22 ms·

Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. Russia c

by beloch 5y ago

Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. Russia can attack non-NATO countries and intimidate NATO into doing nothing, but to attack a NATO member would automatically bring the whole alliance into the war. The whole point of alliances like NATO is to prevent countries from being picked off by a bully the way Ukraine now is. Belarus, Finland, or any of Russia's other non-NATO neighbours are probably pretty nervous right now, but Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc. are much less likely to be attacked by Russia. Talk of Ukraine joining NATO may well have been what triggered this war. Russia probably had plans to absorb Ukraine eventually, but if Ukraine had joined NATO it would have required a war with NATO to absorb even a small part of Ukraine, such as Dunbas. So, when talk of joining NATO heated up, Putin had to invade quickly or lose the opportunity to take Ukraine without a much larger war. It now appears that any of Russia's neighbours who are not currently members of a military alliance with a nuclear power have three options: 1. Join NATO, ally with China, or find somebody else with nuclear weapons to ally with. 2. Develop nuclear weapons. 3. Do nothing in order to avoid an immediate invasion, but start brushing up on your Russian because you'll need it eventually. It is now abundantly clear that remaining on good terms with NATO countries is not sufficient in itself to ensure security from invasion by Russia. Economic sanctions and harsh language will not stop Putin. It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. They are being threatened with invasion, but have no formal military alliances with nuclear powers. Judging from the U.S.'s reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. would do little more than apply sanctions if China invaded Taiwan. Not unless the U.S. has special feelings for Taiwan that it does not have for Ukraine at any rate.

