In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
It sounds like a win / win position. If NATO and Ukraine are pulling a will they / won't they, and noise is being made about how Navalny better be released from prison alive.
Well, Putin is in a corner but has the easy out of Navalny being released safe for now, and NATO bureaucracy grinds for another X months on Ukraine admission.
+4
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
It’s a shame that it’s just for time served and good behavior rather than the full pardon she deserves, but at least she’s out.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It sounds like a win / win position. If NATO and Ukraine are pulling a will they / won't they, and noise is being made about how Navalny better be released from prison alive.
Well, Putin is in a corner but has the easy out of Navalny being released safe for now, and NATO bureaucracy grinds for another X months on Ukraine admission.
As long as Navalny is currently unharmed, you mean.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I think we’re pretty much past that now. He’s already been harmed.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
Opposing Russia is kind of thewhole point of NATO. Plus it would make our nukes useful as a deterent which is what they're good for.
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
Opposing Russia is kind of thewhole point of NATO. Plus it would make our nukes useful as a deterent which is what they're good for.
Yes. But letting Ukraine join while they're at war with Russia means NATO is now immediately at war with Russia.
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
Opposing Russia is kind of thewhole point of NATO. Plus it would make our nukes useful as a deterent which is what they're good for.
Yes. But letting Ukraine join while they're at war with Russia means NATO is now immediately at war with Russia.
NATO is supposed to be a defensive pact.
But Russia isn't* at war with Ukraine.
I mean, yes, clearly they are, but Russia has been playing the whole 'not touching you' game with Ukraine (in the East since their invasion of Crimea) and if Ukraine joins NATO it puts Russia on the back foot. They can either formally go to war with Ukraine and NATO, or the stakes can be greatly raised for the level of support they give the Russian aligned Ukrainian separatists.
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
Opposing Russia is kind of thewhole point of NATO. Plus it would make our nukes useful as a deterent which is what they're good for.
Yes. But letting Ukraine join while they're at war with Russia means NATO is now immediately at war with Russia.
NATO is supposed to be a defensive pact.
But Russia isn't* at war with Ukraine.
I mean, yes, clearly they are, but Russia has been playing the whole 'not touching you' game with Ukraine (in the East since their invasion of Crimea) and if Ukraine joins NATO it puts Russia on the back foot. They can either formally go to war with Ukraine and NATO, or the stakes can be greatly raised for the level of support they give the Russian aligned Ukrainian separatists.
I'm not wiling to take the risk. Russion troops have operated inside Ukraine, the Ukrainians are desperate for direct military support and have "nothing" to lose by immediately invoking Article 5.
The only thing NATO gets out of it is that domino theorists get a hard-on.
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
They aren't committing to anything publicly so far. So I imagine this is largely about pressuring Russia and if Ukraine does make moves towards joining NATO it's going to be with a bunch of conditions to mitigate risks like that.
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
They aren't committing to anything publicly so far. So I imagine this is largely about pressuring Russia and if Ukraine does make moves towards joining NATO it's going to be with a bunch of conditions to mitigate risks like that.
It seems a hollow threat. If Ukraine will not get help with the Russion invasion by joining NATO, why should Russia care?
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
They aren't committing to anything publicly so far. So I imagine this is largely about pressuring Russia and if Ukraine does make moves towards joining NATO it's going to be with a bunch of conditions to mitigate risks like that.
It seems a hollow threat. If Ukraine will not get help with the Russion invasion by joining NATO, why should Russia care?
I think it’s a case where if Ukraine joins NATO it will do so with the Crimea area as “contested territory” or something and the international community will say Russia should leave.
I don’t think anyone has the intention of adding Ukraine to NATO and then saying “well, they’re a NATO member now so I guess we gotta roll tanks into Russia”.
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
They aren't committing to anything publicly so far. So I imagine this is largely about pressuring Russia and if Ukraine does make moves towards joining NATO it's going to be with a bunch of conditions to mitigate risks like that.
It seems a hollow threat. If Ukraine will not get help with the Russion invasion by joining NATO, why should Russia care?
