Russia(gate/bot) At what rate is NATO planning to invite in Ukraine? If NATO doesn't know, why is negotiating away a neutrality agreement a non-starter?

[Marduk]

Nations don't have a "right" to be in NATO. It is an alliance that was designed for mutual defense against Russia (the USSR). If making someone a member doesn't serve that interest, then they shouldn't be made a member.

True. Still, doesn't change the fact that NATO membership is a decision to be made purely between the current NATO and the prospective NATO member.

Nations don't have a "right" to be in NATO. It is an alliance that was designed for mutual defense against Russia (the USSR). If making someone a member doesn't serve that interest, then they shouldn't be made a member.

In the case of Ukraine, trying to become a member makes them LESS safe from Russia because Russia was very clear it would go to war with Ukraine to prevent it.

In the case of NATO, trying to get Ukraine to be a member makes them LESS safe from Russia because of exactly what is happening right now and the expected consequences.

Not exactly, its more like going for nukes. It does make a country safe once it happens, but there is a very dangerous "now or never" moment when the hostile neighbor realizes one is going for nukes and they aren't ready yet.

Bit of a spoiler at this point, but Ukraine was never going to be allowed to join NATO in any short amount of time, because Russia made it plain that it would invade should it try. And so the West has slowly tried to arm and empower Ukraine. Troop training, Javelins, Stingers, and lots of other cool toys. With Russia decaying strength, it would only be a matter of time before Russia would not be able to take or hold Ukraine. Right now, holding Ukraine is somewhat questionable for the Russians.

Bringing NATO into the fold makes no sense, not unless you want to start a war with Russia. Either by provoking Russia into a war or by using it as a springboard to assault Moscow and cut Russia off from the Black Sea.

But it never was about NATO. That NATO is the core issue here is a talking point pushed by Russia and friends, to cover for the true motivations involved, which are... far less PR friendly.

That's why they had to rein in Yanukovych, in a very harsh manner at that, when he wanted to go for a fairly popular association treaty with the EU, which in a turn of irony severely contributed to him getting overthrown for being a Russian puppet.
There was no talk of NATO then, so why did they do that?

A quote from Strategic Vision

It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically b...

www.goodreads.com

Russia can't have Ukraine if it joins NATO. But it can't have it either if it joins EU. Even being neutral for some strange reason and by some impossible means also means Russia doesn't have it.
Russia does want to have it, and is doing everything that it would be expected to do in process of making it a puppet state.

 

[Sailor.X]

You know just to spite Russia I would open up Nato membership to Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Moldova, East Pongo Tongo and any other Friendly country on the planet. Then send Putin the new member list with a Troll Face folder cover that says.

You Mad Bruh!!!

 

[LordsFire]

Sorry I missed this, but I'm not really sure what you're asking me to prove here.

That the 2014 coup was illegitimate, rather than the citizens of Ukraine overthrowing a Russian puppet ruler?

 

[Bacle]

That the 2014 coup was illegitimate, rather than the citizens of Ukraine overthrowing a Russian puppet ruler?

Because a US Congresscritter/State Dept person bragged about planning it several weeks before it happened.

I'll quote Tippy here:

If you want the proximate cause of the Ukraine mess, it goes back to the US couping the pro-Russian Ukrainian President and not even being subtle about it. I mean when you have a ranking member of the state department being leaked on YouTube planning said coup a few weeks before it happens, only being the US lets you get away with denying reality that hard when you claim it wasn't your fault.

 

[Sailor.X]

Gonna post this here.



Just posted for info purposes only.

 

[LordsFire]

Because a US Congresscritter/State Dept person bragged about planning it several weeks before it happened.

I'll quote Tippy here:

'Tippy says' is not proof. A link to the person saying so would be the start of proof.

And if it's just 'we supported,' that isn't proof. Because 'we supported' is entirely possible in the 'freedom fighters overthrowing a Russian puppet' perspective as well. It'd actually have to be something to the effect of 'we got rid of the old guy ourselves, and found somebody more amenable to do the job.'

 

[prinCZess]

Because a US Congresscritter/State Dept person bragged about planning it several weeks before it happened.

