4 ms·
Right, Ukraine applied and NATO responded with a Membership Action Plan, it clearly would not have done that if it didn’t want Ukraine as a member. Really Ukra
by goatinaboat 7y ago
Right, Ukraine applied and NATO responded with a Membership Action Plan, it clearly would not have done that if it didn’t want Ukraine as a member.
Really Ukraine should have made NATO membership a condition of giving up its nukes when the USSR collapsed.
- hollerith 7y agoNato writes on their web site that "Participation in the MAP does not prejudge any decision by the Alliance on future membership" https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37356.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37356.htm --in other words their being invited into a MAP does not mean they would have been invited to become a member. When the USSR collapsed, George Bush the elder was President, and he was one of the US's best Presidents on foreign policy, and no way he would've gone along with offering NATO membership to Ukraine. If the Obama adminstration was willing to do it, I find that depressing because NATO does not have the conventional military strength to defend Ukraine from a Russian invasion, and of course would be unwilling to launch a nuclear attack on Russia over the fate of Ukraine. It would be a mistake for NATO to make any public commitment it is not willing and able to keep. Credibility is essential for avoiding war.
- greedo 7y agoUkraine should have kept its nuclear weapons. The USSR collapsed in 89/90, and Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994. NATO didn't have the capability of defending Ukraine (had it joined) until 2004 when Poland and Slovakia joined. Without a border adjacent to a NATO member, it's hard to defend.