markdown 5y ago
You seem to have missed the point. > If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD. NATO is useless if the enemy knows you won't initiate MAD, but they can (democracy vs dictatorship).
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD. Why? Of course they would. And yes we would all die. It's the other way around - a NATO country wouldn't be attacked by Russia because yes, NATO would attack back.
  - Lascaille 5y ago
    >because yes, NATO would attack back That's what it says on paper, yes. That's the theory.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      Well, if that's not the threshold uncrossable line, then there simply isn't one and all of this is completely worthless.
      - hutrdvnj 5y ago
        Exactly, then Putin himself could go to Washington kill Biden and everyone is doing nothing because of MAD. That's absurd.
        qwytw 5y ago
        That's why we still have conventional weapons. Also if Putin loses it completely (decides to attack a NATO country rather than attempts to personally murder Biden) I'd expect the CIA to organize some kind of a coup with the local oligarchs to get rid of him before launching nukes.
        bluefirebrand 5y ago
        I suspect this operation is currently in the works. Removing Putin would be massive relief for most of Russia I think, and most of the world at this point. The man is unhinged
  - 5y ago
nroets 5y ago
4. Continue life as normal. Some Georgians are following this strategy under the assumption that the occupying Ukraine is going to require a lot of money and soldiers. Russia will run out of either (or both) of these finite resources before it has a chance to invade Georgia. Note that Russia not only have to contend with sanctions: They also need to remain domestically on high alert for sabotage and terrorism.
ed 5y ago
> 2. Develop nuclear weapons. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had nuclear weapons but gave them up because Russia agreed not to invade them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
- hef19898 5y ago
  That, along with North Korea, only shows you that it is, within the global game of influence, pretty stupid to give up a nuclear capability once you have it.
  - afterburner 5y ago
    Ukraine had no choice. They were Russian nukes, and not giving them back would have probably triggered a war immediately. But with Ukraine drowning in pro-Russian influence at the time, there is no chance they would have defied Russia.
    - grayfaced 5y ago
      They were soviet nukes. Ukraine was soviet land and soviet people too. Breakaways by definition take stuff with them. To claim Russia had a right to the nukes is no different then saying they had a right to the land and people. They had a choice, they just chose the one that didn't lead to war.
      - rand49an 5y ago
        They didn't have the codes to use the nukes though so it changes the balance of power somewhat.
        hef19898 5y ago
        So, new launch control? The war heads would still work. Especially the old ones just needing the turn of a key.
pvorb 5y ago
Since joining NATO is a process rather than will happen immediately, this is not really an option. This caused the mess the Ukraine is in in the first place. Putin is really clear that he won't tolerate NATO to expand to any more direct neighbors.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Effectively he did just that, now he has NATO bordering him on one more side and a buffer state is eradicated.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Sure. But that buffer was about to join NATO. Ukraine received a guaranteed invitation, so it is only a question of when, not if. Invading Ukraine pushes that, basically inevitable, NATO border further to the West.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > But that buffer was about to join NATO. That is not correct afaik. Besides that the downsides associated with all this far outweigh the upside of where NATO's borders are.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        According to Wikipedia, both Ukraine and Georgia, received invitations. Ukraine is on an Individual Partnership Action Plan (English wiki, the German says something about guaranteed invitations...). So it seems both countries have been on aclear path to membership, Ukraine at least until 2014 when Obama said they were, in fact, not. In 2019 Ukraine amended the constitution with "goal" (facilitation, prerequesites,... didn't have time to research that) of both, EU and Nato, mambership down the line. Considering the necessary military build up to pull the invasion of, and assuming such an invasion to be impossible one Ukraine is either part of the EU or NATO, "about to" seems not to far of the mark. Especially for someone playing the long game like Putin. Usual disclaimer, I don't consider any of the above a valid reason to start a war ot interfere in othet countries.
wahern 5y ago
> Talk of Ukraine joining NATO may well have been what triggered this war. There was zero chance Ukraine would have ever been admitted to NATO. Everybody understood that, including Putin and his generals. And while NATO and the U.S. maintained the official position (perhaps better characterized as a non-position) that any country, including Ukraine, remained free to apply to NATO, member states like Germany would have vetoed and almost certainly privately gave such assurances to Putin. Moreover, the last decade of shenanigans from Turkey and then Hungary have soured even the U.S.'s appetite for future NATO admissions of any country outside Western and Central Europe. Ukraine missed its window for NATO membership by about 20 years. Today the U.S. wouldn't even seriously imply Ukraine had a chance at membership. Russian apologists would point out that Ukraine already entered quasi-formal "dialogue", but fail to mention that such such dialogue has been frozen for nearly 20 years. The status quo (which has no actual substance, anyhow) is for all intents and purposes permanently frozen. One might reasonably criticize NATO and the U.S. for leaving things as they are--to fester. The counter argument is that by making a formal concession it would only embolden Russia, which would never change their tune even if NATO formally renounced the possibility of Ukraine joining. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a huge loss for Ukrainian reformists. (There was a similar motivation behind the EU's long refusal to state the obvious regarding Turkey's membership in the EU.) Beyond Putin's general revanchist sentiments, what he and other Russian leaders really worry about is de facto Ukrainian-EU economic integration, not NATO. There's little chance (but perhaps non-zero, and greater than Turkey's) Ukraine could ever join the EU anytime soon. But there's an infinite number of intermediate relationships, all of which disfavor Russia--at least from the Russian perspective.
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  This is correct. The writing has been on the wall for over a decade at least. I was really hoping they'd join the EU sooner or later for precisely this reason. My only hope now is that Russia is content with annexing a few small but important regions of Ukraine to leave the bulk of the country alone, but given the lack of appetite the west has for this conflict I'm not optimistic.
- trhway 5y ago