I'll quote Tippy here:

Just to actually reference the origin of this story (which is arguable in the scale of role the US state dep't planning--pushing certain candidates does not automatically equate to planning a coup/revolution...particularly since reaching out to Yanukovych and working with him--the to-be-replaced pro-Russian president/puppet--is explicitly brought up, along with shit as benign and do-nothing as UN coordination blech):

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

Also...Well, "Fuck the EU" remains a humorous note more than a scandalous one.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

True. Still, doesn't change the fact that NATO membership is a decision to be made purely between the current NATO and the prospective NATO member.

Not exactly, its more like going for nukes. It does make a country safe once it happens, but there is a very dangerous "now or never" moment when the hostile neighbor realizes one is going for nukes and they aren't ready yet.

It might make Ukraine safer once it is a part of NATO but it would never make the US, for example, safer. Fundamentally, US security isn't materially impacted by Russia controlling Ukraine. On the other hand, US security is impacted by either 1) fighting an active war with Russia or 2) refusing to honor its core military alliance.

I don't really blame Ukraine for wanting to be a part of "Europe" and for wanting to be part of NATO. The biggest security threat to Ukraine has always been Russia and NATO is the only viable path to a realistic defense against that threat. At the same time, Europe offers orders of magnitude more economic opportunities for Ukraine than Russia does.

But the world doesn't operate in discrete, isolated, vacuums. Russia cares deeply about what Ukraine does, so while in a "legal" or "moral" sense the Russian opinion is irrelevant; the reality is that Russia is willing to fight wars over what Ukraine does.

But it never was about NATO. That NATO is the core issue here is a talking point pushed by Russia and friends, to cover for the true motivations involved, which are... far less PR friendly.

No, the primary motivating factor for Russia in Ukraine since literally the break up of the USSR has been to keep it at least friendly-neutral vis a vi Russia and not being western aligned. Joining the EU, joining NATO, having a military trained and equipped by the US; those are all things that Russia has been VERY clear it considers red lines worth using military force to prevent. And not for a few years, but for literally decades.

That's why they had to rein in Yanukovych, in a very harsh manner at that, when he wanted to go for a fairly popular association treaty with the EU, which in a turn of irony severely contributed to him getting overthrown for being a Russian puppet.
There was no talk of NATO then, so why did they do that?

A quote from Strategic Vision

It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically b...

www.goodreads.com

Russia can't have Ukraine if it joins NATO. But it can't have it either if it joins EU. Even being neutral for some strange reason and by some impossible means also means Russia doesn't have it.
Russia does want to have it, and is doing everything that it would be expected to do in process of making it a puppet state.

Russia, in the Russian view, can't allow a Ukraine that is not Russian aligned to exist.

 

[LordsFire]

It might make Ukraine safer once it is a part of NATO but it would never make the US, for example, safer. Fundamentally, US security isn't materially impacted by Russia controlling Ukraine. On the other hand, US security is impacted by either 1) fighting an active war with Russia or 2) refusing to honor its core military alliance.

You know, I have some issues with the rest of your post, but right here, you're wrong.

Russia having control of Ukraine absolutely impacts US security, because it has a major impact on food markets in Europe, some impact on oil markets, and gives much better warm-water port access to Russia. What they already took from Ukraine in the Crimea, they only have bridge access to, and the Crimea as a whole is as exposed in Russian hands as it was in Ukrainian hands, if not more so.

If Russia gains solid control of Ukraine, it takes a major threat towards becoming a significant world player again, rather than just a regional power.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

You know, I have some issues with the rest of your post, but right here, you're wrong.

Russia having control of Ukraine absolutely impacts US security, because it has a major impact on food markets in Europe, some impact on oil markets, and gives much better warm-water port access to Russia. What they already took from Ukraine in the Crimea, they only have bridge access to, and the Crimea as a whole is as exposed in Russian hands as it was in Ukrainian hands, if not more so.

If Russia gains solid control of Ukraine, it takes a major threat towards becoming a significant world player again, rather than just a regional power.

Ukrainian exports were already at the sufferance of Russia. Virtually all of those exports go out via the Black Sea and Russia has been able to interdict that for the entire time.

And everything else you listed? Not a material threat to the US.

Is the US better off in terms of great power politics if Russia doesn't hold Ukraine? Sure, in a vacuum you always want your competitors to have less territory and resources.

And honestly? The US is one of the biggest winners from Russia invading Ukraine. Suddenly our European "partners" are caring about how reliant on Russian energy they are and why they wanted in NATO in the first place. Germany is rearming; and they are the one European power who is actually capable of building a military able to counter France.

