3 ms·

The most absurd thing of this story is that NATO cannot guarantee the defense of Ukraine. Even now after 2 years, NATO cannot establish air defenses over Ukrain

The most absurd thing of this story is that NATO cannot guarantee the defense of Ukraine. Even now after 2 years, NATO cannot establish air defenses over Ukraine. So what is the point of the expansion? To make the whole NATO weaker?

ciupicri 2y ago
NATO does not want to get involved at the level you're mentioning. Also just for the record, Ukraine is a not a member of NATO.
- coliveira 2y ago
  It is not a member, but the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine. What's the point of considering them for membership if they don't want to get involved?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > It is not a member, but the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine. No, its not. The Russo-Ukrainian war started when Ukraine had a neutrality commitment and no one was pushing for changes from the NATO side, either. Now, immediately after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and invaded and begin direct (with “deniable” forces) and local proxy wars in other parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine dropped that commitment and resumed attempts to join NATO, but the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is about Russia trying to take over Ukraine despite their being no active efforts toward NATO membership, not about NATO offering membership to Ukraine.
  - benterix 2y ago
    > the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine This is what Putin says now. The actual reasons are clearly spelled out in the article published by TASS after Putin started the invasion: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 As you can see, they have nothing to do with NATO expansion - Putin just wanted Ukrainians to be part of Russian empire just like Belorussians are.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> The most absurd thing of this story is that NATO cannot guarantee the defense of Ukraine. NATO could, it chooses not to. > Even now after 2 years, NATO cannot establish air defenses over Ukraine. “Cannot” implies it has tried and failed, rather than simply repeatedly deciding not to try. > So what is the point of the expansion? To make the whole NATO weaker? Expansion doesn’t make NATO weaker. (Except insofar as NATO’s consensus decision making make decision-making dependent on the least-reliable member, which is actually a problem recently, and potentially about to become a much bigger one with the new US administration.)
- coliveira 2y ago
  > NATO could, it chooses not to. So they're lying, because they have repeatedly said to Ukraine that they're committed to protect them against foreign aggression. > Expansion doesn’t make NATO weaker. Of course it can, if you include a geographic area you cannot defend, that's by definition adding a weakness.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > So they’re lying, because they have repeatedly said to Ukraine that they’re committed to protect them against foreign aggression. No, they haven’t. They have repeatedly said they will provide material assistance to Ukraine in the current emergency with Russia, but they have pointedly not committed the alliance to protect Ukraine, and have in fact stalled every Ukrainian request for such a commitment since 2008. They have indicated that at some future time they expect to be willing to make such a commitment, but that’s…very different than making it now. (There have been several NATO members discussing making a similar commitment outside the confines of the alliance, and more directly intervening in the conflict, but that is both still just talk, and distinct from the commitments of the alliance itself.)
    - coliveira 2y ago
      Ok, so the point is just to sell military equipment, that makes sense.

ciupicri 2y ago

NATO does not want to get involved at the level you're mentioning. Also just for the record, Ukraine is a not a member of NATO.

coliveira 2y ago
It is not a member, but the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine. What's the point of considering them for membership if they don't want to get involved?
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > It is not a member, but the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine. No, its not. The Russo-Ukrainian war started when Ukraine had a neutrality commitment and no one was pushing for changes from the NATO side, either. Now, immediately after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and invaded and begin direct (with “deniable” forces) and local proxy wars in other parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine dropped that commitment and resumed attempts to join NATO, but the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is about Russia trying to take over Ukraine despite their being no active efforts toward NATO membership, not about NATO offering membership to Ukraine.
- benterix 2y ago
  > the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine This is what Putin says now. The actual reasons are clearly spelled out in the article published by TASS after Putin started the invasion: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 As you can see, they have nothing to do with NATO expansion - Putin just wanted Ukrainians to be part of Russian empire just like Belorussians are.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> The most absurd thing of this story is that NATO cannot guarantee the defense of Ukraine. NATO could, it chooses not to. > Even now after 2 years, NATO cannot establish air defenses over Ukraine. “Cannot” implies it has tried and failed, rather than simply repeatedly deciding not to try. > So what is the point of the expansion? To make the whole NATO weaker? Expansion doesn’t make NATO weaker. (Except insofar as NATO’s consensus decision making make decision-making dependent on the least-reliable member, which is actually a problem recently, and potentially about to become a much bigger one with the new US administration.)

coliveira 2y ago
> NATO could, it chooses not to. So they're lying, because they have repeatedly said to Ukraine that they're committed to protect them against foreign aggression. > Expansion doesn’t make NATO weaker. Of course it can, if you include a geographic area you cannot defend, that's by definition adding a weakness.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > So they’re lying, because they have repeatedly said to Ukraine that they’re committed to protect them against foreign aggression. No, they haven’t. They have repeatedly said they will provide material assistance to Ukraine in the current emergency with Russia, but they have pointedly not committed the alliance to protect Ukraine, and have in fact stalled every Ukrainian request for such a commitment since 2008. They have indicated that at some future time they expect to be willing to make such a commitment, but that’s…very different than making it now. (There have been several NATO members discussing making a similar commitment outside the confines of the alliance, and more directly intervening in the conflict, but that is both still just talk, and distinct from the commitments of the alliance itself.)
  - coliveira 2y ago
    Ok, so the point is just to sell military equipment, that makes sense.