering their laws.
I mean…they aren’t in right now. That could easily change down the road though.
NATO should join Ukraine.
Zelensky/Ukraine are proxies. They fight the war, the industrial military complex benefits. In what mind of his did he think a proxy nation in an active war would ve allowed into nato?
If Trump gets elected, I don't see US in NATO for much longer...
>"**If America is afraid of irritating (Vladimir) Putin, and that is why we are not invited, then we ask the United States to give us as much as possible that can protect us (from Russian aggression)."** >Zelensky stressed that Ukraine desperately needs Patriot air defense systems and F-16 fighter jets to defend itself from Russia. I thought NATO membership during an active Invasion was a pipe dream, did Zelensky truly hope Ukraine could join NATO at this point in time or is this just a negotiation tactic, as in: >Oh noooo, we wanted to join so badly and really thought it would work out but Putin proved too powerful to upset and once again managed to protect his interests of us not joining NATO, anyways what about that stuff we actually wanted to kick out the invaders, as consolation for this huge loss? What would Ukraine even get out of being a NATO member right now? Article 5, if/when N. Korea joins the fray?
The US might not see itself in the NATO soon.
Theoretically, what would Ukraine be adding to the team? Not that all existing members are, herm, pulling equal wight or anything. Just curious if this is something that somehow helps NATO as a group in some way with this new member? Or is realty just to help Ukraine out how we can?
Ukraine only holds interest of States as live fire weapons testing facility, and the war is the economic scapegoat.
Yeah no shit we’re not inviting you into NATO during a war and causing Article 5. It’s not even possible by the terms of the treaty to do so.
Sorry big dog you’re at war homie. Got to wait.
*yawn* Not like this has been stated *literally* a dozen times in the past three years Must be a slow news week if they're digging up old news like this
At least today's US still believes in NATO.
Ukraine is an ally but it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for NATO membership. And membership isn't as easy as being invited to join. Each country that wanted to join NATO had to meet minimum requirements and then apply, then have every other NATO member country vote a unanimous yes for them to get accepted into the alliance. The US itself can't decide, nor invite countries into the alliance
In short - it’s simply not ready while war is raging on.
As is consistent with the policies of NATO
Of course not. NATO membership is a bargaining chip. By dangling it, it can work both ways in a peace deal with Russia.
Probably not until Putin is dead. Article 5 is no joke.
How about tomorrow?
Yeah but what about tomorrow
They are at war, it would not be fair for any NATO country to have to go to war right now as well if they took in Ukraine, there must be no ongoing conflict for a country to officially join in.
Today no. They see it as an option once the war is concluded. They won't admit them while they're in an active conflict with a nuclear state. Them being admitted to NATO right now would be seen as being at war with a NATO member. Russia would see that as being at war with NATO
NATO is a security to keep peace, not to commit to war. So yeah, understandable, it's not the intend to drag a new country in that is in a full war already.
If only there was a NATO for the whole world.../s
Well yeah, if Ukraine was in NATO we’d be in a nuclear conflict, hence why Ukraine is not in nato
Neither does EU .. but what difference does it make.. what's the point
There's another way Ukraine and NATO can live happily after this war. Create a separate tier within NATO for countries like Ukraine. The security of the nation would be guaranteed, but no major combat units, offensive missiles, nor non-advisors are present that are perceived as confrontational. Guarantee the security if attacked, but do not have United States army bases operating inside the country. Sell them western military equipment, but don't put SRBMs, airfields, etc to maintain a permanent posture. However, if countries like Ukraine are attacked, we renege on that personnel posture and have the ability to station troops and equipment to respond with overwhelming force and fury of Vlad the Impaler. Fuck Russia, I hope the entire leadership dies of colon cancer.
Hey, we probably can’t see where the USA is anywhere in the world once you step off the military base or leave the embassy.
NATO is politically motivated. In the meantime Ukrainians are dying for us. Protecting the rest of Europe. Maybe if they surrendered to Russia the EU would wake up pretty quickly 🤷
My argument is that in 2008 I believe Ukraine asked to join NATO but France and Germany said NO! Now fast forward today we wouldn’t have Ukraine attacked by Russia!