4 ms·

Except that Ukraine joining NATO is not a subject anywhere except in Putin's mind.

anon291 4y ago
The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008, knowing full well what would happen if that occurred. It's not a subject often broached today, but the gears of war turn for a long time. However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. This would immediately pull several NATO countries into a war situation with Russia which would mean the US would be as well. So even if it's not NATO directly, it will be indirectly. Like, if Ukraine is in the EU, and now Germany's at war with Russia, and Russia declares war on Germany, we'll be stuck in that too. EDIT: yeah yeah yeah... the EU is not a military union. People who honestly believe that should just keep telling themselves that war is never waged for trade and money. Maybe if they say it enough times it'll be true.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008 No, Ukraine submitted a Membership Action Plan in 2008. The US can't promise NATO membership, nor is a MAP a promise of completing the process. Later that year, the Dutch head of NATO at the time indicated the MAP wouldn't go forwards. > However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. This is really silly framing. The EU doesn't annex countries. Annexations are "the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory". Someone's doing that right now, but it's not the US, NATO, EU, or Ukraine.
- hackyhacky 4y ago
  > However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. Interesting way to phrase that. I'm sure you know that "annex" suggests a non-consensual activity, like what Russia did (and is doing) to Donbas. On the other hand, Ukraine has actively requested to join the EU, so perhaps "annex" isn't the best word here, as it reduces the perception of Ukraine's agency in the matter. In this case, I think that agency is of great importance, because we usually allow countries to join associations freely. The seem to be implying that that Vladimir Putin should have veto power over Ukraine's decision to join EU.
  - anon291 4y ago
    > The seem to be implying that that Vladimir Putin should have veto power over Ukraine's decision to join EU. It's interesting that you use the word 'should', because I said no such thing. I am not God. I unfortunately cannot control Vladimir Putin's decisions. All I know is that if the US and its cohorts continue its actions they are risking a needless hot, potentially nuclear, war with Russia. I think Putin 'should' call off his war and accept defeat and let the world be peaceful. Unfortunately, Russia is not a 'real' democracy, and even if it were, I am not a Russian voter. The EU can do what it wants too, since I'm not a European. However, I am an American and I want my country to do what it can to avoid hot nuclear wars, which includes counseling allies against making stupid decisions
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008 No, it didn't (and couldn't, since NATO works by consensus and the US can't prevent, say, Hungary or Turkey from holding up another country trying to join), though Ukraine has been preparing for membership for longer than that (as was Russia, before it stopped because it didn't get fast tracked without readiness criteria other countries were being asked to meet.) > However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. Nice try and denying Ukraine's agency; it is Ukraine that applied for Candidate status in the EU, after quite a bit of lobbying directed by Ukraine at EU members on the topic. > This would immediately pull several NATO countries into a war situation with Russia which would mean the US would be as well. It is easy enough for Russia to avoid this just by not waging war on Ukraine. Then the mutual security commitments in the EU won't risk bringing other EU members into war with Russia, and the overlap between the EU and NATO won't put Russia in a situation where they are likely to trigger NATO Article 5. This also has the advantage of complying with Russia's obligations under the UN Charter and customary international law, unlike their current war of aggression.
yucky 4y ago
Do you think the role the US played[1] in financing and fomenting the coup (ahem - totally organic revolution) in Ukraine in 2014 played any part at all in the Russia/Ukraine conflict since then? [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
- anon291 4y ago
  Yes of course. As a strict non-interventionist when it comes to foreign affairs, I think the US often works against its long-term interests when it needlessly interferes in foreign countries for the sake of a quick buck.

The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008, knowing full well what would happen if that occurred. It's not a subject often broached today, but the gears of war turn for a long time. However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. This would immediately pull several NATO countries into a war situation with Russia which would mean the US would be as well. So even if it's not NATO directly, it will be indirectly. Like, if Ukraine is in the EU, and now Germany's at war with Russia, and Russia declares war on Germany, we'll be stuck in that too. EDIT: yeah yeah yeah... the EU is not a military union. People who honestly believe that should just keep telling themselves that war is never waged for trade and money. Maybe if they say it enough times it'll be true.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008 No, Ukraine submitted a Membership Action Plan in 2008. The US can't promise NATO membership, nor is a MAP a promise of completing the process. Later that year, the Dutch head of NATO at the time indicated the MAP wouldn't go forwards. > However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. This is really silly framing. The EU doesn't annex countries. Annexations are "the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state, usually following military occupation of the territory". Someone's doing that right now, but it's not the US, NATO, EU, or Ukraine.
hackyhacky 4y ago
> However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. Interesting way to phrase that. I'm sure you know that "annex" suggests a non-consensual activity, like what Russia did (and is doing) to Donbas. On the other hand, Ukraine has actively requested to join the EU, so perhaps "annex" isn't the best word here, as it reduces the perception of Ukraine's agency in the matter. In this case, I think that agency is of great importance, because we usually allow countries to join associations freely. The seem to be implying that that Vladimir Putin should have veto power over Ukraine's decision to join EU.
- anon291 4y ago
  > The seem to be implying that that Vladimir Putin should have veto power over Ukraine's decision to join EU. It's interesting that you use the word 'should', because I said no such thing. I am not God. I unfortunately cannot control Vladimir Putin's decisions. All I know is that if the US and its cohorts continue its actions they are risking a needless hot, potentially nuclear, war with Russia. I think Putin 'should' call off his war and accept defeat and let the world be peaceful. Unfortunately, Russia is not a 'real' democracy, and even if it were, I am not a Russian voter. The EU can do what it wants too, since I'm not a European. However, I am an American and I want my country to do what it can to avoid hot nuclear wars, which includes counseling allies against making stupid decisions
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The US promised Ukraine membership in 2008 No, it didn't (and couldn't, since NATO works by consensus and the US can't prevent, say, Hungary or Turkey from holding up another country trying to join), though Ukraine has been preparing for membership for longer than that (as was Russia, before it stopped because it didn't get fast tracked without readiness criteria other countries were being asked to meet.) > However, recently the EU has made its intentions clear to annex Ukraine. Nice try and denying Ukraine's agency; it is Ukraine that applied for Candidate status in the EU, after quite a bit of lobbying directed by Ukraine at EU members on the topic. > This would immediately pull several NATO countries into a war situation with Russia which would mean the US would be as well. It is easy enough for Russia to avoid this just by not waging war on Ukraine. Then the mutual security commitments in the EU won't risk bringing other EU members into war with Russia, and the overlap between the EU and NATO won't put Russia in a situation where they are likely to trigger NATO Article 5. This also has the advantage of complying with Russia's obligations under the UN Charter and customary international law, unlike their current war of aggression.

yucky 4y ago

Do you think the role the US played[1] in financing and fomenting the coup (ahem - totally organic revolution) in Ukraine in 2014 played any part at all in the Russia/Ukraine conflict since then? [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

anon291 4y ago
Yes of course. As a strict non-interventionist when it comes to foreign affairs, I think the US often works against its long-term interests when it needlessly interferes in foreign countries for the sake of a quick buck.