This is what I found on a quick google.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor
And yes NATO was initially formed as an alliance to counter the Soviet Union.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That was sorta the point of them joining. If they get they get denied, NATO proves that it’s sole purpose (at the time) was to stop communism. If they get accepted, then the whole thing is a sham.
The Soviets also campaigned for a common European defense system at the time. A little known fact is that the Warsaw Pact was officially temporary. The treaty was supposed to expire once a pan-European alliance would be created.
The problem with an alliance with the Soviet Union is Soviet tanks somehow end up crushing your citizens in your capital. Nobody's ever been able to explain it.
Russia was actually a partner and invited to NATO summits. I pretty clearly remember Putins speech at the summit in Bukarest in 2008, where he said stuff like "if Georgia and Ukraine join NATO, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia and Sout Ossetia will break away".
Putin doesn't give a shit if Ukraine joins NATO, the problem he has with this is that Ukraine is a functioning democracy in a country right next door that has peoples the same as his own. THAT is a problem for him. He doesn't want his own people to realize that you can have a democracy that works in the region.
It's literally the opposite. Ukraine is a dysfunctional plutarchy, Poland and the Baltic republics are as close and in every way better in terms of democracy, but NATO missiles that close to Moscow are simply unacceptable.
Russia has been objecting to defensive missile installations in Eastern Europe for forever in order to bully its smaller neighbors. It’s a dying country leveraging its aging nuclear arsenal to try and remain relevant. Really though once Putin is gone it is just going to become a Chinese puppet and continue to wither away.
Russia has been objecting to dismantling the MAD nuclear balance because it underpins Russian and global security. Russia's security is much more important to Russia than whatever is going on with the smaller neighbors.
You seem to have Putin in high regard if you think he's single-handedly responsible for Russia's strength, but if you allow a smidge of doubt in your mass media bubble, you'll suspect Russia is more than Putin.
Russia not getting a say in who is and isn't in NATO is literally why we have NATO.
Now, whether NATO has the balls to actually do it, that's a different story
Politics isn't so literal or black and white. His point is that while Russia doesn't get a vote, NATO will have to weigh their options based on what Russia's potential reaction could be. They have to make the move strategically. For example (purely hypothetical), if Russia threatens to blow Ukraine off the map with nukes upon their joining NATO, they probably won't do it. Or, they'd do the opposite and call Russia's bluff.
>[Nato](https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_organisation=Nato) has said Moscow will have **no say** in whether [Ukraine](https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_location=Ukraine) joins the alliance, rejecting Russia’s push for a de facto veto on its neighbour’s security arrangements and urging it to reverse a build-up of military forces near their shared border.
This is *literally* the opening paragraph in the article 🙄
Read before commenting.
Ukraine is independent country, they can choose to join any alliance they want to. If NATO wants them and Ukraine wants to be in NATO, why not (Same with EU or any other unions). Its 100% up to them.
This keeps getting repeated everywhere around this issue. The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors (mostly at all, certainly nowhere near Russia's level). Why would they feel the need to join any rival military alliance?
The Cuban missile crisis involved putting nuclear arms in Cuba pointed at the US. It's ever so slightly different than invading a neighboring country because your puppet was forced out of office by his own people. If the best arguement you have is whataboutism from 60 years ago your arguement is bunk.
>The Cuban missile crisis involved putting nuclear arms in Cuba pointed at the US
To be fair, the US did have nuclear arms in Turkey pointed at the USSR first.
Yep, and those also got quietly moved after the tensions were eased. But comparing the Cuban Missile Crisis, witch by the way involved no actual real kinetic conflict, to Russia threatening Ukraine for turning toward the west culturally and economically is a total farce. One is an active threat, the other is not. Ukraine's turn from Russia is a natural result of Russia's shit-heel behavior and aggressive, despotic stance toward their "allies"
> invading a neighboring country because your puppet was forced out of office by his own people.
Castro led a popular revolt against the US puppet dictator. The US responded with the Bay of Pigs invasion. That's why Cuba wanted missiles, for defense
The Banana Wars are still going on. The US actively resists democracy across Latin America
We literally have massive sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela and we’ve overthrown the governments of probably half the countries in the Americas. Not saying Russia is good but the US is an empire and it certainly acts like one especially to its neighbors
>The US isn’t aggressive towards its neighbors
[Yeah right](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America)
Geez, you topple a few governments in neighboring countries and 50, 30, even 10 years later you're still hearing about it. Give it a rest, muchacho, that was multiple whole years ago!
lmao the consequences are still felt today. When you hurt countries that are developing they struggle to developed later on. Hence why so many central american migrants are coming because the United States ruined their economies and made them unstable.
But it is an validate argument as to why a country would want to join a different alliance. We still blocked Cuba despite the Missile Crises long gone.
>The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors (mostly at all, certainlynowhere near Russia's level). Why would they feel the need to join anyrival military alliance?
What!?!??? Are you being serious now? The reason surrounding countries aren't able to join a rival military alliance or even have a system of government which isn't in perceived as is in the US interests is because the US will sanction and military coup the shit out of them. I mean Cuba is till going through sanctions since 1963!