I think it’s a case where if Ukraine joins NATO it will do so with the Crimea area as “contested territory” or something and the international community will say Russia should leave.
I don’t think anyone has the intention of adding Ukraine to NATO and then saying “well, they’re a NATO member now so I guess we gotta roll tanks into Russia”.
Everyone is already telling Russia to leave Crimea. If if adding Ukraine doesn't mean rolling tanks into launching nukes at Russia, what's the point? What would Russia fear? What would Ukraine gain?
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
They aren't committing to anything publicly so far. So I imagine this is largely about pressuring Russia and if Ukraine does make moves towards joining NATO it's going to be with a bunch of conditions to mitigate risks like that.
It seems a hollow threat. If Ukraine will not get help with the Russion invasion by joining NATO, why should Russia care?
I think it’s a case where if Ukraine joins NATO it will do so with the Crimea area as “contested territory” or something and the international community will say Russia should leave.
I don’t think anyone has the intention of adding Ukraine to NATO and then saying “well, they’re a NATO member now so I guess we gotta roll tanks into Russia”.
Everyone is already telling Russia to leave Crimea. If if adding Ukraine doesn't mean rolling tanks into launching nukes at Russia, what's the point? What would Russia fear? What would Ukraine gain?
Russia fears NATO, because of the implied strength. It’s been known for a while that one of the last things Putin wants is for a Ukraine to join NATO. Ukraine gains official support from the rest of NATO should Russia want to continue their aggressive behavior.
I don’t believe any country is going to lob a nuke into Russia over Crimea. NATO isn’t going to destroy the world for that. Russia might not give Crimea back, but they also won’t expand any more. That alone stifles Putin’s agenda, because he wants all the former Soviet nations back under Russian control.
There are also a lot of NATO members(see Poland and Lithuania) that have a much less academic view of Russia slowly consuming all the countries in its sphere of influence.
Also I was in Ukraine during the 5th anniversary of the invasion. They are paying a hell of a price(over 4k KIA) to hold the line against those cipki, and its a betrayal that we aren't helping them. Russian soldiers aren't in Ukraine, so the JDAM strikes won't kill any.
In potentially huge foreign policy news Ukraine may or may not be on the path to joining NATO:
President Joe Biden made clear Monday that Ukraine does not yet have the go-ahead to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a move long sought by Ukraine and vehemently opposed by Russia.
For a moment, it appeared Ukraine may be closer to joining the trans-Atlantic mutual protection treaty when President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared to announce a change on Twitter shortly before Biden began a news conference in Brussels, where he was attending a NATO summit.
"Commend @NATO partners' understanding of all the risks and challenges we face. NATO leaders confirmed that (Ukraine) will become a member of the Alliance," Zelenskyy tweeted. His tweet did not say when the country would join.
Biden, who has previously called for Ukraine to join NATO, made clear that such a move had not been approved yet.
"School's out on that question. It remains to be seen," he said when asked for a "yes or no" about Ukraine joining the organization. "In the meantime we will do all we can to put Ukraine in a position to be able to continue to resist Russian physical aggression."
"It depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption and the fact is they have to meet other criteria to get into the action plan."
Biden is set to meet Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who's voiced opposition to Ukraine joining NATO in the past.
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
They aren't committing to anything publicly so far. So I imagine this is largely about pressuring Russia and if Ukraine does make moves towards joining NATO it's going to be with a bunch of conditions to mitigate risks like that.
It seems a hollow threat. If Ukraine will not get help with the Russion invasion by joining NATO, why should Russia care?
For the same reason they invaded in the first place: because Russia wants to maintain a sphere of influence and push it's neighbours around. Ukraine joining NATO was a part of the original threat they were responding to. The US and NATO are now hinting that they are willing to push forward with this stuff and that further threatens Russia's plans in the region.
Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
I think it's a bigger risk to Russia to continue operating in a NATO member state than it is to NATO / US / the rest of the world and Russia is well aware of that. Most likely they will withdraw from Ukraine proper, settle for de facto control of Crimea, and spend the next few decades stirring up unrest and undermining Ukraine covertly.
