6 ms·

I don't understand who you think is to blame here? Was NATO supposed to accept Ukraine without Ukraine applying for membership?

sylens 4y ago
It seems clear to me that the GP is blaming past Ukrainian leadership
Animatronio 4y ago
[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  How much has been spent on the Ukraine Russia conflict that could’ve been avoided if Russia had feared a NATO response (assuming existing Ukraine membership)? Avoided spending that now must be spent to defang Russia. The numbers I’ve seen thrown around are $100B+ in conflict cost. Cheaper to have done the paperwork and meetings imho, not to mention the exceptional loss of life in aggregate.
- IgorPartola 4y ago
  Nobody is demanding anything of NATO. I am retroactively demanding that the Ukrainian leadership should have rooted out corruption and got Ukraine’s ducks in a row so that it could join NATO. And the whole point of NATO is that most smaller countries do not benefit NATO as much as the alliance benefits them. Yet the cumulative effect is more world peace. Besides, did you not notice the effect the war in Ukraine had on things like gas prices in the US?
  - bshipp 4y ago
    Ukraine's inability to root out corruption so that it could join the EU/NATO wasn't some national failing as much as a very active Russian FSB/SVR presence inside Ukraine that prevented any significant reforms. The invasion was an admittance that their underhanded techniques were failing and a more active method of intervention into Ukrainian politics was necessary.
    - rendall 4y ago
      I'm pretty certain that it was Ukraine's increasingly successful campaigns to purge its corruption that prompted Russia to invade.
      - bshipp 4y ago
        Absolutely correct. Reading my post, I realize my conclusion was unclear: each successive elimination of corruption within Ukraine, starting in the 2010's, was more and more threatening to Putin and his oligarch cronies until pressure on their theft of oil revenues become unbearable.
  - Animatronio 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - khochesh_kushat 4y ago
      By demanding, you mean requesting?
      - Animatronio 4y ago
        Obviously "requesting" is a much better word. However, the gist of my comment was they are trying really hard to sell the idea that their membership is beneficial to NATO (which I believe it most definitely is not).
        khochesh_kushat 4y ago
        Well, they believe it is, and so do many people in NATO (and many disagree also). I still don't understand what the gist of calling requesting demanding is meant to convey.
        Animatronio 4y ago
        It is meant to convey my annoyance at the shrill tone of incessant Ukr requests that used to come in ten times a day...
- postingawayonhn 4y ago
  It probably would have deterred Russia from invading and saved most NATO countries a ton of money. Basically the entire point of NATO is to stop Russia going to war with its neighbiors. And now Ukraine is going to be quite a week equipped and experienced ally. Certainly a country NATO should be happy to have on its side.
  - Animatronio 4y ago
    But NATO literally (and I also mean geographically) NATO has Ukr on its side. So what more would a country like say Portugal gain from Ukraine's NATO membership, except perhaps having to contribute to their defense even more?
    - greedo 4y ago
      Portugal has barely hit the 2% goal for defense spending that NATO members are supposed to be targeting. So it's not like they'd be spending more to protect Ukraine.
      - Animatronio 4y ago
        Portugal was only an example. They could however find themselves pressured to send soldiers, and not only supplies, should NATO decide to openly declare war on Russia.
        lostmsu 4y ago
        So 2% too?
      - smegger001 4y ago
        the whole point is by having this big block of countries agreeing to cooperatively fight Russia is if any of them are attacked, is that we don't actually have to fallow through because its to big of a risk for Russia to act up. If they had been part of NATO to begin with none of us would actually had to of sent any aid like we are now. NATO membership is as much about mutual coordination and defense as is is about deterring Russia from starting war in Europe.
- flexie 4y ago
  Ukrainian NATO membership does benefit NATO in several ways: - Ukraine is the only country in Europe to have fought off NATO's main adversary - Ukraine has a large, powerful and experienced army, much larger than those of most NATO countries - Ukraine in NATO will be seen by the older NATO members as a adding another buffer state - Ukraine in NATO will be seen by the newer NATO members such as the Baltic countries or Poland, as having another ally bordering Russia - Ukraine is a new democracy and is (was) a rising economy. It benefits NATO to include these in NATO - The populations of most European NATO countries are in favor of Ukrainian membership.
  - Animatronio 4y ago
    - Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany. - Ukraine's army if frankly in tatters, being propped by massive supplies of ammo, weapons and mercs - Ukraine is already a buffer state by virtue of its geographical position - your last 3 points are simply appeals to emotions and in no way arguments for Ukraine's membership.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - flexie 4y ago
