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?

[King Arts]

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.

But what if Russia or China decides to use those same tactics against you in spite?
Ok you give Ukraine nukes now Russia gives nukes to Iran.

 

[LordsFire]

But what if Russia or China decides to use those same tactics against you in spite?
Ok you give Ukraine nukes now Russia gives nukes to Iran.

If the US parks its military on the border of Iran after having already taken parts of two provinces of Iran, then you can draw an equivalency.

Also, Ukraine isn't a world leader in sponsoring terrorism in other states, so your example also falls apart there.

That said, if they picked a nation that wasn't almost certain to arm terrorists with nuclear weapons, I'd say 'Fine. Some more territorial integrity for that nation, no skin off my back.'

 

[Marduk]

But what if Russia or China decides to use those same tactics against you in spite?
Ok you give Ukraine nukes now Russia gives nukes to Iran.

That's a greater issue with the western countries sticking to the idea of nuclear non-proliferation...

Who gave nukes to North Korea, and who did the west give nukes to in completely fair and deserved retaliation for it?

 

[King Arts]

That's a greater issue with the western countries sticking to the idea of nuclear non-proliferation...

Who gave nukes to North Korea, and who did the west give nukes to in completely fair and deserved retaliation for it?

Well you can argue that the U.S. gave nukes to the U.K. before anyone else. The Soviet Union got nukes by stealing our secrets from us with spies and traitors. France got their own nukes, China probably made nukes themselves, though the Soviets might have helped them. The Chinese gave help for the Nork nuclear program. Israel probably made nukes themselves though America might have helped. India and Pakistan got nukes by themselves. South Africa made nukes themselves but when the whites lost power the new black government gave them away.

 

[Marduk]

Well you can argue that the U.S. gave nukes to the U.K. before anyone else.

That's less a case of "gave", and more that original Manhattan Project was a joint program between them.

British contribution to the Manhattan Project - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Naturally, even as the cooperation ended after the war, Britain ended up with a bunch of own citizens with related expertise, few quite deep, so they could easily make their own.

The Soviet Union got nukes by stealing our secrets from us with spies and traitors. France got their own nukes, China probably made nukes themselves, though the Soviets might have helped them. The Chinese gave help for the Nork nuclear program. Israel probably made nukes themselves though America might have helped. India and Pakistan got nukes by themselves. South Africa made nukes themselves but when the whites lost power the new black government gave them away.

Pakistan probably got help from China, and some missile tech from North Korea.
China got a lot of Soviet help at first which was then ceased hastily with Sino-Soviet split, pretty interesting story.

The story of China’s first atomic bomb – The China Project

On October 16, 1964, "Miss Qiu" exploded atop a 102-meter-tall "dressing table" in Xinjiang. And just like that, China became a nuclear-weapon state.

supchina.com

The point being, competing powers have helped others more or less covertly several times, and there was no purely malicious nuclear proliferation by western powers in return.
Why should the west let itself compete on the geopolitical stage with one hand bound by fear of such, even though the other side clearly does not have such worries, and it didn't backfire on them so far?

 

[raharris1973]

I don't think NATO is actually planning on it. It's a stick to wave at Russia in the global-diplomacy game.

Well that's worth it, I guess.

Amplifying on the original point, from an interview with Anatol Lieven:

We never had the slightest intention of defending Ukraine, not the slightest. Even though Britain and America and the NATO secretariat to the Bucharest Conference in 2008 came out for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia (the NATO HQ was completely behind it on American orders), no contingency plans were drawn up, not the most remote or contingent ones, for how NATO could defend Ukraine and Georgia. There was no intention of ever doing that at all.

That raises the question, since we never intended to defend them, of what in God’s name were we doing? Claiming that we were going to admit them to NATO: It goes beyond actual irresponsibility. In my view, this was deeply immoral, to make such a commitment that we had no intention of fulfilling. This does not in any way excuse or justify the Russian invasion or the monstrous lies with which Putin justified this invasion. Maybe this isn’t the moment, but at some stage, I do hope that we have an honest and searching discussion of the errors of Western strategy that led to this disaster.