I personally think the risk of Ukraine joining NATO is far less than the risk of allowing Russia to gobble up neighboring states with impunity.
Well also one has to remember that a lot of Eastern Ukrainians consider themselves Russian, speak Russian, would rather be Russian than Ukrainian, are urbanised and industrialised culturally rather than agricultural and rural etc. It's not like Russia just came in. Russia sustained a breakaway rebel movement which probably would have otherwise been defeated for various reasons. Crimea they annexed for specific strategic purposes but not Donetsk
Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?
I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.
At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.
Why wouldn’t they address that ahead of time? Joining NATO requires meeting certain benchmarks. Why would they let Ukraine join without covering this? Like I said, I don’t believe NATO is fishing for an excuse to declare war on Russia.
Well also one has to remember that a lot of Eastern Ukrainians consider themselves Russian, speak Russian, would rather be Russian than Ukrainian, are urbanised and industrialised culturally rather than agricultural and rural etc. It's not like Russia just came in. Russia sustained a breakaway rebel movement which probably would have otherwise been defeated for various reasons. Crimea they annexed for specific strategic purposes but not Donetsk
Yes, Stalin / USSR's genocide and subsequent Russification of Eastern Ukraine gave them an enclave there of people who don't want to uproot and return to the country they see as home.
That's why Ukraine's sovereignty needs to be protected from Russia, and the most effective way of doing so would be for Ukraine to join NATO so the violent separatist movement can be crushed by the legitimate government.
zagdrob on
+7
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Well also one has to remember that a lot of Eastern Ukrainians consider themselves Russian, speak Russian, would rather be Russian than Ukrainian, are urbanised and industrialised culturally rather than agricultural and rural etc. It's not like Russia just came in. Russia sustained a breakaway rebel movement which probably would have otherwise been defeated for various reasons. Crimea they annexed for specific strategic purposes but not Donetsk
I'd like to see polling data on this that isn't from Russia. I'm not saying these people don't exist but I am skeptical that they exist at a scale that justifies Crimean separatism.
But you're right that Russia didn't just come in. They made sure to send poorly disguised operatives first to foment the separatists before their formal invasion.
Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?
I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.
At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.
Why wouldn’t they address that ahead of time? Joining NATO requires meeting certain benchmarks. Why would they let Ukraine join without covering this? Like I said, I don’t believe NATO is fishing for an excuse to declare war on Russia.
Well also one has to remember that a lot of Eastern Ukrainians consider themselves Russian, speak Russian, would rather be Russian than Ukrainian, are urbanised and industrialised culturally rather than agricultural and rural etc. It's not like Russia just came in. Russia sustained a breakaway rebel movement which probably would have otherwise been defeated for various reasons. Crimea they annexed for specific strategic purposes but not Donetsk
I'd like to see polling data on this that isn't from Russia. I'm not saying these people don't exist but I am skeptical that they exist at a scale that justifies Crimean separatism.
But you're right that Russia didn't just come in. They made sure to send poorly disguised operatives first to foment the separatists before their formal invasion.
2001 Ukrainian Census showing majority group by region. Ethnically Russian areas in blue. Outside Crimea Donetsk Oblast most significantly
Crimea had been part of Russia for about as long as Germany has been a unified state. It was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, but of course it's not going to become "not Russian" in the USSR. It was only from 1991 that it was a distinct entity from Russia proper
I am sure Biden and Nato members have made it clear to Ukraine that NATO is a defensive alliance. If Biden wanted to roll Abrams across the steppe at Russian Proxy troops there are simpler ways than convincing every member of a multi-national alliance that Ukraine should join.
Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?
I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.
At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.
I don't think it would. Like no one would be thinking "Drive to Moscow", and once the totally NOT Russians are expelled, Russia doesn't have the economy or the military to sustain offensive operations against NATO. The USSR had 5m active personnel, and a 300b budget(in 1988 dollars). The current Russian armed forces have 1m personnel and a 61b budget, and Ukraine is the kind of open, flat, terrain where airpower is maximized.