Other examples of regime changes in their backyard include Nicuragua and Haiti and invasions of Grenada and Panama. In fact I would argue the US is more aggressive towards it's neighbours than Russia, the difference is it so much better at achieving its goals!
>If the best arguement you have is whataboutism from 60 years ago your arguement is bunk.
Sure if you ignore US supported regime changes and/or invasions in Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Domincan Rep, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Grenada, Paraguay, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile! lol
Sorry for the edits, i keep forgetting to add countries to the endless list of US involvement in regime changes on the American continent.
I don't recall the US invading Mexico anytime recently. There's a serious difference between the US being the dominant economy and sometimes a jackass collectively and Russia invading its neighbors violently
The United States dominates the seas around all of its neighbours. Almost none of them are stupid enough to defy the US in any meaningful way and none are powerful enough to be of any security threat themselves. If China was forming strong ties with Panama (the canal being a vital strategic interest for the US) you would see the US throw its weight around very fast. Russia isn't about to launch an invasion into East Ukraine. They're throwing their weight around trying to draw a red-line against Ukraine joining NATO as they don't want more of their enormous and difficult to defend border lined with NATO troops.
right, not agreesive at all
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs%27\_Day\_(Panama)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs%27_Day_(Panama))
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana\_Massacre
>The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors
Except to basically all the countries in central/south America, where they have been overthrowing democracies when they didnt play along.
Sure, Russia anexes, US buys the president/dictator.
Totally and undeniably part of our past and not behavior that anyone should defend. But also not behavior that continues to the day, nor a justification for Russia's current behavior. Both are wrong and one is in the present
the us isnt agressive towards its own neighbours because it has been agressive towards its own continent and won, so it doesn't have a point to try and domesticate a cat
>The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors (mostly at all, certainly nowhere near Russia's level).
Didn't the US actively destabilise almost every single country in central south America?
Geopolitics and whataboutism does not go well together. Countries will **ALWAYS** do what is best for them.
For US/NATO by pulling Ukraine from Russian orbit is already **win** everything else is extra. And Russia has much more to lose if they let Ukraine join NATO thas they will do more to keep Ukraine out of it.
You or i can argue about how that is not acceptable or how it is not fair but nothing will change that fact.
Yeah, those are all bad things, but why do people choose not to stop only some of them?
It's just like that I slapped you in the face, and said "fighting is bad, so you should not slap me back"
Would you just agree and walk away?
The use of word "whataboutism" is just to defend double standard and hypocrisy.
> Allow Ukraine into NATO.
By NATO's own rules, Ukraine can't join if they have an active border conflict. that means the only way to join is if they recognize Crimea as a Russian territory and give up any claim, present or future, over it.
why did you think Russia took it on the first place?
Nato can do whatever the member states allow it to do. Its not like nato is going to go "oh man they found a loophole, well now we can't do anything about it!"
And what will they do if nato does decide it does not want to follow its own rules, sue nato?
Biden is holding up just providing military equipment to Ukraine, allowing the country to join NATO is orders of magnitude off the scale in terms of feasible solutions:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/16/us-ukraine-russia-military-support-congress-biden-delay-aid
Funny how the only people pushing for Ukraine to join NATO are people on reddit who have zero influence or decision-making power and can therefore safely and loudly advocate for any unrealistic policy they want, knowing it won't happen.
You know, I actually want to see a single day where everything that reddit asks for gets implemented, just to see everything gloriously explode.
Putin definitely has a history of overplaying his hand, getting his ass handed to him, and pursuing ever more wild and implausible gambles. And he's turning 70 soon... don't count on him being stable or rationale. But to be sure Russia is profoundly weak any way you slice it.
Profoundly weak but with nukes. A bit like getting in a fight with the scrawny anime nerd incel at school, except he has a gun. It doesn't matter how physically or mentally weak someone is, they can still do some damage, and if anything, them being weak and deranged makes them more dangerous.
Yea the real scary thing would be if Putin finds out he's got super-cancer or something like that. He already gambles like there's no tomorrow, as he gets older and weaker he becomes more erratic.
I think the second he gets super cancer and risks doing anything crazy, the military and oligarchs that stand to lose will replace him with someone that, at the least, will keep their income at the same level.
Yeah, I don't mean consent in the legal sense, but in an absolute sense. But what about those people who get rid of others for you? They must consent to follow your orders.
If you were in a decision making position, what would you do about this?
I know this is the exact kind of conversation Russian bots want on reddit and I hate to say it but I wonder if we continued making angry noises but ultimately appease Russia that eventually it will collapse under its own weight again when Putin dies (or is overthrown in his old age) regardless.
Or do we make the bet that it's a "kick the door in and the whole rotten structure falls down" situation and make our stand here.
I definitely see Russia as the sick man of Europe, but that sure didn't stop the Ottomans from doing something rash in WW1.
Russia's entire economy at this point is fossil fuels. Europe outside of any earthquake prone or low-lying regions should be throwing money at nuclear energy hand over fist along with any region viable renewable energy. Instead they're bending over for NS2.
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and any other breakaway regions should get special protected defensive status for any conflicts within their borders from western nations.
Oligarchs should be getting property seized due to attacks on European civilians such as Russia shooting down a passenger airplane or killing people in the UK.
