4 ms·

So much so the west felt free to ignore Russia warnings and invite Ukraine into NATO. Except they did not, in fact, issue an invitation for Ukraine to join NAT

• cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Fair enough, not an official final invitation but an official invitation to increase ties with the intent of there being an official MAP at a later date. In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Perhaps you're thinking had there been an official invitation and Ukraine quickly accepted then there wouldn't be a Russia-Ukraine war as they would be covered under article 5. I think it's an open question if the US would declare war on Russia in such an instance. I think the reluctance to allow a quick ascension in the first place is born out of the same reluctance to enter such a war. The US is only as bound by treaties as it wants to be. The US could of course meet the letter of article 5 but not the spirit by providing a token response instead of the total war response people are expecting.
  • racional 2y ago
    In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference. Completely disagree -- the decision to heed Russia's request and not issue the MAPs to George and Ukraine in 2008 (where the matter has stayed ever since) was an important de-escalatory step and hugely significant. As Putin's sockpuppet Medvedev said at the time: "Reason has prevailed". The rest of the stuff about what might have happened had they been issued and accepted gets into the realm of hypotheticals, which is not my turf.