The real danger I see is more "What will Putin do when he gets humiliated"? I'd hope for "jump down an elevator shaft and land on some bullets", but probably be shit like more assassination attempts.
Really more than anything, the EU needs to get its its mouth off the teat of Russian natural gas, so that the country can just be strangled to death economically. Their GDP per capita is like 60th in the world, and its 1/4 oil and gas(and almost 2/3rds of their exports). That money spigot is the only thing keeping the country alive enough to be belligerent.
Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?
I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.
At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.
I don't think it would. Like no one would be thinking "Drive to Moscow", and once the totally NOT Russians are expelled, Russia doesn't have the economy or the military to sustain offensive operations against NATO. The USSR had 5m active personnel, and a 300b budget(in 1988 dollars). The current Russian armed forces have 1m personnel and a 61b budget, and Ukraine is the kind of open, flat, terrain where airpower is maximized.
The real danger I see is more "What will Putin do when he gets humiliated"? I'd hope for "jump down an elevator shaft and land on some bullets", but probably be shit like more assassination attempts.
Really more than anything, the EU needs to get its its mouth off the teat of Russian natural gas, so that the country can just be strangled to death economically. Their GDP per capita is like 60th in the world, and its 1/4 oil and gas(and almost 2/3rds of their exports). That money spigot is the only thing keeping the country alive enough to be belligerent.
WASHINGTON—The State Department cited the parent company and chief executive of a Russian natural-gas pipeline for sanctions but waived the penalties, clearing a hurdle for the completion of a project that U.S. officials say will increase Moscow’s influence in Europe.
In a report released Wednesday, the State Department named Nord Stream 2 AG, the Swiss-registered Russian firm behind the project, as well as its chief executive officer, Matthias Warnig, as having knowingly engaged in sanctionable activity but waived the application of these sanctions on national-security grounds.
Aka "Germany is willing to cut off relationships with the US for it", I wouldn't count on that happening.
TryCatcher on
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?
I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.
At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.
I don't think it would. Like no one would be thinking "Drive to Moscow", and once the totally NOT Russians are expelled, Russia doesn't have the economy or the military to sustain offensive operations against NATO. The USSR had 5m active personnel, and a 300b budget(in 1988 dollars). The current Russian armed forces have 1m personnel and a 61b budget, and Ukraine is the kind of open, flat, terrain where airpower is maximized.
The real danger I see is more "What will Putin do when he gets humiliated"? I'd hope for "jump down an elevator shaft and land on some bullets", but probably be shit like more assassination attempts.
Really more than anything, the EU needs to get its its mouth off the teat of Russian natural gas, so that the country can just be strangled to death economically. Their GDP per capita is like 60th in the world, and its 1/4 oil and gas(and almost 2/3rds of their exports). That money spigot is the only thing keeping the country alive enough to be belligerent.
WASHINGTON—The State Department cited the parent company and chief executive of a Russian natural-gas pipeline for sanctions but waived the penalties, clearing a hurdle for the completion of a project that U.S. officials say will increase Moscow’s influence in Europe.
In a report released Wednesday, the State Department named Nord Stream 2 AG, the Swiss-registered Russian firm behind the project, as well as its chief executive officer, Matthias Warnig, as having knowingly engaged in sanctionable activity but waived the application of these sanctions on national-security grounds.
Aka "Germany is willing to cut off relationships with the US for it", I wouldn't count on that happening.
The answer here is to normalize relations with Iran and let them sell to the Germans. But, well.
Or convince the Germans to reactivate the nuke plants they closed for no reason, but that's probably also a non-starter.
Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?
I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.
At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.
I don't think it would. Like no one would be thinking "Drive to Moscow", and once the totally NOT Russians are expelled, Russia doesn't have the economy or the military to sustain offensive operations against NATO. The USSR had 5m active personnel, and a 300b budget(in 1988 dollars). The current Russian armed forces have 1m personnel and a 61b budget, and Ukraine is the kind of open, flat, terrain where airpower is maximized.