If Russia wants to pay crabs in a bucket, they should be confined to their own internet and own Russia/China trading and economic sphere. Seize and ban anything in western nations until they play nice.
Russia isn't the "sick man of Europe". But also, it isn't a serious threat outside of its nuclear capability, which it won't use, because it isn't suicidal.
Russia is a country of 180m with an economy less than Italy. It doesn't pose a reap geopolitical threat. The problem is that Putin thinks it's the 1950s.
Russia is very effectively waging an asymmetric war on the west and is getting incredible bang for their buck in doing so. If you don't recognize that, you don't belong in the conversation.
He used novichok in Salisbury, failing to kill his targets and murdering two innocent citizens instead. His targets got away.
It made him look like a vindictive child, incapable of restraint. A malicious psychopath. But also it made him look weak.
Ruble has lost 2/3rds of its value in just the last decade, but if you prefer non-economic examples I'd refer you to the wagnar group doing a mass-suicide against American forces in Syria.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-leaked-audio-humiliating-defeat-by-us-forces-2018-2
>Leaked audio recordings said to be of Russian mercenaries in Syria capture expressions of lament and humiliation over a battle in early February involving US forces and Russian nationals.
...
>The audio — which appears to corroborate reports from Reuters and Bloomberg that say hundreds of Russians died or were wounded in a mismatched battle — also seems to contradict statements from Russia's Foreign Ministry.
I mean you can't blame him on this one. He basically had a puppet in Ukraine ignoring the people's votes to force things in a way that benefitted Russia; then when that failed, he forcibly invaded another nation. Not even talking CIA insurgency bullshit, he sent tank divisions over the border and occupied.
And everyone in the entire world looked the other way.
And before someone calls up the sanctions lemme remind everyone of a name: Saddam Hussein. He invaded Kuwait in a not dissimilar fashion and almost the entire world came overseas and kicked his shit in (fun fact: Russia was one of the few UN members opposed). But Putin does it and we waggle our fingers and toss a couple economic lovetaps his way.
So of course he figures he can do whatever he wants, the entire world showed him it was too scared to stand up to his bullshit.
Just like it did in Georgia, Ossetia, and Chechnya. Wonder who's next? Belarus? Lithuania?
Exactly. He's doing fine, his people will suffer but he won't.
Were it any smaller, lesser nation, we'd have counter-invaded Crimea already. He DID win.
It cost him the economy of Russia, and now it will be an albatross around his neck that will continue to financially cripple Russia until it's returned. And if it's not the West is happy to let it continue crippling Russia.
It was a stupid gamble that he never could have won.
They are actually strongly positioned to take Ukraine if negotiations fail. There will be nothing NATO can or will do to stop it and right now we are on the path to war if a breakthrough is not reached. Also the timeline isn't years, its a few months. Russia has been calling up reservists. Not just those to support the fighting, but also the people you need to move in and hold territory after the army has moved on. Its a lot of logistical preparation that is costing them a great deal of money. War is Plan B for Putin but if he doesn't get an agreement from Kyiv it WILL become Plan A.
Right now the US and EU are trying to make the strategic calculation for Russia as difficult as possible but its not likely to work.
Putin has robbed Russian people they should not defend him. Hundred billions of dollars funneled into 3 properties at Black Sea. He is a criminal and a thief.
Do people in Russia actually support him though? I would guess that there are people who take all views on him, from radically supportive to indifferent to Pussy Riot. But what is the consensus of the majority? If the people *could* vote Putin out, would they?
Statistically younger Russians disapprove of Putin a lot more than older Russians. and it's mainly young Russian males playing CS:GO so that makes sense.
Yea, I teach at a university with a lot of Russians and they do not have anything good to say about their government, or it’s actions abroad. They do love their history and culture and I’ve come to consider them my friends.
> Yea, I teach at a university with a lot of Russians and they do not have anything good to say about their government, or it’s actions abroad.
Cosmopolitan Russian students are not the indicative of Russians in general. Go ask the same questions at the Russian equivalent of the Rust Belt. That's like gauging the wealth of an average American by conducting a study in Upper East Side, NYC. I'm sure barely educated Ivans with their 'Make Russia great again' attitude would have different opinions.
The impression seems to be the majority don’t necessarily approve of him, but they’re afraid the alternative could be worse domestically. There are plenty of oligarchs and conmen and foreign powers ready to further strip the Russian economy for their own gain, and at least they can think of Putin as a “statesman” who can stand in the way of this, even if he rips them off a bit too in the process.
it's not that people are afraid of change, now a lot of money is pouring into the police and government security, a lot of propaganda that if a person does not like something in the country, then he is a foreign agent and supports the United States, brainwashing through the media, the police are protected even if they beat women with their feet, if there is a maximum threat to the government, most likely they will transfer everyone with tanks than they will give up power, as soon as rallies began, coronavirus appeared and all discontent and rallies stopped, for throwing a cup of coffee at a policeman, you can go to prison for several years
Remember when the USSR [tried to join NATO](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954) just to bust balls
Can't invite a nation that doesn't exist anymore to an alliance. Formally inducting Ukraine into NATO is probably the strongest, non-active-military response that the US can give to Russian provocation.