      All these wars were before NATO existed. Ukraine’s defense is a formidable army which has stopped the advance of what most experts thought was the second most powerful army in the world, and the fact that Ukraine is supplied weapons, training and ammunition from NATO countries doesn’t change that. It only adds to the point that NATO itself recognizes that Ukraine belongs in the alliance. If Ukraine loses the war it will cease to be a buffer and become part of Russia.
      - Animatronio 4y ago
        Then one could also argue that no NATO country has ever fought off Russia. Ukraine barely stopped the Russians, even with the massive help of NATO (both before and after the 2021 invasion). It doesn't follow at all that NATO thinks Ukr is a member. Ukr is just that - a buffer country that should not be taken by Russia. This is not meant in an offensive way, think of it as a neutral country like Switzerland or Austria.
- finfrastrcuture 4y ago
  Getting hung up on the transactional piece of this is tragic. Ukraine constitutes a society that has embraced (evidenced by their revolution, stiff resistance so far, etc.) enlightenment values - the worth of an individual, a rules based society, meritocracy, etc. Before we run to all the counterfactuals, these values are generally instilled in the culture (particularly the younger demographics). NATO essentially exists to protect this common, values-based order. Not granting membership earlier was those countries (mentioned in other comments) over-rotating on transactional-based benefits, over value-based ones. That's why there's such frustration now over getting Ukraine into NATO now. Will it happen? No, diplomatically impossible while they're engaged in hot war. But the moral outrage is reasonable given the bloody price they've paid in defense of the values NATO exists to protect. To clearly connect the dots...considering Ukraine as part of NATO benefits NATO in that it allows them to uphold those values it exists to serve, giving it purpose and strength from the unity of its member countries (and moral investment of the individuals who serve its armies).
rossdavidh 4y ago
I believe Ukraine did apply, or at least indicate they wanted to. The real reason Ukraine did not get invited to join NATO is that, even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea, lots of people in Europe wanted to believe that it was still possible to do business with Russia, and that they would come around eventually. There are a lot of people who still believe that doing business with someone makes them come around to democracy eventually; this was also a reason given by President Clinton for normalizing trade with China (where it has also not worked). It has been a bit of a political earthquake for Germany to find itself arming others, perhaps more even for the political elite than for the general population. I don't think it would have been possible to convince them that Ukraine should be admitted prior to 2022. Now, of course, attitudes are very different (thankfully), but prior to 2022 the plan for most of Europe (and honestly most of North America as well) was to be nice to Russia and they would come around, because otherwise they would lost to much money. It turns out that is a bad strategy.
- JeremyNT 4y ago
  > There are a lot of people who still believe that doing business with someone makes them come around to democracy eventually; this was also a reason given by President Clinton for normalizing trade with China (where it has also not worked). Well I suppose it's impossible to determine real motivations of politicians, but I always assumed this was simply BS that nobody in power ever really believed. I mean, when you're addicted to cheap oil/labor/whatever but the regime with the cheap oil/labor/whatever has some pesky anti-democratic tendencies, what better way to sell it to a skeptical population than to tell them that by merely consuming the cheap goods the transaction itself will somehow change the problematic regime's ideology?
- ajross 4y ago
  > even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea, lots of people in Europe wanted to believe that it was still possible to do business with Russia Frankly this is true in the US too. It's true everywhere in the west, where there are inexplicable enclaves of Russophilic sentiment that flies in the face of all reason and evidence. Tech bros think they're a great new market. Finance wonks think they're a regulatory backdoor into European money. Old guard tankies still think they're anti-imperialist heroes. Reactionary right wingers think they're ethnic paragons fighting the culture war the west is too afraid of. Name a demographic, and you'll find a pack of sincere Russian apologists hiding in it somewhere. When the history books finally get written once all the partisans are dead, the ability of this tiny, shrinking Russian state to effect this kind of information war is going to be the subject of book after book.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bucharest_summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bucharest_summit > United States, Canada, Poland, Romania, the Czechs and the Baltic States, strongly supported Ukraine and Georgia becoming NATO action plan members; however, they were strongly opposed by Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium. Mere months later Russia invades Georgia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War France and Germany are to blame.

