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]

Being in the EU is not incompatible with being a buffer state. Well, not so long as you're not in NATO, at least.

And Yeah, Russia didn't want Ukraine to sign the Association Agreement with the EU because it made Eurasian Union membership impossible for Ukraine.

So yeah, more restricted buffer state than in the Cold War, which says something in itself...
Functionally, that would be closer to what Soviet satellite states were during Cold War.
And those weren't rich.

And interestingly enough, the EU presented itself rather poorly in not even offering Ukraine any roadmap to EU membership, even if actual membership would be 30+ years away at that point in time (2013-2014). I don't see why exactly Poles and Romanians are more deserving of EU membership than Ukrainians are, to be honest.

I think the map you've posted may be one reason.
There is also an interesting parallel with the state of Turkey, which is under an association agreement with the EU and formerly EFTA since the 60's, with no EU membership in sight, so it could be worse.
On the other hand, that in itself has certain economic and legal benefits over not having such a treaty.

 

[WolfBear]

So yeah, more restricted buffer state than in the Cold War, which says something in itself...
Functionally, that would be closer to what Soviet satellite states were during Cold War.
And those weren't rich.

I think the map you've posted may be one reason.
There is also an interesting parallel with the state of Turkey, which is under an association agreement with the EU and formerly EFTA since the 60's, with no EU membership in sight, so it could be worse.
On the other hand, that in itself has certain economic and legal benefits over not having such a treaty.

Those were Soviet satellite states more than actual buffer states, though.

As for that corruption map, Ukraine could at least be given clear corruption improvement goals in exchange for a roadmap to eventual EU membership or something like that.

And Turkey isn't comparable because it's overwhelmingly Muslim while Ukraine is overwhelmingly Christian and is thus more of apart of European history and European culture than Turkey is.

 

[Marduk]

Those were Soviet satellite states more than actual buffer states, though.

Which shows what Russia wants now from its neighbors - satellite states, not buffer states.

As for that corruption map, Ukraine could at least be given clear corruption improvement goals in exchange for a roadmap to eventual EU membership or something like that.

And Turkey isn't comparable because it's overwhelmingly Muslim while Ukraine is overwhelmingly Christian and is thus more of apart of European history and European culture than Turkey is.

Both have major roadblocks to EU, just different ones.
In Turkey, its the grand cultural problem, plus dodgy governance matters and ME baggage with Syria and Kurds at minimum.
In Ukraine, its also dodgy governance matters, except more tied to a massive corruption problem, related organizational issues, and Russian minority cultural question with the related civil war and semi-frozen conflict with Russia.

 

[WolfBear]

Which shows what Russia wants now from its neighbors - satellite states, not buffer states.

Both have major roadblocks to EU, just different ones.
In Turkey, its the grand cultural problem, plus dodgy governance matters and ME baggage with Syria and Kurds at minimum.
In Ukraine, its also dodgy governance matters, except more tied to a massive corruption problem, related organizational issues, and Russian minority cultural question with the related civil war and semi-frozen conflict with Russia.

Yeah, very fair analysis, actually. Interestingly enough, since Belarus is less corrupt than the rest of the European ex-USSR (other than the Baltics) is, eventual Belarusian EU membership should actually be more feasible if Lukashenko will ever get removed from power, no? Ditto for Georgian EU membership considering that Georgia actually has relatively low levels of corruption:

https://transparency.ge/sites/default/files/eastern_europe_central_asia_1.jpg

https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/map-of-europe-showing-the-corruption-from-the-lowest-yellow-to-highest-dark-red-level-640-photo-transpareny-international.jpg

Georgia is roughly as corrupt as Poland, Czechia, and Slovakia are.

 

[Marduk]

Yeah, very fair analysis, actually. Interestingly enough, since Belarus is less corrupt than the rest of the European ex-USSR (other than the Baltics) is, eventual Belarusian EU membership should actually be more feasible if Lukashenko will ever get removed from power, no?

Theoretically, yes. Which is probably why Russia is floating up Luka's economy and keeping a lot of the soviet era economic organization, with dominance of state enterprises and such.
If they switched to EU economically, it would be very painful at least for few years.

Ditto for Georgian EU membership considering that Georgia actually has relatively low levels of corruption:

https://transparency.ge/sites/default/files/eastern_europe_central_asia_1.jpg

https://balkaninsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/map-of-europe-showing-the-corruption-from-the-lowest-yellow-to-highest-dark-red-level-640-photo-transpareny-international.jpg

Georgia is roughly as corrupt as Poland, Czechia, and Slovakia are.

Has dodgy governance stuff and frozen civil war/conflict with Russia though, hmm, see a pattern there? Also the geography is quite unfortunate for it, Ukraine or Turkey joining first would help their chances quite a bit.

 

[WolfBear]

Theoretically, yes. Which is probably why Russia is floating up Luka's economy and keeping a lot of the soviet era economic organization, with dominance of state enterprises and such.
If they switched to EU economically, it would be very painful at least for few years.


Has dodgy governance stuff and frozen civil war/conflict with Russia though, hmm, see a pattern there? Also the geography is quite unfortunate for it, Ukraine or Turkey joining first would help their chances quite a bit.

Excellent analysis! BTW, you might be interested in this thread of mine:

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/a-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-just-how-far-would-russia-go-and-what-would-russias-war-aims-be.7049/

 

[History Learner]

Well the Secretary General has come out and announced the decision was made back in 2008 to bring in Ukraine. Yes, you read that right; years before the Euromaidan the fix was already in.