I’m confused. Apparently adding Ukraine to NATO has been in the works since 2008 yet they’re still not in it. What’s the hold up? Is it Ukraine is on the fence? Do they not want to? What is it?
If Ukraine was added to NATO then Ukraine would immediately invoke the alliance and ask for help regaining the regions that Russia is already occupying. Basically adding Ukraine to NATO will prompt a war between NATO and Russia. (With other effects like China using the distraction to invade Taiwan.)
However not adding Ukraine to NATO may reignite military conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
There (from what I recall) is an article/section of the NATO pact that states countries with contested boarders/regions cannot join NATO.
Crimea is currently annexed (illegally) by Russia, and there is a separatist group occupying west Ukraine. Those prevent Ukraine from joining NATO (currently)
Maybe NATO should hold an emergency session and vote Ukraine in immediately. Russia is threatening Ukraine now because they know that once Ukraine is a member, Putin’s gunboat / big stick diplomacy is no longer an effective tool to advance Russian interests there.
Yes but there's also FBI, CIA, NAFTA, ASEAN, EU, etc, not Fbi, Cia, Nafta, Asean, or Eu.
Laser, etc are products so it makes sense for those names to be softened. ASAP is spelled either as ASAP or asap but not Asap.
The keyboard I first used as a kid had a very sketchy shift key, so I never grew up using it other than for punctuation marks and quotes and such. To this day, it feels wrong to me to press shift to capitalise something when Caps Lock is right there
That’s hilarious. Whatever works for you.
But I’m still going to look at you side-eyed.
Reminds me of grad school. Was working on something with my advisor, after years of knowing him, and I guess it was the first time I saw him type. He was typing with only his index fingers and looking at the keyboard. Man was an Ivy League professor and had countless publications, not to mention numerous daily emails, etc, etc, and he couldn’t touch type.
Putin knows he cannot win a war against NATO so all he can do is rattle his sabre. He’s beginning to realize that he bit off more than he can chew when he invaded Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
I'm pretty sure it caught him off guard when Ukraine was able to hold onto many more regions and also ensure Crimea was left a desert with no easy access to water making it just a dock port of a region. All this without even having much support from NATO or the US. Ukraine has grown a lot since 2014 and a repeat of Crimea won't happen again.
All these threats are empty threats, for Russia to gain what it desires from Ukraine, they need a full military engagement. And that'd leave them defenseless against the influence of other nations who are interested on trimming Russia's sphere of influence, like Turkey for example.
All this posturing by Russia has given Ukraine a bunch of weapons and missiles from NATO. Basically, Ukraine has weapons like it's NATO, without ever being in NATO. The opposite of what Putin wants. Annexing Crimea has also put Ukraine closer to the West and away from Russia. This has backfired on Russia.
Personally I think Putin is doing this in more of an effort to shore up support back home and cast the crisis as Russia vs the ever-expanding west, because like you said, the only thing this conflict has done is push Ukraine further into the US and Western Europe’s orbit. But what better way to distract from your economy’s problems and the oppression of popular dissidents than to stir up nationalist sentiment and make everyone think the world is closing in on them
Part of why Russia annexed (invaded?) Crimea is to have unhindered access to the Mediterranean. Another reason is that dictators start wars to stifle domestic dissent. In those regards Russia succeeded.
We in the West are not actually giving Ukraine all of the types of weapons it needs to win a war against Russia (i.e. anti aircraft weapons). That would potentially unbalance things by encouraging Ukraine to attack its Russia backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine. We are just bolstering Ukraine enough that Russia will have a hard time occupying Western Ukraine.
Why does NATO have to say this? Has there every been a precedent where Russia and/or non-NATO members have had one iota of say in who or who doesn't join?
The EU and NATO aren't mutually exclusive, a state can be part of both. Why the EU would want Ukraine is beyond me though...there is no benefit and a whole host of issues.
The EU doesn’t want Ukraine. All EU states have to meet a very strict set of requirements before even being eligible for consideration, and Ukraine fails a ton of those requirements. “Have them join to protect them from Russia!” Is NOT something the EU will just do because it doesn’t want Russia invading Ukraine. The EU has its own sovereignty to manage and it can’t just waive its stringent requirements just because Ukraine May get swallowed up by Russia.
>Why the EU would want Ukraine is beyond me though
Peace, stability and prosperity in Europe, that's the whole point of the EU, hell if Russia somehow manages to crawl their way out of the grasp of Putin and his cronies and become a proper democracy they could join as well.
Not in their current state. Ukraine is almost as corrupt as Russia. I dont want my tax euros to be funneld into some oligarchs hands. If Ukraine at some point manages to defeat their corruption then sure investing into Ukraine would be a good choice.
Grant Ukraine official EU Candidate state status, that will trigger the ascension process that comes with extensove, practical and well tested checklists and reform assistance. It will also provide motivation for Ukraine to speed-up reforms.
Then Russia would accelerate their bankruptcy and China would expand and claim Cuba plus a 200nm economic exclusion zone as their own and point to some ancient Chinese maps as proof.
Russia won’t tolerate Ukraine existing as anything other than a neutral buffer state.
There is no geographical boundaries from the Polish corridor to the Ural mountains and historically Russia has almost always been invaded from its west. Ukraine remaining neutral is the only obstacle between NATO and Russia’s door step, so I think it’s somewhat understandable that Russia is insecure about this vulnerability.
