3 ms·

I can agree with you on most points. Where we seem to disagree is at the point where subjectivity is required to interpret the intentions of either side. > BUT

by brabel 5y ago

I can agree with you on most points. Where we seem to disagree is at the point where subjectivity is required to interpret the intentions of either side. > BUT it also demanded of NATO that it be permanently banned from any further expansion... That was not a demand that involved Ukraine, and my assertion about what the ultimatum asked "of Ukraine", not of NATO. So there's no disagreement here. The other demands were unacceptable to the West, but probably thrown in for leverage in negotiations, but the West's response was that even Ukraine not joining NATO was out of the question, so we'll never know for sure if that would've been enough to prevent war. > the ultimatum was targeted at NATO, and specifically at removing it's capacity to interfere should Russia choose to invade... That's your interpretation of what the demands were aiming for... here's another: "the ultimatum was targeted at NATO, and aimed specifically at stopping it from expanding into Russian neighbours and placing weapons there, including atomic weapons (which is a requirement of nations that join NATO[1]), threatening Russia right at its border." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

dragonwriter 5y ago
> the West's response was that even Ukraine not joining NATO was out of the question, No, it wasn't. Ukraine not joining NATO is the status quo. It is obviously acceptable to NATO, though Ukraine isn't too happy about it. Ukraine’s response was that permanently ruling out NATO membership was unacceptable. NATO's response was that every single other element was unacceptable, including the permanent ban on NATO expansion (which, of course, would ban Ukraine from membership whether or not Ukraine accepted what was demanded of it.) > including atomic weapons (which is a requirement of nations that join NATO), That description is simply false as a characterization of the nuclear sharing arrangement you cite to support it. NATO nuclear sharing agreements all predate the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and no country that has joined NATO since Turkey (and only a few of the earlier ones) has one. They are not required of countries that join NATO, or even available to them. Also, pedantically, describing them as dealing with “atomic” weapons is incorrect, as that phrase refers to a specific subset of nuclear weapons, and all weapons known to be deployed under nuclear sharing arrangements — because it's what the dual-use aircraft they are tied to are made to deliver — are B61 thermonuclear, not atomic, bombs.

by brabel 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> the West's response was that even Ukraine not joining NATO was out of the question, No, it wasn't. Ukraine not joining NATO is the status quo. It is obviously acceptable to NATO, though Ukraine isn't too happy about it. Ukraine’s response was that permanently ruling out NATO membership was unacceptable. NATO's response was that every single other element was unacceptable, including the permanent ban on NATO expansion (which, of course, would ban Ukraine from membership whether or not Ukraine accepted what was demanded of it.) > including atomic weapons (which is a requirement of nations that join NATO), That description is simply false as a characterization of the nuclear sharing arrangement you cite to support it. NATO nuclear sharing agreements all predate the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and no country that has joined NATO since Turkey (and only a few of the earlier ones) has one. They are not required of countries that join NATO, or even available to them. Also, pedantically, describing them as dealing with “atomic” weapons is incorrect, as that phrase refers to a specific subset of nuclear weapons, and all weapons known to be deployed under nuclear sharing arrangements — because it's what the dual-use aircraft they are tied to are made to deliver — are B61 thermonuclear, not atomic, bombs.