3 ms·

I do think this shows some of the inconsistency of NATO / EU policy goals wrt to Ukraine. They don’t want to admit Ukraine into NATO or the EU, but promising n

I do think this shows some of the inconsistency of NATO / EU policy goals wrt to Ukraine. They don’t want to admit Ukraine into NATO or the EU, but promising not to admit them is a non-starter? To be sure Russia is the clear aggressor here and their political ambitions are no more sensible. It seems to me like the clear sensible political solution here is for all sides to guarantee the security and neutrality of Ukraine (make it the Switzerland of Eurasia), and for Donetsk and Crimea to remain part of Ukraine as autonomous regions - a la Sud Tirol in Italy.

alkonaut 5y ago
There is no inconsistency. EU is probably welcoming of Ukraine, but obviously it cannot be in a territorial conflict when that happens. For NATO the apparent inconsistency is only apparent. It’s an important principle that Ukraine is free to apply or not apply for any membership they want. And similarly the countries within NATO are free to form alliances with whoever they want, so they are free to accept or reject an application from Ukraine. What’s the alternative? NATO accepting that Russia decides the international politics of other countries, because right now their opinions happen to align? > It seems to me like the clear sensible political solution here is for all sides to guarantee the security and neutrality of Ukraine It does seem reasonable. But how could Russia be trusted in the matter? And how could Ukraine trust the west to help them if Russia doesn’t live up to its part of the agreement? Ukraine gave up its nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union with security guarantees from the west. That didn’t work. Any “neutral demilitarized Ukraine” seems it can only work if Ukraine is in a military alliance like NATO that would guarantee its safety. The negotiations about demilitarization make sense but would have to concern only what material can be on Ukraine territory, whether NATO excercies can take place there and so on. And on that it makes sense to go very non-confrontional. Norway has self-imposed such restrictions in the area closest to Russia for example: no excercises take place there and so on.
- yucky 5y ago
  >EU is probably welcoming of Ukraine I'm not an expert, but I believe there are economic metrics needed to even qualify, and Ukraine is far below those metrics.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Yes the EUs open arms are of course only “we hope you’ll soon fulfill the requirements” not “we want you to join so much well ignore the requirements”.
burlesona 5y ago
We had an agreement much like that in 1994 [1] and look what good it has done the Ukraine. In practice the only thing that really matters is a full mutual defense commitment, in the manner of NATO or the EU, because without that any commitment is only theoretical. 1: https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nu...

alkonaut 5y ago

There is no inconsistency. EU is probably welcoming of Ukraine, but obviously it cannot be in a territorial conflict when that happens. For NATO the apparent inconsistency is only apparent. It’s an important principle that Ukraine is free to apply or not apply for any membership they want. And similarly the countries within NATO are free to form alliances with whoever they want, so they are free to accept or reject an application from Ukraine. What’s the alternative? NATO accepting that Russia decides the international politics of other countries, because right now their opinions happen to align? > It seems to me like the clear sensible political solution here is for all sides to guarantee the security and neutrality of Ukraine It does seem reasonable. But how could Russia be trusted in the matter? And how could Ukraine trust the west to help them if Russia doesn’t live up to its part of the agreement? Ukraine gave up its nukes after the fall of the Soviet Union with security guarantees from the west. That didn’t work. Any “neutral demilitarized Ukraine” seems it can only work if Ukraine is in a military alliance like NATO that would guarantee its safety. The negotiations about demilitarization make sense but would have to concern only what material can be on Ukraine territory, whether NATO excercies can take place there and so on. And on that it makes sense to go very non-confrontional. Norway has self-imposed such restrictions in the area closest to Russia for example: no excercises take place there and so on.

yucky 5y ago
>EU is probably welcoming of Ukraine I'm not an expert, but I believe there are economic metrics needed to even qualify, and Ukraine is far below those metrics.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Yes the EUs open arms are of course only “we hope you’ll soon fulfill the requirements” not “we want you to join so much well ignore the requirements”.

burlesona 5y ago

We had an agreement much like that in 1994 [1] and look what good it has done the Ukraine. In practice the only thing that really matters is a full mutual defense commitment, in the manner of NATO or the EU, because without that any commitment is only theoretical. 1: https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nu...