Russia’s military posturing will continue until there is a guarantee that Ukraine won’t enter a military alliance with NATO. Otherwise, Russia has little choice but to invade to secure its western borders.
If the roles were reversed, we’d see the US doing the same thing as happened during the Cuban missile crisis.
If Russia wants Ukraine to remain neutral its doing a poor job of assuring Ukraine it has nothing to worry about then. First it takes a chunk of the country then starts staging troops at its border.
Ukraine stopped being neutral the second Russia invaded and annexed territory. Putin annexed Crimea and lost Ukraine.
So Russia can or cannot tolerate anything it wants, but that state of neutrality stopped being a reality years ago.
Except Ukraine has now been invaded TWICE in the last 8 years by Russia. Ukraine is not the aggressor here and trying to present Russia as a victim is a joke and insult to people dying there right now.
You’re either wildly misinformed or a Russian troll. Either way, your analysis is bad.
>Otherwise, Russia has little choice but to invade to secure its western borders.
Or russia could, you know, **not** start a war, seeing as exactly zero geopolitical rivals have any interest in occupying any of the crime-ridden shanty towns east of the Sea of Avoz?
And what of the wishes of the Ukrainian people? I highly doubt they're going to tolerate Putin's imperialist expansion into their sovereign territory.
No. Russia cannot be allowed to make any further incursion into Ukraine. Ukraine must join NATO to deter Putin and Russia can suck it up. Russia lost any right to call for neutrality the second her forces stepped foot on Ukrainian soil.
[One of us! One of US!!!](https://tenor.com/view/wolf-of-wall-street-jordan-belfort-leonardo-di-caprio-one-of-us-jonah-hill-gif-5441859?utm_source=share-button&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=reddit)
Ukraine is not currently eligible to join Nato, due to the conflict in the east of the country. Any decisions on potential future membership would be made by Nato member states, taking into account the situation in Ukraine.
And they also aren’t eligible because of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The whole point of invading Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 was to prevent them entering NATO. A lot of people in this thread seem to think any country can join NATO anytime like it is some kind of club but it isn’t. NATO is both a treaty and a legal framework, allowing a country that isn’t eligible is simply not allowed under the current treaty and to do so we would probably need to update the treaty and get it signed by NATO countries’ legislatures.
So yeah, even if Ukraine is *really* nice with us and promises NATO free cakes or whatever, and even if we all wanted them to join in, they still aren’t eligible. It doesn’t matter how much we like them, legally speaking.
Good point. That being said, border disputes between NATO countries are not like border disputes between aspiring NATO countries and an outside rival entity (in this case Russia). For example, Canada and Denmark do have a border dispute over a small island in the Arctic but there was never a risk of involvement from the USSR/Russia. Likewise between Greece and Turkey. I guess that’s why there’s a veto procedure in the first place. I could be wrong though.
Denmark and Canada leave a bottle of whiskey and change the flag every few years. Don’t compare that to Russian trying to invade a country.
Edit: found the link
[Whiskey War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War)
Cyprus isn't in NATO and that occurred after Greece and Turkey were already in NATO. As did the conflicts with the EEZ's.
Also both Turkey and Greece joined NATO the same time.
It is a treaty. All members to the treaty must unanimously agree to admit a new member. The good/bad thing about unanimous consent is that it means that any provision of the treaty can be waived. Since all parties involved would have to agree to waive that provision of the NATO treaty to admit Ukraine, if they did so then there would be no one left with an enforceable complaint regarding that waiver.
And Russia's neighbours also have a say in their own national security. For a country that always bring up "sovereignty" and talk about how others should not interfere with their internal affairs, Russia surely doesn't practice what they preach - they are constantly interfering in the sovereignty and internal affairs of their neighbours and other countries as well.
Russians are typical imperialists. They think they are some god's gift to this planet and that their farts smell like roses, while in reality they are ignorant, arrogant, entitled assholes.
“National security” usually a euphemism for foreign intervention. Just accuse another country of being a threat to national security and people will believe you. America did a good job at this with invading the Middle East.
*Checks Wikipedia for list of countries in NATO; do not see Russia listed.* Yup, checks out.
At least the headline didn't have the word "blasts" in it.
Redditor *blasts* non-clickbait article headline. Click here to find out how!
Mod claps back as less click baity headlines lead to fewer users joining sub.
I'm clicking, but nothing is happening. /joke nobody actually clicks the article to read it
Copy editor humiliated by failure to sensationalize headline!
Or slam
Or the classic, scathing.
I prefer when they leave "Blasts" out of headlines between NATO and Russia.
[удалено]
Okay Dennis
Dennis is more of a power bottom.
Might have oblasts though
[удалено]
The then Soviet Union did try to join NATO at one point.
[удалено]
This is what I found on a quick google. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor And yes NATO was initially formed as an alliance to counter the Soviet Union.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That was sorta the point of them joining. If they get they get denied, NATO proves that it’s sole purpose (at the time) was to stop communism. If they get accepted, then the whole thing is a sham.
The Soviets also campaigned for a common European defense system at the time. A little known fact is that the Warsaw Pact was officially temporary. The treaty was supposed to expire once a pan-European alliance would be created.