Link to this interview: Worse Than a Crime; It’s a Blunder

 

[Cherico]

Well that's worth it, I guess.

Amplifying on the original point, from an interview with Anatol Lieven:



Link to this interview: Worse Than a Crime; It’s a Blunder

yeah this is another major policy blunder that biden has under his belt, right after the afganistan disaster.

At this point the democrats have had so many disasters one after another that one has to ask who they fucked off upstairs.

 

[raharris1973]

yeah this is another major policy blunder that biden has under his belt, right after the afganistan disaster.

At this point the democrats have had so many disasters one after another that one has to ask who they fucked off upstairs.

The invitation of Ukraine to NATO was a George Dubya Bush/Dick Cheney Easter Egg from 2008.

 

[49ersfootball]

NATO & European Union should've let Ukraine join both organizations a longtime ago.

 

[Marduk]

Well that's worth it, I guess.

Amplifying on the original point, from an interview with Anatol Lieven:



Link to this interview: Worse Than a Crime; It’s a Blunder

I think this is the core sentence:

in other words, basically propose the Minsk agreement for the Donbas, but into a kind of confederal state in which pro-Russian areas would have de facto control over Ukraine’s international alignment. And accompanying that with a treaty of neutrality.

Minsk, in the implementation and interpretation used by Russia was always a camouflage net. What was hidden in it?
All the propositions given are just different ways to describe the same thing - a puppet state Ukraine. They can call it federalization, they can call it neutrality, they can call it denazification, but it always boils down to the same end effect, with merely different legal mechanisms behind and PR cover in front.
The same applies to the demands to NATO. Don't listen to what they say they are doing, doubly so don't listen to what their fanboys say they are doing. Look at what they are doing, and what they aren't doing, which is just as informative.

The specific choice of demands, through either intent or incompetence, was meant to be dead on arrival, being in effect a demand to give Russia veto powers over NATO membership and internal affairs, which is an internal NATO matter, but that's in line with Russia's general attitude towards other nation's sovereignty. Long story short, this was both politically and legally untenable for NATO, accepting it would hurt the credibility of the alliance.
Meanwhile, what wasn't mentioned, at least not by Russian side, was that any of the more reasonable security controversies could also be addressed by minor adjustments to conventional forces, missile treaties, and ABC weapon treaties, some of which are even still in force despite all the NATO-Russia relations downturn.

NATO countries have specifically stated that they are open to discussion in these areas, but Russia didn't consider that nearly good enough, and insisted on wanting its big and unaffordable cake. Why? Either because the negotiations were meant to fail to just create a grievance cover for incoming actions, or because contrary to the more reasonable arguments about missile threats and such, the real thorn in Russia's side that this was meant to eliminate were the mere article 5 guarantees and their strength (tripwire forces?) to current and potential eastern NATO members, which Russia could not afford to state out openly, which in turn meant the whole offer was a half-hearted attempt from Russian side just to say they tried.
Which obviously raises the question, why would anyone have a problem with defense only alliance guarantees for other countries?
Since a few days, we have the answer. They would get in the way of something they were planning on doing, and we know what kind of thing defensive alliances get in the way of.

 

[WolfBear]

The invitation of Ukraine to NATO was a George Dubya Bush/Dick Cheney Easter Egg from 2008.

Yep--if only other Europeans and Ukrainians themselves would have actually been smart enough to see this threat in time. I mean the threat from Russia to Ukraine.

FWIW, I'd have been open to a compromise where Ukraine becomes neutral but is still allowed to join the EU, develop its own nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems for them, and is allowed to continue having military cooperation with the West but without it actually joining NATO. But I strongly doubt that Russia would have actually approved of this either.