The real danger I see is more "What will Putin do when he gets humiliated"? I'd hope for "jump down an elevator shaft and land on some bullets", but probably be shit like more assassination attempts.
Really more than anything, the EU needs to get its its mouth off the teat of Russian natural gas, so that the country can just be strangled to death economically. Their GDP per capita is like 60th in the world, and its 1/4 oil and gas(and almost 2/3rds of their exports). That money spigot is the only thing keeping the country alive enough to be belligerent.
WASHINGTON—The State Department cited the parent company and chief executive of a Russian natural-gas pipeline for sanctions but waived the penalties, clearing a hurdle for the completion of a project that U.S. officials say will increase Moscow’s influence in Europe.
In a report released Wednesday, the State Department named Nord Stream 2 AG, the Swiss-registered Russian firm behind the project, as well as its chief executive officer, Matthias Warnig, as having knowingly engaged in sanctionable activity but waived the application of these sanctions on national-security grounds.
Aka "Germany is willing to cut off relationships with the US for it", I wouldn't count on that happening.
The answer here is to normalize relations with Iran and let them sell to the Germans. But, well.
Or convince the Germans to reactivate the nuke plants they closed for no reason, but that's probably also a non-starter.
On March 11, 2011, one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded triggered a tsunami off Japan's Pacific coast. The gigantic waves rolled over the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, knocking out the cooling system and causing a meltdown in three of its six reactors. It was the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.
But the important difference between the two disasters is Japan's reputation as a high-tech country with high security standards. That difference is one that has made even avid supporters of nuclear energy second-guess themselves.
They included Angela Merkel, a trained physicist who believed in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. She had even attacked the center-left coalition government of her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, for deciding to phase out atomic power.
"I will always consider it absurd to shut down technologically safe nuclear power plants that don't emit CO2," she said in 2006.
But Fukushima changed her mind: Three days after the disaster, a subdued Merkel announced that Germany would be suspending its recently approved extension of the operating lives of nuclear power plants following the "unimaginable catastrophe" in Japan.
In only a matter of weeks, the political momentum unleashed by Fukushima became palpable. Merkel's close ally and a big supporter of atomic energy, Stefan Mappus, lost as the incumbent state premier in Baden-Württemberg to Winfried Kretschmann of the Green party. It was a political first for the anti-nuclear party, and in a conservative state, no less.
Three months later, the German parliament voted to phase out atomic energy by the end of 2022. But energy companies sued the government for damages. It took nearly 10 more years for both sides to agree to damages worth €2.4 billion ($2.86 billion,) with taxpayers footing the bill for Merkel's phaseout detour.
Note that phasing out coal without renewables up to fill the gap would increase the dependancy on Russian gas, which is one of the big reasons why the US blocked that statement on the G7 meeting. Is just out of sight because talking about how relationships between the EU and the US are still tense after the Trump administration's sheer contempt against the EU is kinda inconvenient, and the internal politics angle makes for better gossip.
Russian soldiers have been operating within Ukraine. (Not only Russian soldier, but also Russian soldiers.)
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?
I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.
At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.
I don't think it would. Like no one would be thinking "Drive to Moscow", and once the totally NOT Russians are expelled, Russia doesn't have the economy or the military to sustain offensive operations against NATO. The USSR had 5m active personnel, and a 300b budget(in 1988 dollars). The current Russian armed forces have 1m personnel and a 61b budget, and Ukraine is the kind of open, flat, terrain where airpower is maximized.
The real danger I see is more "What will Putin do when he gets humiliated"? I'd hope for "jump down an elevator shaft and land on some bullets", but probably be shit like more assassination attempts.
Really more than anything, the EU needs to get its its mouth off the teat of Russian natural gas, so that the country can just be strangled to death economically. Their GDP per capita is like 60th in the world, and its 1/4 oil and gas(and almost 2/3rds of their exports). That money spigot is the only thing keeping the country alive enough to be belligerent.
WASHINGTON—The State Department cited the parent company and chief executive of a Russian natural-gas pipeline for sanctions but waived the penalties, clearing a hurdle for the completion of a project that U.S. officials say will increase Moscow’s influence in Europe.