sylens 4y ago

It seems clear to me that the GP is blaming past Ukrainian leadership

Animatronio 4y ago

[flagged]

toomuchtodo 4y ago
How much has been spent on the Ukraine Russia conflict that could’ve been avoided if Russia had feared a NATO response (assuming existing Ukraine membership)? Avoided spending that now must be spent to defang Russia. The numbers I’ve seen thrown around are $100B+ in conflict cost. Cheaper to have done the paperwork and meetings imho, not to mention the exceptional loss of life in aggregate.
IgorPartola 4y ago
Nobody is demanding anything of NATO. I am retroactively demanding that the Ukrainian leadership should have rooted out corruption and got Ukraine’s ducks in a row so that it could join NATO. And the whole point of NATO is that most smaller countries do not benefit NATO as much as the alliance benefits them. Yet the cumulative effect is more world peace. Besides, did you not notice the effect the war in Ukraine had on things like gas prices in the US?
- bshipp 4y ago
  Ukraine's inability to root out corruption so that it could join the EU/NATO wasn't some national failing as much as a very active Russian FSB/SVR presence inside Ukraine that prevented any significant reforms. The invasion was an admittance that their underhanded techniques were failing and a more active method of intervention into Ukrainian politics was necessary.
  - rendall 4y ago
    I'm pretty certain that it was Ukraine's increasingly successful campaigns to purge its corruption that prompted Russia to invade.
    - bshipp 4y ago
      Absolutely correct. Reading my post, I realize my conclusion was unclear: each successive elimination of corruption within Ukraine, starting in the 2010's, was more and more threatening to Putin and his oligarch cronies until pressure on their theft of oil revenues become unbearable.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - khochesh_kushat 4y ago
    By demanding, you mean requesting?
    - Animatronio 4y ago
      Obviously "requesting" is a much better word. However, the gist of my comment was they are trying really hard to sell the idea that their membership is beneficial to NATO (which I believe it most definitely is not).
      - khochesh_kushat 4y ago
        Well, they believe it is, and so do many people in NATO (and many disagree also). I still don't understand what the gist of calling requesting demanding is meant to convey.
        Animatronio 4y ago
        It is meant to convey my annoyance at the shrill tone of incessant Ukr requests that used to come in ten times a day...
postingawayonhn 4y ago
It probably would have deterred Russia from invading and saved most NATO countries a ton of money. Basically the entire point of NATO is to stop Russia going to war with its neighbiors. And now Ukraine is going to be quite a week equipped and experienced ally. Certainly a country NATO should be happy to have on its side.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  But NATO literally (and I also mean geographically) NATO has Ukr on its side. So what more would a country like say Portugal gain from Ukraine's NATO membership, except perhaps having to contribute to their defense even more?
  - greedo 4y ago
    Portugal has barely hit the 2% goal for defense spending that NATO members are supposed to be targeting. So it's not like they'd be spending more to protect Ukraine.
    - Animatronio 4y ago
      Portugal was only an example. They could however find themselves pressured to send soldiers, and not only supplies, should NATO decide to openly declare war on Russia.
      - lostmsu 4y ago
        So 2% too?
    - smegger001 4y ago
      the whole point is by having this big block of countries agreeing to cooperatively fight Russia is if any of them are attacked, is that we don't actually have to fallow through because its to big of a risk for Russia to act up. If they had been part of NATO to begin with none of us would actually had to of sent any aid like we are now. NATO membership is as much about mutual coordination and defense as is is about deterring Russia from starting war in Europe.
flexie 4y ago
Ukrainian NATO membership does benefit NATO in several ways: - Ukraine is the only country in Europe to have fought off NATO's main adversary - Ukraine has a large, powerful and experienced army, much larger than those of most NATO countries - Ukraine in NATO will be seen by the older NATO members as a adding another buffer state - Ukraine in NATO will be seen by the newer NATO members such as the Baltic countries or Poland, as having another ally bordering Russia - Ukraine is a new democracy and is (was) a rising economy. It benefits NATO to include these in NATO - The populations of most European NATO countries are in favor of Ukrainian membership.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  - Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany. - Ukraine's army if frankly in tatters, being propped by massive supplies of ammo, weapons and mercs - Ukraine is already a buffer state by virtue of its geographical position - your last 3 points are simply appeals to emotions and in no way arguments for Ukraine's membership.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - flexie 4y ago
    All these wars were before NATO existed. Ukraine’s defense is a formidable army which has stopped the advance of what most experts thought was the second most powerful army in the world, and the fact that Ukraine is supplied weapons, training and ammunition from NATO countries doesn’t change that. It only adds to the point that NATO itself recognizes that Ukraine belongs in the alliance. If Ukraine loses the war it will cease to be a buffer and become part of Russia.
    - Animatronio 4y ago
      Then one could also argue that no NATO country has ever fought off Russia. Ukraine barely stopped the Russians, even with the massive help of NATO (both before and after the 2021 invasion). It doesn't follow at all that NATO thinks Ukr is a member. Ukr is just that - a buffer country that should not be taken by Russia. This is not meant in an offensive way, think of it as a neutral country like Switzerland or Austria.
finfrastrcuture 4y ago
Getting hung up on the transactional piece of this is tragic. Ukraine constitutes a society that has embraced (evidenced by their revolution, stiff resistance so far, etc.) enlightenment values - the worth of an individual, a rules based society, meritocracy, etc. Before we run to all the counterfactuals, these values are generally instilled in the culture (particularly the younger demographics). NATO essentially exists to protect this common, values-based order. Not granting membership earlier was those countries (mentioned in other comments) over-rotating on transactional-based benefits, over value-based ones. That's why there's such frustration now over getting Ukraine into NATO now. Will it happen? No, diplomatically impossible while they're engaged in hot war. But the moral outrage is reasonable given the bloody price they've paid in defense of the values NATO exists to protect. To clearly connect the dots...considering Ukraine as part of NATO benefits NATO in that it allows them to uphold those values it exists to serve, giving it purpose and strength from the unity of its member countries (and moral investment of the individuals who serve its armies).