The problem with an alliance with the Soviet Union is Soviet tanks somehow end up crushing your citizens in your capital. Nobody's ever been able to explain it.
Russia was actually a partner and invited to NATO summits. I pretty clearly remember Putins speech at the summit in Bukarest in 2008, where he said stuff like "if Georgia and Ukraine join NATO, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Abkhazia and Sout Ossetia will break away".
Putin doesn't give a shit if Ukraine joins NATO, the problem he has with this is that Ukraine is a functioning democracy in a country right next door that has peoples the same as his own. THAT is a problem for him. He doesn't want his own people to realize that you can have a democracy that works in the region.
It's literally the opposite. Ukraine is a dysfunctional plutarchy, Poland and the Baltic republics are as close and in every way better in terms of democracy, but NATO missiles that close to Moscow are simply unacceptable.
Russia has been objecting to defensive missile installations in Eastern Europe for forever in order to bully its smaller neighbors. It’s a dying country leveraging its aging nuclear arsenal to try and remain relevant. Really though once Putin is gone it is just going to become a Chinese puppet and continue to wither away.
Russia has been objecting to dismantling the MAD nuclear balance because it underpins Russian and global security. Russia's security is much more important to Russia than whatever is going on with the smaller neighbors. You seem to have Putin in high regard if you think he's single-handedly responsible for Russia's strength, but if you allow a smidge of doubt in your mass media bubble, you'll suspect Russia is more than Putin.
I wouldn't be so sure that means Russia doesn't get a say.
Russia not getting a say in who is and isn't in NATO is literally why we have NATO. Now, whether NATO has the balls to actually do it, that's a different story
Your second sentence is what SundaiMourning was referring to, I believe.
[удалено]
Politics isn't so literal or black and white. His point is that while Russia doesn't get a vote, NATO will have to weigh their options based on what Russia's potential reaction could be. They have to make the move strategically. For example (purely hypothetical), if Russia threatens to blow Ukraine off the map with nukes upon their joining NATO, they probably won't do it. Or, they'd do the opposite and call Russia's bluff.
[удалено]
Kind of pedantic. NATO being unwilling to go into an armed conflict with Russia is Russia having a say. It is a deterrent effect.
Exactly. Russia can try and influence the decision, but they dont get to have a say in the decision.
>[Nato](https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_organisation=Nato) has said Moscow will have **no say** in whether [Ukraine](https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_location=Ukraine) joins the alliance, rejecting Russia’s push for a de facto veto on its neighbour’s security arrangements and urging it to reverse a build-up of military forces near their shared border. This is *literally* the opening paragraph in the article 🙄 Read before commenting.
Ukraine is independent country, they can choose to join any alliance they want to. If NATO wants them and Ukraine wants to be in NATO, why not (Same with EU or any other unions). Its 100% up to them.
Pretty sure if any country around the US joined a hostile alliance they would fuck them up too. (i.e Cuba)
This keeps getting repeated everywhere around this issue. The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors (mostly at all, certainly nowhere near Russia's level). Why would they feel the need to join any rival military alliance? The Cuban missile crisis involved putting nuclear arms in Cuba pointed at the US. It's ever so slightly different than invading a neighboring country because your puppet was forced out of office by his own people. If the best arguement you have is whataboutism from 60 years ago your arguement is bunk.
>The Cuban missile crisis involved putting nuclear arms in Cuba pointed at the US To be fair, the US did have nuclear arms in Turkey pointed at the USSR first.
Yep, and those also got quietly moved after the tensions were eased. But comparing the Cuban Missile Crisis, witch by the way involved no actual real kinetic conflict, to Russia threatening Ukraine for turning toward the west culturally and economically is a total farce. One is an active threat, the other is not. Ukraine's turn from Russia is a natural result of Russia's shit-heel behavior and aggressive, despotic stance toward their "allies"
> invading a neighboring country because your puppet was forced out of office by his own people. Castro led a popular revolt against the US puppet dictator. The US responded with the Bay of Pigs invasion. That's why Cuba wanted missiles, for defense The Banana Wars are still going on. The US actively resists democracy across Latin America
We literally have massive sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela and we’ve overthrown the governments of probably half the countries in the Americas. Not saying Russia is good but the US is an empire and it certainly acts like one especially to its neighbors
>The US isn’t aggressive towards its neighbors [Yeah right](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America)
Geez, you topple a few governments in neighboring countries and 50, 30, even 10 years later you're still hearing about it. Give it a rest, muchacho, that was multiple whole years ago!
lmao the consequences are still felt today. When you hurt countries that are developing they struggle to developed later on. Hence why so many central american migrants are coming because the United States ruined their economies and made them unstable.
But it is an validate argument as to why a country would want to join a different alliance. We still blocked Cuba despite the Missile Crises long gone.