In a report released Wednesday, the State Department named Nord Stream 2 AG, the Swiss-registered Russian firm behind the project, as well as its chief executive officer, Matthias Warnig, as having knowingly engaged in sanctionable activity but waived the application of these sanctions on national-security grounds.
Aka "Germany is willing to cut off relationships with the US for it", I wouldn't count on that happening.
The answer here is to normalize relations with Iran and let them sell to the Germans. But, well.
Or convince the Germans to reactivate the nuke plants they closed for no reason, but that's probably also a non-starter.
Given that Iran is also a US adversary, I'm not sure why that first option would necessarily be preferable to the status quo (from Washington's perspective).
edit - I guess "normalize relations" would imply that Iran would no longer be an adversary, but I'm not sure that normalizing relations with Iran is necessarily easier or more desirable for Washington than normalizing relations with Russia would be
Kaputa on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Okay, the reason they phased out nuclear power plants is because of the everpresent threat of tsunamis in friggin' Bavaria
Posts
Everyone seems to be acting super cautious about making big statements on this. Except for the Ukrainian President anyway.
This smells a lot of Biden putting some pressure on Putin ahead of their meeting but without actually committing to anything publicly.
Well, Putin is in a corner but has the easy out of Navalny being released safe for now, and NATO bureaucracy grinds for another X months on Ukraine admission.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
As long as Navalny is currently unharmed, you mean.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Well yes, that was what I was getting at.
Shitting as hard as you can on whistleblowers is bipartisan.
I have some concerns about entering into a mutual defense pact with a country currently at war, especially one currently at war with a country with nukes.
Opposing Russia is kind of thewhole point of NATO. Plus it would make our nukes useful as a deterent which is what they're good for.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Yes. But letting Ukraine join while they're at war with Russia means NATO is now immediately at war with Russia.
NATO is supposed to be a defensive pact.
But Russia isn't* at war with Ukraine.
I mean, yes, clearly they are, but Russia has been playing the whole 'not touching you' game with Ukraine (in the East since their invasion of Crimea) and if Ukraine joins NATO it puts Russia on the back foot. They can either formally go to war with Ukraine and NATO, or the stakes can be greatly raised for the level of support they give the Russian aligned Ukrainian separatists.
I'm not wiling to take the risk. Russion troops have operated inside Ukraine, the Ukrainians are desperate for direct military support and have "nothing" to lose by immediately invoking Article 5.
The only thing NATO gets out of it is that domino theorists get a hard-on.
They aren't committing to anything publicly so far. So I imagine this is largely about pressuring Russia and if Ukraine does make moves towards joining NATO it's going to be with a bunch of conditions to mitigate risks like that.
It seems a hollow threat. If Ukraine will not get help with the Russion invasion by joining NATO, why should Russia care?
I think it’s a case where if Ukraine joins NATO it will do so with the Crimea area as “contested territory” or something and the international community will say Russia should leave.
I don’t think anyone has the intention of adding Ukraine to NATO and then saying “well, they’re a NATO member now so I guess we gotta roll tanks into Russia”.
Everyone is already telling Russia to leave Crimea. If if adding Ukraine doesn't mean rolling tanks into launching nukes at Russia, what's the point? What would Russia fear? What would Ukraine gain?
Russia fears NATO, because of the implied strength. It’s been known for a while that one of the last things Putin wants is for a Ukraine to join NATO. Ukraine gains official support from the rest of NATO should Russia want to continue their aggressive behavior.
I don’t believe any country is going to lob a nuke into Russia over Crimea. NATO isn’t going to destroy the world for that. Russia might not give Crimea back, but they also won’t expand any more. That alone stifles Putin’s agenda, because he wants all the former Soviet nations back under Russian control.
Also I was in Ukraine during the 5th anniversary of the invasion. They are paying a hell of a price(over 4k KIA) to hold the line against those cipki, and its a betrayal that we aren't helping them. Russian soldiers aren't in Ukraine, so the JDAM strikes won't kill any.