  While NATO takes all the spotlight, a very major real issue for Russia is that Ukraine started to develop significant partnerships, including military, with Turkey, a centuries old major enemy and competitor of Russia. Turkey has tremendously grown its power in the region in the recent decade (in not a small part because of its very successful drone program). Turkey was a military partner of Georgia back in 2008, though it wasn't great success, yet Georgia has historically been a Russian ally, so it was still a significant achievement for Turkey against Russia. The Syria, Libya and topping all that Azerbaijan were major wins of Turkey against Russia. Turkey is building a regional Muslim states coalition, and in the recent Kyrgyzstan/Tajikistan conflict Turkey provided the drones to the Kyrgyzstan while also played the peace maker role, achieving another successful push against Russian interests. Kazakhstan seems to be a next target there. Yet all that pale when compared to the Turkey's win (crossing into near-future real threat territory) against Russia what the Ukraine/Turkey tight partnership is (there is even some indications that they started talking about nuclear weapons development collaboration - while not much probable to result in any real nukes in any observable future, it just illustrates the degree and direction of the partnership development).
allisdust 5y ago
On paper yes. They are obligated to join or whatever. In practice, the whole west has become so risk averse in last few decades, they would just fold and offer 'asylum' to the fleeing poles and making statements like doing everything in their power to avoid 'escalations'. Unfortunate reality is that the west collectively lost their balls post 9/11 due to the needless wars sapping the spirit. They would wait till its too late and by then its too late. The politician with actual brains and balls and who has kept europe whole and safe so far has recently retired and the rest are just good for press releases.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  >On paper yes. They are obligated to join or whatever. In practice, the whole west has become so risk averse in last few decades I also thought this. Would other NATO members really step in to defend Poland? I know the treaty obliges them to, but in reality would they?
  - allisdust 5y ago
    People shit on nationalism, patriotism, religion etc but in a society where these are on the decline, the will to defend others at the cost of own safety and prosperity (the so called self righteousness) will disappear. So first the nations will just fend for themselves, then the factions inside the countries and the people themselves. Unfortunately, not engaging is never a great strategy. It's a strategy that looks great but it always makes things worse. The current escalation is solely due to how weak USA looked during their hasty retreat from Afghanistan. My guess is that Putin just wanted to scare a few people and may be annex the rebel areas. But the weak response has encouraged him to see how far this can be taken. When will the current DefCon change? He would continue till that happens. It's not because he is stupid or crazy. It's a decent strategy to see where the opponents limits for patience are. He would turn around the moment there is some ground action or strict measures like announcing a no fly zone over Ukraine enforced by NATO. Till, then the smart move would be to push forward in Ukraine.
afterburner 5y ago
> It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. They are being threatened with invasion, but have no formal military alliances with nuclear powers. Judging from the U.S.'s reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. would do little more than apply sanctions if China invaded Taiwan. Not unless the U.S. has special feelings for Taiwan that it does not have for Ukraine at any rate. This is wildly incorrect. The US actually had a defense agreement with Taiwan at one point, but dropped the defense provision in the 70's for rapprochement with China. However, Taiwan has been a US ally since WW2, and has at times stationed many troops there. This is not even close to true about Ukraine. Not to mention a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be almost trivially easy for the US to stop. It's an island, and the US has naval and air supremacy.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >Not to mention a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be almost trivially easy for the US to stop. It's an island, and the US has naval and air supremacy. This was maybe true in 1996, but less so today (at least from what I've heard). China is rapidly approaching naval parity with the US, and they have enough land-based anti-ship missiles to deny most surface vessels access to the Taiwan straight. That's not even considering the logistical aspects of it all. Taiwan is 150km from the coast of China and 10,000km away from the coast of the US...
  - toyg 5y ago
    Okinawa and Mageshima bases are there for a reason, something like 300-400m from Taiwan. For military purposes, Japan is effectively an extension of the US border. That's one of the great innovations of the US military model. Ensuring air domination allows them to effectively expand control by simply placing bases. Britain had done that in the past with naval forces but their logistic challenges are more complicated when it comes to defending supply lines.
- ragazzina 5y ago
  >Not to mention a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be almost trivially easy for the US to stop. What if they Putined their way into Taiwan? "We are going to invade, if you stop us it's nuke time". Would the US risk a nuke on their head for Taiwan?
sam0x17 5y ago
> It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. More than that, I think reading between the lines it's quite likely Putin and Xi Jinping have already agreed to back each other in the security council so that Russia can take Ukraine and China can take Taiwan without issue. This may have been planned for years, even, though it is right to point out that hinting at adding Ukraine to NATO without any real intentions to do so has had disastrous consequences.
marttt 5y ago
Former journalist from Estonia here. Our media republished a 1994 speech given by late president of Estonia Lennart Meri at a banquet in Hamburg, Germany. Vladimir Putin, a then internationally unknown politician from St Petersburg, was also among the listeners -- and demonstratively walked out of the room during Meri's speech, as reported by Deutsche Welle [1]. Quoting DW: "On February 25, 1994, Putin was also in attendance. One distinguished guest, then-President of Estonia Lennart Meri, gave a speech. Putin did something that has never happened at this ceremony: he got up and left. "With his legs straight [ed.: in a marching stance], throwing a contemptuous glance at the host, he left the hall, every step accompanied by the creaking of the parquet," according to a correspondent for the German magazine Zeit. "His exit was followed by whispers. Who is he? What's his problem?" What exactly did Meri say that so annoyed Putin? The speech reads like a prophecy of what happened 20 years later in Crimea. And Putin's reaction shows that he sent a clear signal to the West. The Estonian president referred to a paper from the foreign ministry in Moscow: "It notes that the problem of ethnic Russian groups in countries neighboring Russia cannot be solved by diplomatic means alone." Other means were conceivable for Moscow, Meri concluded. He warned against Russia's "neo-imperialist policy" and appealed to integrate Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, into the "democratic world." Lennart Meri was a former filmmaker, literary translator, writer and IMO a world class intellectual with excellent speeches. For anyone interested, I google-translated this Hamburg 1994 speech to English [2]. The original source in Estonian is also present on the homepage of President's Office [3]. 1: https://www.dw.com/en/vladimir-putins-infamous-history-in-hamburg/a-39529602 https://www.dw.com/en/vladimir-putins-infamous-history-in-ha... 2: https://zerobin.net/?5938a7875752194a#kVyn/9uj46bUH+M1z7rk+wATSuZPfijRUVV4BSPPpuA= https://zerobin.net/?5938a7875752194a#kVyn/9uj46bUH+M1z7rk+w... 3: https://vp1992-2001.president.ee/est/k6ned/K6ne.asp?ID=4236 https://vp1992-2001.president.ee/est/k6ned/K6ne.asp?ID=4236