Economically? The US is the nation best positioned to benefit from the economic slaughter of Russia and its becoming a pariah state.

 

[Terthna]

That the 2014 coup was illegitimate, rather than the citizens of Ukraine overthrowing a Russian puppet ruler?

Because the only thing that legitimizes the use of force is results, and the result of the 2014 coup was a new government (which was arguably no less corrupt or abusive than the previous regime, though that's admittedly irrelevant), that several million Ukrainians refused to recognize as legitimate, and successfully managed to rebel against. The new government of Ukraine never controlled the Donbass or Crimea regions, and because they refused to recognize said regions as no longer being part of Ukraine, they failed at one of the pre-requisites for being considered a sovereign nation; having sovereignty over their entire country.

And before you go on about how the rebellions in the Donbass and Crimea regions were illegitimate because Russia; keep in mind that, at the very least, the United States and Europe was openly backing the new government by that point. So, by that logic, if the rebellion against them was illegitimate because Russia was involved, then so was the new government's efforts to suppress it.

 

[LordsFire]

Because the only thing that legitimizes the use of force is results, and the result of the 2014 coup was a new government (which was arguably no less corrupt or abusive than the previous regime, though that's admittedly irrelevant), that several million Ukrainians refused to recognize as legitimate, and successfully managed to rebel against. The new government of Ukraine never controlled the Donbass or Crimea regions, and because they refused to recognize said regions as no longer being part of Ukraine, they failed at one of the pre-requisites for being considered a sovereign nation; having sovereignty over their entire country.

And before you go on about how the rebellions in the Donbass and Crimea regions were illegitimate because Russia; keep in mind that, at the very least, the United States and Europe was openly backing the new government by that point. So, by that logic, if the rebellion against them was illegitimate because Russia was involved, then so was the new government's efforts to suppress it.

...So your argument for legitimacy is 'might makes right'?

 

[strunkenwhite]

Because the only thing that legitimizes the use of force is results, and the result of the 2014 coup was a new government (which was arguably no less corrupt or abusive than the previous regime, though that's admittedly irrelevant), that several million Ukrainians refused to recognize as legitimate, and successfully managed to rebel against. The new government of Ukraine never controlled the Donbass or Crimea regions, and because they refused to recognize said regions as no longer being part of Ukraine, they failed at one of the pre-requisites for being considered a sovereign nation; having sovereignty over their entire country.

And before you go on about how the rebellions in the Donbass and Crimea regions were illegitimate because Russia; keep in mind that, at the very least, the United States and Europe was openly backing the new government by that point. So, by that logic, if the rebellion against them was illegitimate because Russia was involved, then so was the new government's efforts to suppress it.

The only reason Ukraine failed to regain control was Russian military intervention. Do not equivocate between US/EU support of the Ukrainian government and Russian support of the rebels unless you can justify the gap between direct military intervention and ... not that.

The idea that a foreign country invading your territory means you are no longer a sovereign nation is quite remarkable, not least because of its adjacency to Putin's denial of Ukraine's legitimacy as a sovereign nation.

 

[DarthOne]

 

[Captain X]

And yet the Ukraine crisis is actually helping to highlight all of those things.

 

[Bacle]

And yet the Ukraine crisis is actually helping to highlight all of those things.

How?

From everything I've seen going on with everyday people, on both parts of the political spectrum, the Ukraine distraction seems to be working to distract people from all those issues, assuming they even believe they existed in the first place due to how the MSM have treated all that as "conspiracy theories" for months.

Outside people who were focused on exposing the Wu Flu/Wu Flu vax, supporting the trucker convoy, and continuing to call out the stolen election, most of the plebs are not paying much if any attention to those issues, instead of getting pushed into 'war-hysteria' hype.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Had to put it up. Sorry lads, but it's true.

 

[Zachowon]

Had to put it up. Sorry lads, but it's true.

The idea the media can be right once in awhil3 baffles them

 

[Zyobot]

Had to put it up. Sorry lads, but it's true.

Wonder how many blood-splattered landings it’d take for them to figure it out?

 

[Floridaman]

Had to put it up. Sorry lads, but it's true.

It can be, but given how many of their stories turned out to be wholesale fiction like the ghost of Kiev, it hasn’t been.