For the same reason they invaded in the first place: because Russia wants to maintain a sphere of influence and push it's neighbours around. Ukraine joining NATO was a part of the original threat they were responding to. The US and NATO are now hinting that they are willing to push forward with this stuff and that further threatens Russia's plans in the region.
Attacking e.g. Poland who is already a NATO member is different from being in an undecleared war with a country that then joins.
I don't see how it is worth the risk for NATO until the current situation is resolved, one way or the other.
What is the risk to NATO here? Do you think Russia will launch a preemptive strike to stop Ukraine from joining?
I think it's a bigger risk to Russia to continue operating in a NATO member state than it is to NATO / US / the rest of the world and Russia is well aware of that. Most likely they will withdraw from Ukraine proper, settle for de facto control of Crimea, and spend the next few decades stirring up unrest and undermining Ukraine covertly.
I personally think the risk of Ukraine joining NATO is far less than the risk of allowing Russia to gobble up neighboring states with impunity.
I'm afraid that once Ukraine join they immediately invoke Article 5, and then NATO is in a war with Russia.
At some point, that conflict will go nuclear.
Why wouldn’t they address that ahead of time? Joining NATO requires meeting certain benchmarks. Why would they let Ukraine join without covering this? Like I said, I don’t believe NATO is fishing for an excuse to declare war on Russia.
Yes, Stalin / USSR's genocide and subsequent Russification of Eastern Ukraine gave them an enclave there of people who don't want to uproot and return to the country they see as home.
That's why Ukraine's sovereignty needs to be protected from Russia, and the most effective way of doing so would be for Ukraine to join NATO so the violent separatist movement can be crushed by the legitimate government.
I'd like to see polling data on this that isn't from Russia. I'm not saying these people don't exist but I am skeptical that they exist at a scale that justifies Crimean separatism.
But you're right that Russia didn't just come in. They made sure to send poorly disguised operatives first to foment the separatists before their formal invasion.
I hope so, but I'm not sure it's worth the risk.
2001 Ukrainian Census showing majority group by region. Ethnically Russian areas in blue. Outside Crimea Donetsk Oblast most significantly
I don't think it would. Like no one would be thinking "Drive to Moscow", and once the totally NOT Russians are expelled, Russia doesn't have the economy or the military to sustain offensive operations against NATO. The USSR had 5m active personnel, and a 300b budget(in 1988 dollars). The current Russian armed forces have 1m personnel and a 61b budget, and Ukraine is the kind of open, flat, terrain where airpower is maximized.
The real danger I see is more "What will Putin do when he gets humiliated"? I'd hope for "jump down an elevator shaft and land on some bullets", but probably be shit like more assassination attempts.
Really more than anything, the EU needs to get its its mouth off the teat of Russian natural gas, so that the country can just be strangled to death economically. Their GDP per capita is like 60th in the world, and its 1/4 oil and gas(and almost 2/3rds of their exports). That money spigot is the only thing keeping the country alive enough to be belligerent.
Given how the US had to give a sanctions exception to Nord Stream 2 for "national security":
Aka "Germany is willing to cut off relationships with the US for it", I wouldn't count on that happening.
The answer here is to normalize relations with Iran and let them sell to the Germans. But, well.
Or convince the Germans to reactivate the nuke plants they closed for no reason, but that's probably also a non-starter.
I'm not the German public, but calling Fukushima "no reason" is likely offensive to them since they were willing to vote against Merkel's allies and give power to the Green Party for it:
Note that phasing out coal without renewables up to fill the gap would increase the dependancy on Russian gas, which is one of the big reasons why the US blocked that statement on the G7 meeting. Is just out of sight because talking about how relationships between the EU and the US are still tense after the Trump administration's sheer contempt against the EU is kinda inconvenient, and the internal politics angle makes for better gossip.
edit - I guess "normalize relations" would imply that Iran would no longer be an adversary, but I'm not sure that normalizing relations with Iran is necessarily easier or more desirable for Washington than normalizing relations with Russia would be
I agree that is dumb, but we are not making that decision. Democracy is the right of the people to be wrong.