- cormacrelf 5y ago
  Interesting! A bit of an echo happened yesterday: there was a big walkout at the OSCE meeting, before Belarus and Russia started to speak. https://twitter.com/rikardjozwiak/status/1496913193360400387 https://twitter.com/rikardjozwiak/status/1496913193360400387 https://twitter.com/ger_osce/status/1496917994559066117?s=21 https://twitter.com/ger_osce/status/1496917994559066117?s=21
freddie_mercury 5y ago
There was no talk of Ukraine joining NATO heating up. Russia started deploying troops to the Ukraine border in March 2021. The excuse back then wasn't about Ukraine joining NATO; the excuse was that it was mobilizing troops to protect itself from a NATO attack during the DEFENDER-21 annual exercise.
arez 5y ago
Ukraine and US is a different story then Tawain and US. For Taiwan the US promised to protect it from any China intervention, so they will help. Nobody gave these promises to Ukraine
rasz 5y ago
>Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. We lived once thru this in 1939. NO one will join in to defend Poland. Germany might even make another deal with Russia to "save EU".
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  Wasn’t the NATO founded in 1949? And doesn’t this imply we haven’t lived thru this, as the conditions of NATO did not yet apply in 1939?
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Even still, I'm not sure the lack of political will in France/Britain after Poland was attacked was the reason it fell. The allies they just did not feel like they had capability to start and offensive against Germany and expected Poland to hold out much longer than it did. Czechoslovakia would probably be a much better example (however NATO did not exactly agree to recognize the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas just to appease Putin).
- pelasaco 5y ago
  it is not just Poland. Now it is Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Czech Republic. They are all NATO and are all "between" Germany and Russia.
- rocgf 5y ago
  You speak with such impunity on matters that are clearly not for the average folk. The situations in 1939 and 2022 are only similar insofar as we are talking about the same country. Everything else is different.
- qwytw 5y ago
  I'm not at all confident Russia could conquer Poland though even if it's left to fight alone (together with the Baltic states). It spends ~65% more on its military than Ukraine, has full access to western tech and way less internal problems (good luck finding any region in poland where > 0.x% of the population would want to join Russia). Even if Russia 'defeats' the Ukrainian military (which I don't think is at all certain) what is Putin's next step? Any regime they install in Ukraine would require enormous resources to maintain power and I don't see how can Russia afford that, at best they can bite off some regions in eastern Ukraine. Also most Russian don't seem to be even close to being as enthusiastic as the majority of Nazi Germans were when their tanks rolled into Paris. Russians seem to be mostly apathetic, they don't really support the war but also are not willing to actually stand up and do anything about it. That might change if there is not quick victory/large amounts of civilians start being killed/sanctions actually start working.
kirso 5y ago
Don't forget, this was also a similar case during WW2 and then Munich agreement happened... It never is as easy - this is stated on paper so we all go to war. Including now broken Minsk agreement... Just all sad to see that the interests of a few shed blood of many.
mcv 5y ago
The US and Russia did promise to defend Ukraine against nuclear powers in exchange for Ukraine giving their nuclear weapons to Russia in 1994. Now Russia, a nuclear power and one of the signatories to that treaty, broke it by attacking Ukraine, and the US broke it by not defending Ukraine from that aggression, because Russia is waving its nukes around as a threat. The big lesson that the US and Russia are teaching Ukraine here is that they should have never given up their nuclear weapon. This whole event is terrible for the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  Its all a bit of a joke to be honest. There are 100k Russian troops, thats a population of some UK towns like Harlow, Romford, Royal Leamington Spa, or Gillingham trying to secure a landmass 2.5 times the size of the UK! Its a joke, because once the Ukrainian population is psychologically motivated into guerrilla warfare against the Russians, it would be over in a day or two. This invasion with media complicity, is just project fear or govt's around the world enjoying their population's desire to be governed. Russia is doing each and every govt around the world a favour by reinforcing the govt form of control instead of self determination. Now if Russia went in with 1million troops, then it would be something to worry about, but this is all just psychological reinforcement of hierarchical control systems on populations.
- SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
  >Russia is waving its nukes around as a threat. Really? Has Putin actually said anything about nuclear weapons in the context of this war?
  - mcv 5y ago
    Not explicitly, but that's how many people interpret his threats to NATO countries if they help defend Ukraine.
DocTomoe 5y ago
> If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. That's what is commonly believed, but that belief is actually wrong - other NATO members are obligated to - and I quote directly from Article 5 here - "(...) assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, (...)" The keywords here are "as it deems necessary" and "including the use of armed forces". There is no automatic need to send troops - if you as the attacked party think a strongly worded letter is all that is necessary, you just ask for that letter. Of course you can demand military support, but doing so takes time, and it is easy to consider a situation in which you do not have that time anymore. For an application of that principle, see 9/11, when the US invoked Article 5, but which did not result in military action from all NATO members (several of which refused to take part in "pointless military adventures"). The US obstracized those countries, but ultimately (had to?) accept.
- csomar 5y ago
  Turkey will be in a sweet spot. They can do lots of damage to Russian navy with little intervention from them required. NATO has lots of bargaining power if it decides to do so. It seems more like a lack of leadership than of resources or power.
- SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
  Is it clear in context that the 'deeming' country is the one being attacked rather than the one deciding how to assist? It doesn't seem totally clear from that quote.
- PolygonSheep 5y ago
  What's the point of even having it then? It's like saying "You are obligated to do what you want to do". You'd do it even if you weren't "obligated" to do so and if you don't want to do it then you can just deem it "unnecessary" and it's no longer obligated.
T-A 5y ago
> Belarus, Finland, or any of Russia's other non-NATO neighbours are probably pretty nervous right now The Russian forces in Chernobyl came from Belarus... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State
- toyg 5y ago
  Yeah, the only nervous people in Belarus right now are "only" the ones who hoped in a democratic post-Lukashenko future. Which is part of the value of this operation from the Russian perspective: "don't get ideas, or else".