I think this is the core sentence:

Minsk, in the implementation and interpretation used by Russia was always a camouflage net. What was hidden in it?
All the propositions given are just different ways to describe the same thing - a puppet state Ukraine. They can call it federalization, they can call it neutrality, they can call it denazification, but it always boils down to the same end effect, with merely different legal mechanisms behind and PR cover in front.
The same applies to the demands to NATO. Don't listen to what they say they are doing, doubly so don't listen to what their fanboys say they are doing. Look at what they are doing, and what they aren't doing, which is just as informative.

The specific choice of demands, through either intent or incompetence, was meant to be dead on arrival, being in effect a demand to give Russia veto powers over NATO membership and internal affairs, which is an internal NATO matter, but that's in line with Russia's general attitude towards other nation's sovereignty. Long story short, this was both politically and legally untenable for NATO, accepting it would hurt the credibility of the alliance.
Meanwhile, what wasn't mentioned, at least not by Russian side, was that any of the more reasonable security controversies could also be addressed by minor adjustments to conventional forces, missile treaties, and ABC weapon treaties, some of which are even still in force despite all the NATO-Russia relations downturn.

NATO countries have specifically stated that they are open to discussion in these areas, but Russia didn't consider that nearly good enough, and insisted on wanting its big and unaffordable cake. Why? Either because the negotiations were meant to fail to just create a grievance cover for incoming actions, or because contrary to the more reasonable arguments about missile threats and such, the real thorn in Russia's side that this was meant to eliminate were the mere article 5 guarantees and their strength (tripwire forces?) to current and potential eastern NATO members, which Russia could not afford to state out openly, which in turn meant the whole offer was a half-hearted attempt from Russian side just to say they tried.
Which obviously raises the question, why would anyone have a problem with defense only alliance guarantees for other countries?
Since a few days, we have the answer. They would get in the way of something they were planning on doing, and we know what kind of thing defensive alliances get in the way of.

The issue with federalization or autonomy is that the level of autonomy that Russia would have wanted for the Donbass is not a level of autonomy that Ukraine could actually realistically accept. Texas doesn't have veto power over the US's alliances or economic unions, after all. Neither does New York.

 

[Bacle]

NATO & European Union should've let Ukraine join both organizations a longtime ago.

EU, maybe, NATO, not a chance.

Trying to get Ukraine into NATO/EU is part of what instigated the events that led to the Maidan, and all the ugliness that's come after it

Ukraine was fine as a neutral buffer state, but the DC and Brussels really wanted to get them into the EU and NATO, just to make it easier to put first strike weapons minutes from Moscow.

The current invasion is also the production of Russia trying to grab the petro-chem deposits that were discovered in 2012 or so, and as soon as the reserves were found, there was no way Russia was going to let Ukraine become part of the EU or NATO, and as we can see now, Russia is not as squeamish about military operations that will result in heavy casualties or extended fights.

The Russians shouldn't have invaded, but the West should not have tried to pull Ukraine into the EU or NATO; it was better as a buffer state.

 

[WolfBear]

EU, maybe, NATO, not a chance.

Trying to get Ukraine into NATO/EU is part of what instigated the events that led to the Maidan, and all the ugliness that's come after it

Ukraine was fine as a neutral buffer state, but the DC and Brussels really wanted to get them into the EU and NATO, just to make it easier to put first strike weapons minutes from Moscow.

The current invasion is also the production of Russia trying to grab the petro-chem deposits that were discovered in 2012 or so, and as soon as the reserves were found, there was no way Russia was going to let Ukraine become part of the EU or NATO, and as we can see now, Russia is not as squeamish about military operations that will result in heavy casualties or extended fights.

The Russians shouldn't have invaded, but the West should not have tried to pull Ukraine into the EU or NATO; it was better as a buffer state.

And Russia was trying to aggressively pull Ukraine into the Eurasian Economic Union. And Ukraine was not strong or rich enough to avoid firmly associating with any economic blocs like, say, Japan or South Korea manages to successfully do.