rossdavidh 4y ago

I believe Ukraine did apply, or at least indicate they wanted to. The real reason Ukraine did not get invited to join NATO is that, even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea, lots of people in Europe wanted to believe that it was still possible to do business with Russia, and that they would come around eventually. There are a lot of people who still believe that doing business with someone makes them come around to democracy eventually; this was also a reason given by President Clinton for normalizing trade with China (where it has also not worked). It has been a bit of a political earthquake for Germany to find itself arming others, perhaps more even for the political elite than for the general population. I don't think it would have been possible to convince them that Ukraine should be admitted prior to 2022. Now, of course, attitudes are very different (thankfully), but prior to 2022 the plan for most of Europe (and honestly most of North America as well) was to be nice to Russia and they would come around, because otherwise they would lost to much money. It turns out that is a bad strategy.

JeremyNT 4y ago
> There are a lot of people who still believe that doing business with someone makes them come around to democracy eventually; this was also a reason given by President Clinton for normalizing trade with China (where it has also not worked). Well I suppose it's impossible to determine real motivations of politicians, but I always assumed this was simply BS that nobody in power ever really believed. I mean, when you're addicted to cheap oil/labor/whatever but the regime with the cheap oil/labor/whatever has some pesky anti-democratic tendencies, what better way to sell it to a skeptical population than to tell them that by merely consuming the cheap goods the transaction itself will somehow change the problematic regime's ideology?
ajross 4y ago
> even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea, lots of people in Europe wanted to believe that it was still possible to do business with Russia Frankly this is true in the US too. It's true everywhere in the west, where there are inexplicable enclaves of Russophilic sentiment that flies in the face of all reason and evidence. Tech bros think they're a great new market. Finance wonks think they're a regulatory backdoor into European money. Old guard tankies still think they're anti-imperialist heroes. Reactionary right wingers think they're ethnic paragons fighting the culture war the west is too afraid of. Name a demographic, and you'll find a pack of sincere Russian apologists hiding in it somewhere. When the history books finally get written once all the partisans are dead, the ability of this tiny, shrinking Russian state to effect this kind of information war is going to be the subject of book after book.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bucharest_summit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bucharest_summit > United States, Canada, Poland, Romania, the Czechs and the Baltic States, strongly supported Ukraine and Georgia becoming NATO action plan members; however, they were strongly opposed by Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium. Mere months later Russia invades Georgia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War France and Germany are to blame.