by beloch 5y ago

markdown 5y ago

You seem to have missed the point. > If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD. NATO is useless if the enemy knows you won't initiate MAD, but they can (democracy vs dictatorship).

gambiting 5y ago
>>And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD. Why? Of course they would. And yes we would all die. It's the other way around - a NATO country wouldn't be attacked by Russia because yes, NATO would attack back.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  >because yes, NATO would attack back That's what it says on paper, yes. That's the theory.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Well, if that's not the threshold uncrossable line, then there simply isn't one and all of this is completely worthless.
    - hutrdvnj 5y ago
      Exactly, then Putin himself could go to Washington kill Biden and everyone is doing nothing because of MAD. That's absurd.
      - qwytw 5y ago
        That's why we still have conventional weapons. Also if Putin loses it completely (decides to attack a NATO country rather than attempts to personally murder Biden) I'd expect the CIA to organize some kind of a coup with the local oligarchs to get rid of him before launching nukes.
        bluefirebrand 5y ago
        I suspect this operation is currently in the works. Removing Putin would be massive relief for most of Russia I think, and most of the world at this point. The man is unhinged
- 5y ago

nroets 5y ago

4. Continue life as normal. Some Georgians are following this strategy under the assumption that the occupying Ukraine is going to require a lot of money and soldiers. Russia will run out of either (or both) of these finite resources before it has a chance to invade Georgia. Note that Russia not only have to contend with sanctions: They also need to remain domestically on high alert for sabotage and terrorism.

ed 5y ago

> 2. Develop nuclear weapons. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had nuclear weapons but gave them up because Russia agreed not to invade them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...

hef19898 5y ago
That, along with North Korea, only shows you that it is, within the global game of influence, pretty stupid to give up a nuclear capability once you have it.
- afterburner 5y ago
  Ukraine had no choice. They were Russian nukes, and not giving them back would have probably triggered a war immediately. But with Ukraine drowning in pro-Russian influence at the time, there is no chance they would have defied Russia.
  - grayfaced 5y ago
    They were soviet nukes. Ukraine was soviet land and soviet people too. Breakaways by definition take stuff with them. To claim Russia had a right to the nukes is no different then saying they had a right to the land and people. They had a choice, they just chose the one that didn't lead to war.
    - rand49an 5y ago
      They didn't have the codes to use the nukes though so it changes the balance of power somewhat.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        So, new launch control? The war heads would still work. Especially the old ones just needing the turn of a key.

pvorb 5y ago

Since joining NATO is a process rather than will happen immediately, this is not really an option. This caused the mess the Ukraine is in in the first place. Putin is really clear that he won't tolerate NATO to expand to any more direct neighbors.

jacquesm 5y ago
Effectively he did just that, now he has NATO bordering him on one more side and a buffer state is eradicated.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Sure. But that buffer was about to join NATO. Ukraine received a guaranteed invitation, so it is only a question of when, not if. Invading Ukraine pushes that, basically inevitable, NATO border further to the West.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > But that buffer was about to join NATO. That is not correct afaik. Besides that the downsides associated with all this far outweigh the upside of where NATO's borders are.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      According to Wikipedia, both Ukraine and Georgia, received invitations. Ukraine is on an Individual Partnership Action Plan (English wiki, the German says something about guaranteed invitations...). So it seems both countries have been on aclear path to membership, Ukraine at least until 2014 when Obama said they were, in fact, not. In 2019 Ukraine amended the constitution with "goal" (facilitation, prerequesites,... didn't have time to research that) of both, EU and Nato, mambership down the line. Considering the necessary military build up to pull the invasion of, and assuming such an invasion to be impossible one Ukraine is either part of the EU or NATO, "about to" seems not to far of the mark. Especially for someone playing the long game like Putin. Usual disclaimer, I don't consider any of the above a valid reason to start a war ot interfere in othet countries.