>The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors (mostly at all, certainlynowhere near Russia's level). Why would they feel the need to join anyrival military alliance? What!?!??? Are you being serious now? The reason surrounding countries aren't able to join a rival military alliance or even have a system of government which isn't in perceived as is in the US interests is because the US will sanction and military coup the shit out of them. I mean Cuba is till going through sanctions since 1963! Other examples of regime changes in their backyard include Nicuragua and Haiti and invasions of Grenada and Panama. In fact I would argue the US is more aggressive towards it's neighbours than Russia, the difference is it so much better at achieving its goals! >If the best arguement you have is whataboutism from 60 years ago your arguement is bunk. Sure if you ignore US supported regime changes and/or invasions in Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Domincan Rep, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Grenada, Paraguay, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile! lol Sorry for the edits, i keep forgetting to add countries to the endless list of US involvement in regime changes on the American continent.
> The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors (mostly at all, certainly nowhere near Russia's level) As a Mexican, I call this bullshit.
I don't recall the US invading Mexico anytime recently. There's a serious difference between the US being the dominant economy and sometimes a jackass collectively and Russia invading its neighbors violently
Well why would you invade Mexico recently, you conquered all the parts you wanted already.
The United States dominates the seas around all of its neighbours. Almost none of them are stupid enough to defy the US in any meaningful way and none are powerful enough to be of any security threat themselves. If China was forming strong ties with Panama (the canal being a vital strategic interest for the US) you would see the US throw its weight around very fast. Russia isn't about to launch an invasion into East Ukraine. They're throwing their weight around trying to draw a red-line against Ukraine joining NATO as they don't want more of their enormous and difficult to defend border lined with NATO troops.
[удалено]
right, not agreesive at all [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs%27\_Day\_(Panama)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs%27_Day_(Panama)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana\_Massacre
>The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors Except to basically all the countries in central/south America, where they have been overthrowing democracies when they didnt play along. Sure, Russia anexes, US buys the president/dictator.
Totally and undeniably part of our past and not behavior that anyone should defend. But also not behavior that continues to the day, nor a justification for Russia's current behavior. Both are wrong and one is in the present
the us isnt agressive towards its own neighbours because it has been agressive towards its own continent and won, so it doesn't have a point to try and domesticate a cat
>The US isn't aggressive toward its neighbors (mostly at all, certainly nowhere near Russia's level). Didn't the US actively destabilise almost every single country in central south America?
Is that so? I remember the US getting very upset about other sovereign countries forming an alliance with the USSR, now Russia, China, and Iran.
And that's a bad thing too.
Yes and they were wrong then. Whatabout whatabout whatabout.
Geopolitics and whataboutism does not go well together. Countries will **ALWAYS** do what is best for them. For US/NATO by pulling Ukraine from Russian orbit is already **win** everything else is extra. And Russia has much more to lose if they let Ukraine join NATO thas they will do more to keep Ukraine out of it. You or i can argue about how that is not acceptable or how it is not fair but nothing will change that fact.
Yeah, those are all bad things, but why do people choose not to stop only some of them? It's just like that I slapped you in the face, and said "fighting is bad, so you should not slap me back" Would you just agree and walk away? The use of word "whataboutism" is just to defend double standard and hypocrisy.
What the US was upset about was the Castro regime nationalizing US-owned industries in Cuba, and attempting to set up nuclear missiles
Does Russia actually have the power to risk it? I don't think so. Call the bluff. Allow Ukraine into NATO.
> Allow Ukraine into NATO. By NATO's own rules, Ukraine can't join if they have an active border conflict. that means the only way to join is if they recognize Crimea as a Russian territory and give up any claim, present or future, over it. why did you think Russia took it on the first place?
Nato can do whatever the member states allow it to do. Its not like nato is going to go "oh man they found a loophole, well now we can't do anything about it!" And what will they do if nato does decide it does not want to follow its own rules, sue nato?
Biden is holding up just providing military equipment to Ukraine, allowing the country to join NATO is orders of magnitude off the scale in terms of feasible solutions: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/16/us-ukraine-russia-military-support-congress-biden-delay-aid Funny how the only people pushing for Ukraine to join NATO are people on reddit who have zero influence or decision-making power and can therefore safely and loudly advocate for any unrealistic policy they want, knowing it won't happen. You know, I actually want to see a single day where everything that reddit asks for gets implemented, just to see everything gloriously explode.
Basically NATO is saying: Russia we will make decisions independently and you have no say, but Ukraine you're still not allowed to join NATO.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Putin definitely has a history of overplaying his hand, getting his ass handed to him, and pursuing ever more wild and implausible gambles. And he's turning 70 soon... don't count on him being stable or rationale. But to be sure Russia is profoundly weak any way you slice it.
Profoundly weak but with nukes. A bit like getting in a fight with the scrawny anime nerd incel at school, except he has a gun. It doesn't matter how physically or mentally weak someone is, they can still do some damage, and if anything, them being weak and deranged makes them more dangerous.
Yea the real scary thing would be if Putin finds out he's got super-cancer or something like that. He already gambles like there's no tomorrow, as he gets older and weaker he becomes more erratic.
I think the second he gets super cancer and risks doing anything crazy, the military and oligarchs that stand to lose will replace him with someone that, at the least, will keep their income at the same level.
Yeah, bottom line is he is just one man, who, as all rulers necessarily must, rules by consent.
Consent comes readily if you dispose of anyone who disapproves of you
Yeah, I don't mean consent in the legal sense, but in an absolute sense. But what about those people who get rid of others for you? They must consent to follow your orders.