 

[Bacle]

And Russia was trying to aggressively pull Ukraine into the Eurasian Economic Union. And Ukraine was not strong or rich enough to avoid firmly associating with any economic blocs like, say, Japan or South Korea manages to successfully do.

Ukraine would have been better off going into the EEU/CSTO than joining the EU or NATO; the EU is a farce that needs to die anyway, as Brexit proved, and NATO should not try to push it's borders to within minutes flight time from Moscow.

 

[WolfBear]

Ukraine would have been better off going into the EEU/CSTO than joining the EU or NATO; the EU is a farce that needs to die anyway, as Brexit proved, and NATO should not try to push it's borders to within minutes flight time from Moscow.

NATO already includes the Baltic countries; was that a mistake? And Ukraine is a non-Woke country and would have thus made the EU less Woke.

 

[Bacle]

NATO already includes the Baltic countries; was that a mistake? And Ukraine is a non-Woke country and would have thus made the EU less Woke.

The Baltic's are not Ukraine, and they absolutely were right to get themselves into NATO when they did. Even letting Sweden and Finland in in the near future is not a huge problem, compared to what trying to get Ukraine into NATO/the EU would have entailed.

And it does not matter if Ukraine was non-Woke, because in the EU the only people who's decisions matter are effectively unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, which want Wokeness. So joining the EU would have just seen their non-Woke sanity eroded by dictates from Brussels.

 

[Zachowon]

Why did war not break out when countri3s that are smaller and weaker wanted to join NATO?

 

[GoldRanger]

EU, maybe, NATO, not a chance.

Trying to get Ukraine into NATO/EU is part of what instigated the events that led to the Maidan, and all the ugliness that's come after it

Ukraine was fine as a neutral buffer state, but the DC and Brussels really wanted to get them into the EU and NATO, just to make it easier to put first strike weapons minutes from Moscow.

The current invasion is also the production of Russia trying to grab the petro-chem deposits that were discovered in 2012 or so, and as soon as the reserves were found, there was no way Russia was going to let Ukraine become part of the EU or NATO, and as we can see now, Russia is not as squeamish about military operations that will result in heavy casualties or extended fights.

The Russians shouldn't have invaded, but the West should not have tried to pull Ukraine into the EU or NATO; it was better as a buffer state.

Have you considered that maybe Ukraine is a sovereign nation of 44 million people, and not a toy in a tug of war game? In the end it's their prerogative to seek NATO membership. Hell, the events of these past weeks absolutely prove that they were justified in it!

 

[Bacle]

Have you considered that maybe Ukraine is a sovereign nation of 44 million people, and not a toy in a tug of war game? In the end it's their prerogative to seek NATO membership. Hell, the events of these past weeks absolutely prove that they were justified in it!

That might fly for EU membership, due to it's mostly economic nature (even if I think the EU is just a different poison than Russian aggression). It doesn't fly for NATO, which is a military mutual protection pact.

Ukraine joining NATO was never in the cards. It might have been able to join the EU, if Brussel and Moscow had been able to negotiate the export/import situation for European goods moving across the Ukrainian/Russian border more maturely; that's where the whole mess in the Donbass comes from and why the locals there told the new regime in Kiev to go fuck itself when Maidan occurred and then the airliner shootdown happened (I think that airliner shoot down caused things to escalate the conflict on the international scene.

Moscow would never accept NATO troops possibly being within minutes flight time from Moscow; we saw what happened with the missiles we placed in Turkey that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[Terthna]

Have you considered that maybe Ukraine is a sovereign nation of 44 million people, and not a toy in a tug of war game? In the end it's their prerogative to seek NATO membership. Hell, the events of these past weeks absolutely prove that they were justified in it!

No, because they're not a sovereign nation. Not since the coup in 2014, and the ongoing civil war that resulted from it.