4 ms·

Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? I hear Rwanda has terri

Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? I hear Rwanda has territorial ambitions. Why don't we just stick to places we belong instead of trying to control every part of the world. Would you like to fight in Ukraine? Because I hear they take volunteers. Guaranteeing the security of volatile third rate countries you don't really care about is a sure fire way of avoiding war, as we saw in WW1.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the purpose is to piss off Russia, though, to be fair, pissing off someone who w is inclined to aggression against you because you've made that less easy is not a bad thing. > Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? Uganda and the DRC have expressed no interest, that I know of, in NATO membership or partnership, and are rather distant from the explicit geographic focus of NATO as specified in the treaty (Europe and North America) [0], as well as having political issues (like Russia when it tried to jump ahead of the readiness process and join) that would require, at best, a long onramp leaving geography aside. They'd probably be better candidates for NATO global partner status if they decidedto pursue a NATO affiliation than membership any time in the forseeable future. [0] Hence the language in Article 9 that, beyond the founding members which notably include some North American states, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”
- alienicecream 3y ago
  Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. When they're strong enough to contest it, you're going to be over there fighting for Ukranian soil, and if you care that much, you should just volunteer and leave the rest of us out of it.
  - nradov 3y ago
    We literally still have Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us. That seems like a serious threat. Containment as a policy worked well enough during the Cold War as the least bad alternative. There's no reason to stop it and allow Russia to reconquer Eastern Europe, which they absolutely would do absent a strong containment policy. The historical record shows that isolationism and appeasement never works in the long run. The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. They're just asking for weapons, logistics, and intelligence. The more Russian soldiers that they can kill, the less threat that Russia will pose in other areas. It's sad the situation has come to this point and I take no delight in those deaths but there is no realistic alternative.
    - alienicecream 3y ago
      How the heck is putting Ukraine or Georgia in NATO going to protect us from Russia's nucleus weapons?? If anything it will make the threat more immediate. > The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. This thread is about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means we would be obligated to fight on the ground to defend those countries. I don't know what you're arguing against, but it seems you didn't read the thread.
      - nradov 3y ago
        I read it, but you apparently don't understand what's actually happening. While NATO had some preliminary discussions with Ukraine they are not actively moving through the accession process. Every major NATO leader has been clear that the territorial dispute with Russia will have to be settled one way or another before Ukraine can officially join. So, you're being ignorant or disingenuous by bringing up an obligation to fight in the ground in Ukraine. As for Georgia, they are a sovereign state and can make their own decisions. If they want to join and meet the criteria then let them join. How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard? A policy of aggressive containment keeps us safer by wasting Russian resources. When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have less for building nuclear weapons or launching invasions. Keep them poor. And anyway you haven't even proposed a viable alternative. There's no point in negotiating with Putin: he doesn't negotiate in good faith. Even if we gave him huge concessions now he would just come back and demand more in a few years. Nor are we in a position to be able to offer the type of concessions that Russia seems to want. Ukrainian territory and Georgian sovereign freedom of action aren't ours to give away. The citizens of those countries will have to decide for themselves.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Why would Ukraine and Georgia belong in NATO for any reason other than to piss off the Russians? For mutual defense against outside aggressors and to coordinate regional security efforts, same as every other NATO member. The fact that the Russians were clearly in 2008 (and have demonstrated that even more clearly since) the most likely and dangerous outside aggressors facing Georgia and Ukraine doesn't mean the purpose is to piss off Russia, though, to be fair, pissing off someone who w is inclined to aggression against you because you've made that less easy is not a bad thing. > Should we put Uganda and Congo in NATO? Uganda and the DRC have expressed no interest, that I know of, in NATO membership or partnership, and are rather distant from the explicit geographic focus of NATO as specified in the treaty (Europe and North America) [0], as well as having political issues (like Russia when it tried to jump ahead of the readiness process and join) that would require, at best, a long onramp leaving geography aside. They'd probably be better candidates for NATO global partner status if they decidedto pursue a NATO affiliation than membership any time in the forseeable future. [0] Hence the language in Article 9 that, beyond the founding members which notably include some North American states, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.”

alienicecream 3y ago
Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. When they're strong enough to contest it, you're going to be over there fighting for Ukranian soil, and if you care that much, you should just volunteer and leave the rest of us out of it.
- nradov 3y ago
  We literally still have Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us. That seems like a serious threat. Containment as a policy worked well enough during the Cold War as the least bad alternative. There's no reason to stop it and allow Russia to reconquer Eastern Europe, which they absolutely would do absent a strong containment policy. The historical record shows that isolationism and appeasement never works in the long run. The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. They're just asking for weapons, logistics, and intelligence. The more Russian soldiers that they can kill, the less threat that Russia will pose in other areas. It's sad the situation has come to this point and I take no delight in those deaths but there is no realistic alternative.
  - alienicecream 3y ago
    How the heck is putting Ukraine or Georgia in NATO going to protect us from Russia's nucleus weapons?? If anything it will make the threat more immediate. > The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. This thread is about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means we would be obligated to fight on the ground to defend those countries. I don't know what you're arguing against, but it seems you didn't read the thread.
    - nradov 3y ago
      I read it, but you apparently don't understand what's actually happening. While NATO had some preliminary discussions with Ukraine they are not actively moving through the accession process. Every major NATO leader has been clear that the territorial dispute with Russia will have to be settled one way or another before Ukraine can officially join. So, you're being ignorant or disingenuous by bringing up an obligation to fight in the ground in Ukraine. As for Georgia, they are a sovereign state and can make their own decisions. If they want to join and meet the criteria then let them join. How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard? A policy of aggressive containment keeps us safer by wasting Russian resources. When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have less for building nuclear weapons or launching invasions. Keep them poor. And anyway you haven't even proposed a viable alternative. There's no point in negotiating with Putin: he doesn't negotiate in good faith. Even if we gave him huge concessions now he would just come back and demand more in a few years. Nor are we in a position to be able to offer the type of concessions that Russia seems to want. Ukrainian territory and Georgian sovereign freedom of action aren't ours to give away. The citizens of those countries will have to decide for themselves.