wahern 5y ago

> Talk of Ukraine joining NATO may well have been what triggered this war. There was zero chance Ukraine would have ever been admitted to NATO. Everybody understood that, including Putin and his generals. And while NATO and the U.S. maintained the official position (perhaps better characterized as a non-position) that any country, including Ukraine, remained free to apply to NATO, member states like Germany would have vetoed and almost certainly privately gave such assurances to Putin. Moreover, the last decade of shenanigans from Turkey and then Hungary have soured even the U.S.'s appetite for future NATO admissions of any country outside Western and Central Europe. Ukraine missed its window for NATO membership by about 20 years. Today the U.S. wouldn't even seriously imply Ukraine had a chance at membership. Russian apologists would point out that Ukraine already entered quasi-formal "dialogue", but fail to mention that such such dialogue has been frozen for nearly 20 years. The status quo (which has no actual substance, anyhow) is for all intents and purposes permanently frozen. One might reasonably criticize NATO and the U.S. for leaving things as they are--to fester. The counter argument is that by making a formal concession it would only embolden Russia, which would never change their tune even if NATO formally renounced the possibility of Ukraine joining. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a huge loss for Ukrainian reformists. (There was a similar motivation behind the EU's long refusal to state the obvious regarding Turkey's membership in the EU.) Beyond Putin's general revanchist sentiments, what he and other Russian leaders really worry about is de facto Ukrainian-EU economic integration, not NATO. There's little chance (but perhaps non-zero, and greater than Turkey's) Ukraine could ever join the EU anytime soon. But there's an infinite number of intermediate relationships, all of which disfavor Russia--at least from the Russian perspective.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
This is correct. The writing has been on the wall for over a decade at least. I was really hoping they'd join the EU sooner or later for precisely this reason. My only hope now is that Russia is content with annexing a few small but important regions of Ukraine to leave the bulk of the country alone, but given the lack of appetite the west has for this conflict I'm not optimistic.
trhway 5y ago
While NATO takes all the spotlight, a very major real issue for Russia is that Ukraine started to develop significant partnerships, including military, with Turkey, a centuries old major enemy and competitor of Russia. Turkey has tremendously grown its power in the region in the recent decade (in not a small part because of its very successful drone program). Turkey was a military partner of Georgia back in 2008, though it wasn't great success, yet Georgia has historically been a Russian ally, so it was still a significant achievement for Turkey against Russia. The Syria, Libya and topping all that Azerbaijan were major wins of Turkey against Russia. Turkey is building a regional Muslim states coalition, and in the recent Kyrgyzstan/Tajikistan conflict Turkey provided the drones to the Kyrgyzstan while also played the peace maker role, achieving another successful push against Russian interests. Kazakhstan seems to be a next target there. Yet all that pale when compared to the Turkey's win (crossing into near-future real threat territory) against Russia what the Ukraine/Turkey tight partnership is (there is even some indications that they started talking about nuclear weapons development collaboration - while not much probable to result in any real nukes in any observable future, it just illustrates the degree and direction of the partnership development).

allisdust 5y ago

On paper yes. They are obligated to join or whatever. In practice, the whole west has become so risk averse in last few decades, they would just fold and offer 'asylum' to the fleeing poles and making statements like doing everything in their power to avoid 'escalations'. Unfortunate reality is that the west collectively lost their balls post 9/11 due to the needless wars sapping the spirit. They would wait till its too late and by then its too late. The politician with actual brains and balls and who has kept europe whole and safe so far has recently retired and the rest are just good for press releases.

Lascaille 5y ago
>On paper yes. They are obligated to join or whatever. In practice, the whole west has become so risk averse in last few decades I also thought this. Would other NATO members really step in to defend Poland? I know the treaty obliges them to, but in reality would they?
- allisdust 5y ago
  People shit on nationalism, patriotism, religion etc but in a society where these are on the decline, the will to defend others at the cost of own safety and prosperity (the so called self righteousness) will disappear. So first the nations will just fend for themselves, then the factions inside the countries and the people themselves. Unfortunately, not engaging is never a great strategy. It's a strategy that looks great but it always makes things worse. The current escalation is solely due to how weak USA looked during their hasty retreat from Afghanistan. My guess is that Putin just wanted to scare a few people and may be annex the rebel areas. But the weak response has encouraged him to see how far this can be taken. When will the current DefCon change? He would continue till that happens. It's not because he is stupid or crazy. It's a decent strategy to see where the opponents limits for patience are. He would turn around the moment there is some ground action or strict measures like announcing a no fly zone over Ukraine enforced by NATO. Till, then the smart move would be to push forward in Ukraine.