 

[WolfBear]

Well the Secretary General has come out and announced the decision was made back in 2008 to bring in Ukraine. Yes, you read that right; years before the Euromaidan the fix was already in.

The thing is, though, that Ukraine's 2010-2014 government was uninterested in NATO membership and it's unclear if even Ukraine's post-2014 governments would have actually pursued this matter if it wasn't for the events in Crimea and the Donbass.

 

[Husky_Khan]

The thing is, though, that Ukraine's 2010-2014 government was uninterested in NATO membership and it's unclear if even Ukraine's post-2014 governments would have actually pursued this matter if it wasn't for the events in Crimea and the Donbass.

Yeah I'm guessing there was a spike of interest following the 2008 War where Russia invaded Georgia and for some inexplicable reason both Georgia and Ukraine (until 2010) became more interested in NATO membership.

Plus serious talk about it has been going on since 2008 anyhow at least.

Ukraine and NATO Following Bucharest | Brookings

Steven Pifer writes that even though the recent NATO summit in Bucharest did not deliver a memership action plan for Ukraine, the outcome of the meeting was positive because NATO leaders said Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance - something that NATO has never said about a country that...

www.brookings.edu

Rice, Kouchner, comment NATO Ministerial's decision

 

[raharris1973]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-threat-requires-flexible-creative-130029948.html

 

[WolfBear]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-threat-requires-flexible-creative-130029948.html

Neutrality for ex-USSR countries in regards to NATO would need to be accompanied by an open door for them in regards to eventual EU membership. Otherwise, it would be a raw deal for them.

 

[LordsFire]

Neutrality for ex-USSR countries in regards to NATO would need to be accompanied by an open door for them in regards to eventual EU membership. Otherwise, it would be a raw deal for them.

EU membership is a negative, not a plus, especially in the long run.

 

[WolfBear]

EU membership is a negative, not a plus, especially in the long run.

It will add another Based Eastern European country to resist the Woke Western Europeans.

 

[Bassoe]

The real question we should be asking here is, what does NATO get out of Ukraine joining that'd outweigh the increased risk of nuclear war? You'd have thought we'd have learned our lesson about stupid alliances forcing world powers to go to war with each other over irreverent balkans countries after WW1.

 

[WolfBear]

The real question we should be asking here is, what does NATO get out of Ukraine joining that'd outweigh the increased risk of nuclear war? You'd have thought we'd have learned our lesson about stupid alliances forcing world powers to go to war with each other over irreverent balkans countries after WW1.

One could have asked the same question about the Baltic countries, and they combined have much less people than Ukraine has. So, why exactly are we committed to defending them from Russian aggression and risking a nuclear war over this?

 

[Bassoe]

One could have asked the same question about the Baltic countries...

One would've been completely correct to have done so.

 

[LordsFire]

The real question we should be asking here is, what does NATO get out of Ukraine joining that'd outweigh the increased risk of nuclear war? You'd have thought we'd have learned our lesson about stupid alliances forcing world powers to go to war with each other over irreverent balkans countries after WW1.

You're making the same mistake that Chamberlain did, and assuming that by not presenting strength and willingness to fight, you make war less likely, not more.

Putin is no Hitler, but he's certainly a terrible man, and if he (or a likeminded successor) think they can keep pushing the envelope, snapping up a bit more territory, they'll do it again and again and again until finally western powers push back.

Drawing a line and enforcing that line is the way you prevent that.

 

[raharris1973]

You're making the same mistake that Chamberlain did, and assuming that by not presenting strength and willingness to fight, you make war less likely, not more.

Putin is no Hitler, but he's certainly a terrible man, and if he (or a likeminded successor) think they can keep pushing the envelope, snapping up a bit more territory, they'll do it again and again and again until finally western powers push back.

Drawing a line and enforcing that line is the way you prevent that.

1 war started, and possibly was made worse, by Chamberlain's decision.

Some 4 or 5 additional wholly unnecessary wars have been fought and lost because boosters said, "To not fight this is to be like Chamberlain, to fight now is to be Churchillian". Who are you, a sock puppet for Lindsay Graham?

 

[Zachowon]

1 war started, and possibly was made worse, by Chamberlain's decision.

Some 4 or 5 additional wholly unnecessary wars have been fought and lost because boosters said, "To not fight this is to be like Chamberlain, to fight now is to be Churchillian". Who are you, a sock puppet for Lindsay Graham?

Ah. So let a soverign country be invaded because we should just not care that a freidnly country like Poland will then have all but one of its borders with its greatest enemy

 

[LordsFire]

1 war started, and possibly was made worse, by Chamberlain's decision.

Some 4 or 5 additional wholly unnecessary wars have been fought and lost because boosters said, "To not fight this is to be like Chamberlain, to fight now is to be Churchillian". Who are you, a sock puppet for Lindsay Graham?

If you're willing to roll the troops up to the conflict line, park them there, and say 'I double dog dare you,' you don't need to fight the war 9 times out of 10, when it comes to gray zone actors like this.

To take the specific example of Ukraine, I wouldn't advocate starting a war with Russia right now. I would advocate selling them tactical nuclear weapons as Russia has violated the treaty under which Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal.

Let them sort themselves out after that.