5 ms·

> 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 under

by 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).
- arisAlexis 5y ago
  What are you talking about? Turkey is a good weapons customer of Russia and Putin and Erdogan continuously profess their mutual respect.
  - randomsearch 5y ago
    You’re both correct - Turkey is playing both sides.
hbarka 5y ago
> member states like Germany would have vetoed [Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership] Why is this often mentioned? What is Germany’s rationale and is this still a certainty? Perhaps these comments were more closely related to Schröder (because gas pipeline) but certainly a different generation now. edit: France and Germany were the two opposed countries.
- KronisLV 5y ago
  Would also like to know this, because Germany being on Russia's side feels a bit... out of nowhere? A bit odd? Not something you'd expect. I mean, i can understand some controversy around the actions of Turkey because of a variety of reasons, but Germany?
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > Germany being on Russia's side feels a bit... out of nowhere? A bit odd? Not something you'd expect. What used to be East Germany then is Germany now. It's not exactly a crazy development.
    - KronisLV 5y ago
      That's actually a fair point, though somehow one also might expect the country to distance itself from certain aspects of its past, seeing how it's been a bit more progressive leaning. At least that's the impression that i've gotten from the past decade of news, at least up until talks of pipelines and whatnot started.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Yes, but east germany was not willingly on the eastern block (nor was poland, czech, ...) But there are indeed some nostalgics here, who like Putin and the eastern empire.
  - pySSK 5y ago
    > Would also like to know this, because Germany being on Russia's side feels a bit... out of nowhere? A bit odd? Not something you'd expect. Two reasons: 1. Germany depends on Russia for gas, and the two countries have business and economic ties 2. Germany and France are the main 'providers' in the EU, kinda like California, Texas, New York in the US. They have to pay more if they admit a big poor country like Ukraine (44m pop., and would be second poorest in EU after Greece. Pop. of Germany and France: 83m, 67m respectively).
egeozcan 5y ago
> 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. This was always the case. Turkey needed to help in Korea (1950) to get into NATO (1952). With annexation of half the Cyprus, and the tensions with Greece and buying NATO-incompatible S400 defense missiles from Russia, it kept being a problem-child. It weirdly remains also the only member which recently had armed conflict against Russia. It's still a member though because of geopolitics. It's risky business but it has its rewards. I don't see the same situation in Ukraine. Disclosure: I'm from Turkey but I despise some of the acts I named above. I won't name which because I still want to go there and see my parents every once in a while.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > This was always the case. Turkey needed to help in Korea (1950) to get into NATO (1952). With annexation of half the Cyprus, and the tensions with Greece and buying NATO-incompatible S400 defense missiles from Russia, it kept being a problem-child. It weirdly remains also the only member which recently had armed conflict against Russia. Turkey was completely blackhanded as a military ally by NATO, long before Erdogun. NATO made an extremely costly error of accommodating the Greek junta, and later closing eyes on Cyprus. By all reasonable judgement, NATO should've backed Turkey, and not Greece, but they did it the other way around. If not for that, it wouldn't have set seeds of doubt which lead to the situation you see now, and probably would've averted the 1980 coup. Turkey has NATO's most powerful conventional military on this side of the Atlantic, second NATO army by size, and conventional firepower after the USA. Macaron trying to intimidate Turkey, and marginalise Turkey's NATO role in this day, and age is absurd, and suicidal. Turkey leaving NATO = say bye bye half of NATO's conventional force on this side of the Atlantic. Turkey's troops could not be replaced by ANY NATO member since USA is already overstretched. I could've added much more strong words.
  - egeozcan 5y ago
    > NATO made an extremely costly error of accommodating the Greek junta Are you sure you are being neutral here? I'm pretty sure the Turkish army was the oppressor, at least in this case... and what Greek junta? > Turkey has NATO's most powerful conventional military on this side of the Atlantic Conventional military means nothing. Turkey can't even close the Bosporus in these times of war because of Russian pressure. Just read the news. By the way I sound like a typical "reformed former citizen who hates their roots", I know. But I actually love the country, just not the politics.
pydry 5y ago
>There was zero chance Ukraine would have ever been admitted to NATO. "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
- stdbrouw 5y ago
  ... which, as the OP points out, were hollow words and the Membership Action Plan that would have been the first step to joining NATO never got off the ground. Two minutes on Wikipedia!
  - pydry 5y ago
    It was stalled under Yanukovych. NATO reiterated their commitment to it in Brussels in April 2021. Assuming Russia did nothing it would have happened eventually.
    - me_me_me 5y ago
      Can we acknowledge the hypocrisy of the whole thing. The reason NATO exists is because small countries in europe were afaid of USSR, and nowdays Russia. Nato is defensive pact, as such there is no threat coming from nato to any non nato country. Now a independent neighbor of Russia is trying to join nato to not be bullied by russia. Russia is not liking it because they will not be able to fuck with Ukraine any more and not because they are afraid of anything. This war is a proof why Ukraine was 100% justified to seek nato membership not other way around. We should stop victim blaming Ukraine.
      - pydry 5y ago
        I remember Putin expressing his extreme displeasure at NATO's intervention in Libya precisely because the implicit threat was "you're next, Putin". It was mostly ignored by the west but it was clear how furious he was at America and Hillary specifically. I dont see any reason why NATO working to destabilize Libya that passes muster that doesnt apply equally well to Russia. The idea that it was acting defensively is a farce. A conservative assessment is that Libya is a model for what they are aiming for in Russia in the long term. Ukraine is the victim and Russia is the aggressor but the west essentially gave a stick to a child and encouraged it to poke the bear before running away and hiding behind a rock. We could have prevented this.

by wahern 5y ago

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).

arisAlexis 5y ago
What are you talking about? Turkey is a good weapons customer of Russia and Putin and Erdogan continuously profess their mutual respect.
- randomsearch 5y ago
  You’re both correct - Turkey is playing both sides.

hbarka 5y ago

> member states like Germany would have vetoed [Ukraine’s bid for NATO membership] Why is this often mentioned? What is Germany’s rationale and is this still a certainty? Perhaps these comments were more closely related to Schröder (because gas pipeline) but certainly a different generation now. edit: France and Germany were the two opposed countries.