afterburner 5y ago

> It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. They are being threatened with invasion, but have no formal military alliances with nuclear powers. Judging from the U.S.'s reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. would do little more than apply sanctions if China invaded Taiwan. Not unless the U.S. has special feelings for Taiwan that it does not have for Ukraine at any rate. This is wildly incorrect. The US actually had a defense agreement with Taiwan at one point, but dropped the defense provision in the 70's for rapprochement with China. However, Taiwan has been a US ally since WW2, and has at times stationed many troops there. This is not even close to true about Ukraine. Not to mention a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be almost trivially easy for the US to stop. It's an island, and the US has naval and air supremacy.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>Not to mention a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be almost trivially easy for the US to stop. It's an island, and the US has naval and air supremacy. This was maybe true in 1996, but less so today (at least from what I've heard). China is rapidly approaching naval parity with the US, and they have enough land-based anti-ship missiles to deny most surface vessels access to the Taiwan straight. That's not even considering the logistical aspects of it all. Taiwan is 150km from the coast of China and 10,000km away from the coast of the US...
- toyg 5y ago
  Okinawa and Mageshima bases are there for a reason, something like 300-400m from Taiwan. For military purposes, Japan is effectively an extension of the US border. That's one of the great innovations of the US military model. Ensuring air domination allows them to effectively expand control by simply placing bases. Britain had done that in the past with naval forces but their logistic challenges are more complicated when it comes to defending supply lines.
ragazzina 5y ago
>Not to mention a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be almost trivially easy for the US to stop. What if they Putined their way into Taiwan? "We are going to invade, if you stop us it's nuke time". Would the US risk a nuke on their head for Taiwan?

sam0x17 5y ago

> It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. More than that, I think reading between the lines it's quite likely Putin and Xi Jinping have already agreed to back each other in the security council so that Russia can take Ukraine and China can take Taiwan without issue. This may have been planned for years, even, though it is right to point out that hinting at adding Ukraine to NATO without any real intentions to do so has had disastrous consequences.

marttt 5y ago

Former journalist from Estonia here. Our media republished a 1994 speech given by late president of Estonia Lennart Meri at a banquet in Hamburg, Germany. Vladimir Putin, a then internationally unknown politician from St Petersburg, was also among the listeners -- and demonstratively walked out of the room during Meri's speech, as reported by Deutsche Welle [1]. Quoting DW: "On February 25, 1994, Putin was also in attendance. One distinguished guest, then-President of Estonia Lennart Meri, gave a speech. Putin did something that has never happened at this ceremony: he got up and left. "With his legs straight [ed.: in a marching stance], throwing a contemptuous glance at the host, he left the hall, every step accompanied by the creaking of the parquet," according to a correspondent for the German magazine Zeit. "His exit was followed by whispers. Who is he? What's his problem?" What exactly did Meri say that so annoyed Putin? The speech reads like a prophecy of what happened 20 years later in Crimea. And Putin's reaction shows that he sent a clear signal to the West. The Estonian president referred to a paper from the foreign ministry in Moscow: "It notes that the problem of ethnic Russian groups in countries neighboring Russia cannot be solved by diplomatic means alone." Other means were conceivable for Moscow, Meri concluded. He warned against Russia's "neo-imperialist policy" and appealed to integrate Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, into the "democratic world." Lennart Meri was a former filmmaker, literary translator, writer and IMO a world class intellectual with excellent speeches. For anyone interested, I google-translated this Hamburg 1994 speech to English [2]. The original source in Estonian is also present on the homepage of President's Office [3]. 1: https://www.dw.com/en/vladimir-putins-infamous-history-in-hamburg/a-39529602 https://www.dw.com/en/vladimir-putins-infamous-history-in-ha... 2: https://zerobin.net/?5938a7875752194a#kVyn/9uj46bUH+M1z7rk+wATSuZPfijRUVV4BSPPpuA= https://zerobin.net/?5938a7875752194a#kVyn/9uj46bUH+M1z7rk+w... 3: https://vp1992-2001.president.ee/est/k6ned/K6ne.asp?ID=4236 https://vp1992-2001.president.ee/est/k6ned/K6ne.asp?ID=4236

cormacrelf 5y ago
Interesting! A bit of an echo happened yesterday: there was a big walkout at the OSCE meeting, before Belarus and Russia started to speak. https://twitter.com/rikardjozwiak/status/1496913193360400387 https://twitter.com/rikardjozwiak/status/1496913193360400387 https://twitter.com/ger_osce/status/1496917994559066117?s=21 https://twitter.com/ger_osce/status/1496917994559066117?s=21

freddie_mercury 5y ago

There was no talk of Ukraine joining NATO heating up. Russia started deploying troops to the Ukraine border in March 2021. The excuse back then wasn't about Ukraine joining NATO; the excuse was that it was mobilizing troops to protect itself from a NATO attack during the DEFENDER-21 annual exercise.

arez 5y ago

Ukraine and US is a different story then Tawain and US. For Taiwan the US promised to protect it from any China intervention, so they will help. Nobody gave these promises to Ukraine

rasz 5y ago

>Ukraine is not a NATO member, but Poland is. If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. We lived once thru this in 1939. NO one will join in to defend Poland. Germany might even make another deal with Russia to "save EU".

stingraycharles 5y ago
Wasn’t the NATO founded in 1949? And doesn’t this imply we haven’t lived thru this, as the conditions of NATO did not yet apply in 1939?
- qwytw 5y ago
  Even still, I'm not sure the lack of political will in France/Britain after Poland was attacked was the reason it fell. The allies they just did not feel like they had capability to start and offensive against Germany and expected Poland to hold out much longer than it did. Czechoslovakia would probably be a much better example (however NATO did not exactly agree to recognize the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas just to appease Putin).
pelasaco 5y ago
it is not just Poland. Now it is Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Czech Republic. They are all NATO and are all "between" Germany and Russia.
rocgf 5y ago
You speak with such impunity on matters that are clearly not for the average folk. The situations in 1939 and 2022 are only similar insofar as we are talking about the same country. Everything else is different.
qwytw 5y ago
I'm not at all confident Russia could conquer Poland though even if it's left to fight alone (together with the Baltic states). It spends ~65% more on its military than Ukraine, has full access to western tech and way less internal problems (good luck finding any region in poland where > 0.x% of the population would want to join Russia). Even if Russia 'defeats' the Ukrainian military (which I don't think is at all certain) what is Putin's next step? Any regime they install in Ukraine would require enormous resources to maintain power and I don't see how can Russia afford that, at best they can bite off some regions in eastern Ukraine. Also most Russian don't seem to be even close to being as enthusiastic as the majority of Nazi Germans were when their tanks rolled into Paris. Russians seem to be mostly apathetic, they don't really support the war but also are not willing to actually stand up and do anything about it. That might change if there is not quick victory/large amounts of civilians start being killed/sanctions actually start working.

kirso 5y ago

Don't forget, this was also a similar case during WW2 and then Munich agreement happened... It never is as easy - this is stated on paper so we all go to war. Including now broken Minsk agreement... Just all sad to see that the interests of a few shed blood of many.

mcv 5y ago

The US and Russia did promise to defend Ukraine against nuclear powers in exchange for Ukraine giving their nuclear weapons to Russia in 1994. Now Russia, a nuclear power and one of the signatories to that treaty, broke it by attacking Ukraine, and the US broke it by not defending Ukraine from that aggression, because Russia is waving its nukes around as a threat. The big lesson that the US and Russia are teaching Ukraine here is that they should have never given up their nuclear weapon. This whole event is terrible for the prevention of nuclear proliferation.

Terry_Roll 5y ago
Its all a bit of a joke to be honest. There are 100k Russian troops, thats a population of some UK towns like Harlow, Romford, Royal Leamington Spa, or Gillingham trying to secure a landmass 2.5 times the size of the UK! Its a joke, because once the Ukrainian population is psychologically motivated into guerrilla warfare against the Russians, it would be over in a day or two. This invasion with media complicity, is just project fear or govt's around the world enjoying their population's desire to be governed. Russia is doing each and every govt around the world a favour by reinforcing the govt form of control instead of self determination. Now if Russia went in with 1million troops, then it would be something to worry about, but this is all just psychological reinforcement of hierarchical control systems on populations.
SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
>Russia is waving its nukes around as a threat. Really? Has Putin actually said anything about nuclear weapons in the context of this war?
- mcv 5y ago
  Not explicitly, but that's how many people interpret his threats to NATO countries if they help defend Ukraine.

DocTomoe 5y ago

> If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily. That's what is commonly believed, but that belief is actually wrong - other NATO members are obligated to - and I quote directly from Article 5 here - "(...) assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, (...)" The keywords here are "as it deems necessary" and "including the use of armed forces". There is no automatic need to send troops - if you as the attacked party think a strongly worded letter is all that is necessary, you just ask for that letter. Of course you can demand military support, but doing so takes time, and it is easy to consider a situation in which you do not have that time anymore. For an application of that principle, see 9/11, when the US invoked Article 5, but which did not result in military action from all NATO members (several of which refused to take part in "pointless military adventures"). The US obstracized those countries, but ultimately (had to?) accept.

csomar 5y ago
Turkey will be in a sweet spot. They can do lots of damage to Russian navy with little intervention from them required. NATO has lots of bargaining power if it decides to do so. It seems more like a lack of leadership than of resources or power.
SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
Is it clear in context that the 'deeming' country is the one being attacked rather than the one deciding how to assist? It doesn't seem totally clear from that quote.
PolygonSheep 5y ago
What's the point of even having it then? It's like saying "You are obligated to do what you want to do". You'd do it even if you weren't "obligated" to do so and if you don't want to do it then you can just deem it "unnecessary" and it's no longer obligated.

T-A 5y ago

> Belarus, Finland, or any of Russia's other non-NATO neighbours are probably pretty nervous right now The Russian forces in Chernobyl came from Belarus... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_State

toyg 5y ago
Yeah, the only nervous people in Belarus right now are "only" the ones who hoped in a democratic post-Lukashenko future. Which is part of the value of this operation from the Russian perspective: "don't get ideas, or else".