KronisLV 5y ago
Would also like to know this, because Germany being on Russia's side feels a bit... out of nowhere? A bit odd? Not something you'd expect. I mean, i can understand some controversy around the actions of Turkey because of a variety of reasons, but Germany?
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Germany being on Russia's side feels a bit... out of nowhere? A bit odd? Not something you'd expect. What used to be East Germany then is Germany now. It's not exactly a crazy development.
  - KronisLV 5y ago
    That's actually a fair point, though somehow one also might expect the country to distance itself from certain aspects of its past, seeing how it's been a bit more progressive leaning. At least that's the impression that i've gotten from the past decade of news, at least up until talks of pipelines and whatnot started.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    Yes, but east germany was not willingly on the eastern block (nor was poland, czech, ...) But there are indeed some nostalgics here, who like Putin and the eastern empire.
- pySSK 5y ago
  > Would also like to know this, because Germany being on Russia's side feels a bit... out of nowhere? A bit odd? Not something you'd expect. Two reasons: 1. Germany depends on Russia for gas, and the two countries have business and economic ties 2. Germany and France are the main 'providers' in the EU, kinda like California, Texas, New York in the US. They have to pay more if they admit a big poor country like Ukraine (44m pop., and would be second poorest in EU after Greece. Pop. of Germany and France: 83m, 67m respectively).

egeozcan 5y ago

> 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. This was always the case. Turkey needed to help in Korea (1950) to get into NATO (1952). With annexation of half the Cyprus, and the tensions with Greece and buying NATO-incompatible S400 defense missiles from Russia, it kept being a problem-child. It weirdly remains also the only member which recently had armed conflict against Russia. It's still a member though because of geopolitics. It's risky business but it has its rewards. I don't see the same situation in Ukraine. Disclosure: I'm from Turkey but I despise some of the acts I named above. I won't name which because I still want to go there and see my parents every once in a while.

baybal2 5y ago
> This was always the case. Turkey needed to help in Korea (1950) to get into NATO (1952). With annexation of half the Cyprus, and the tensions with Greece and buying NATO-incompatible S400 defense missiles from Russia, it kept being a problem-child. It weirdly remains also the only member which recently had armed conflict against Russia. Turkey was completely blackhanded as a military ally by NATO, long before Erdogun. NATO made an extremely costly error of accommodating the Greek junta, and later closing eyes on Cyprus. By all reasonable judgement, NATO should've backed Turkey, and not Greece, but they did it the other way around. If not for that, it wouldn't have set seeds of doubt which lead to the situation you see now, and probably would've averted the 1980 coup. Turkey has NATO's most powerful conventional military on this side of the Atlantic, second NATO army by size, and conventional firepower after the USA. Macaron trying to intimidate Turkey, and marginalise Turkey's NATO role in this day, and age is absurd, and suicidal. Turkey leaving NATO = say bye bye half of NATO's conventional force on this side of the Atlantic. Turkey's troops could not be replaced by ANY NATO member since USA is already overstretched. I could've added much more strong words.
- egeozcan 5y ago
  > NATO made an extremely costly error of accommodating the Greek junta Are you sure you are being neutral here? I'm pretty sure the Turkish army was the oppressor, at least in this case... and what Greek junta? > Turkey has NATO's most powerful conventional military on this side of the Atlantic Conventional military means nothing. Turkey can't even close the Bosporus in these times of war because of Russian pressure. Just read the news. By the way I sound like a typical "reformed former citizen who hates their roots", I know. But I actually love the country, just not the politics.

pydry 5y ago

>There was zero chance Ukraine would have ever been admitted to NATO. "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

stdbrouw 5y ago
... which, as the OP points out, were hollow words and the Membership Action Plan that would have been the first step to joining NATO never got off the ground. Two minutes on Wikipedia!
- pydry 5y ago
  It was stalled under Yanukovych. NATO reiterated their commitment to it in Brussels in April 2021. Assuming Russia did nothing it would have happened eventually.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    Can we acknowledge the hypocrisy of the whole thing. The reason NATO exists is because small countries in europe were afaid of USSR, and nowdays Russia. Nato is defensive pact, as such there is no threat coming from nato to any non nato country. Now a independent neighbor of Russia is trying to join nato to not be bullied by russia. Russia is not liking it because they will not be able to fuck with Ukraine any more and not because they are afraid of anything. This war is a proof why Ukraine was 100% justified to seek nato membership not other way around. We should stop victim blaming Ukraine.
    - pydry 5y ago
      I remember Putin expressing his extreme displeasure at NATO's intervention in Libya precisely because the implicit threat was "you're next, Putin". It was mostly ignored by the west but it was clear how furious he was at America and Hillary specifically. I dont see any reason why NATO working to destabilize Libya that passes muster that doesnt apply equally well to Russia. The idea that it was acting defensively is a farce. A conservative assessment is that Libya is a model for what they are aiming for in Russia in the long term. Ukraine is the victim and Russia is the aggressor but the west essentially gave a stick to a child and encouraged it to poke the bear before running away and hiding behind a rock. We could have prevented this.