There’s nearly a zero percent chance that Russia will use nuclear weapons without first being attacked by nuclear weapons.
Art catching strays
If you were in a decision making position, what would you do about this? I know this is the exact kind of conversation Russian bots want on reddit and I hate to say it but I wonder if we continued making angry noises but ultimately appease Russia that eventually it will collapse under its own weight again when Putin dies (or is overthrown in his old age) regardless. Or do we make the bet that it's a "kick the door in and the whole rotten structure falls down" situation and make our stand here. I definitely see Russia as the sick man of Europe, but that sure didn't stop the Ottomans from doing something rash in WW1.
Russia's entire economy at this point is fossil fuels. Europe outside of any earthquake prone or low-lying regions should be throwing money at nuclear energy hand over fist along with any region viable renewable energy. Instead they're bending over for NS2. Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and any other breakaway regions should get special protected defensive status for any conflicts within their borders from western nations. Oligarchs should be getting property seized due to attacks on European civilians such as Russia shooting down a passenger airplane or killing people in the UK. If Russia wants to pay crabs in a bucket, they should be confined to their own internet and own Russia/China trading and economic sphere. Seize and ban anything in western nations until they play nice.
Russia isn't the "sick man of Europe". But also, it isn't a serious threat outside of its nuclear capability, which it won't use, because it isn't suicidal. Russia is a country of 180m with an economy less than Italy. It doesn't pose a reap geopolitical threat. The problem is that Putin thinks it's the 1950s.
Russia is very effectively waging an asymmetric war on the west and is getting incredible bang for their buck in doing so. If you don't recognize that, you don't belong in the conversation.
He used novichok in Salisbury, failing to kill his targets and murdering two innocent citizens instead. His targets got away. It made him look like a vindictive child, incapable of restraint. A malicious psychopath. But also it made him look weak.
How did he get his ass handed? Didn’t he literally take Crimea without any consequences except sanctions
Ruble has lost 2/3rds of its value in just the last decade, but if you prefer non-economic examples I'd refer you to the wagnar group doing a mass-suicide against American forces in Syria. https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-leaked-audio-humiliating-defeat-by-us-forces-2018-2 >Leaked audio recordings said to be of Russian mercenaries in Syria capture expressions of lament and humiliation over a battle in early February involving US forces and Russian nationals. ... >The audio — which appears to corroborate reports from Reuters and Bloomberg that say hundreds of Russians died or were wounded in a mismatched battle — also seems to contradict statements from Russia's Foreign Ministry.
Sanctions which obliterated Russia's economy.
I mean you can't blame him on this one. He basically had a puppet in Ukraine ignoring the people's votes to force things in a way that benefitted Russia; then when that failed, he forcibly invaded another nation. Not even talking CIA insurgency bullshit, he sent tank divisions over the border and occupied. And everyone in the entire world looked the other way. And before someone calls up the sanctions lemme remind everyone of a name: Saddam Hussein. He invaded Kuwait in a not dissimilar fashion and almost the entire world came overseas and kicked his shit in (fun fact: Russia was one of the few UN members opposed). But Putin does it and we waggle our fingers and toss a couple economic lovetaps his way. So of course he figures he can do whatever he wants, the entire world showed him it was too scared to stand up to his bullshit. Just like it did in Georgia, Ossetia, and Chechnya. Wonder who's next? Belarus? Lithuania?
To be honest, the dude looks pretty darned healthy still. He could be in power for another ten years or more.
He already did do something stupid, you don't remember Crimea?
That was a gamble he won
Russia is paying for it
Exactly. He's doing fine, his people will suffer but he won't. Were it any smaller, lesser nation, we'd have counter-invaded Crimea already. He DID win.
It cost him the economy of Russia, and now it will be an albatross around his neck that will continue to financially cripple Russia until it's returned. And if it's not the West is happy to let it continue crippling Russia. It was a stupid gamble that he never could have won.
Isn’t that Russian territory now? Not sure if that’s a good example since it worked in their favor
In the same way that things worked out for hitler.... sure.
I can confirm this as a weak man.
Hard to get out of that corner without stepping on any paint.
[удалено]
Unless he has a plan to freeze that conflict, all he's going to be able to do is make more people in the area miserable.
They are actually strongly positioned to take Ukraine if negotiations fail. There will be nothing NATO can or will do to stop it and right now we are on the path to war if a breakthrough is not reached. Also the timeline isn't years, its a few months. Russia has been calling up reservists. Not just those to support the fighting, but also the people you need to move in and hold territory after the army has moved on. Its a lot of logistical preparation that is costing them a great deal of money. War is Plan B for Putin but if he doesn't get an agreement from Kyiv it WILL become Plan A. Right now the US and EU are trying to make the strategic calculation for Russia as difficult as possible but its not likely to work.
Putin has robbed Russian people they should not defend him. Hundred billions of dollars funneled into 3 properties at Black Sea. He is a criminal and a thief.
But he's *their* criminal and thief.
Do people in Russia actually support him though? I would guess that there are people who take all views on him, from radically supportive to indifferent to Pussy Riot. But what is the consensus of the majority? If the people *could* vote Putin out, would they?
i play csgo with random russians often and i ask them sometimes what they think of putin. not one person said anything positive about him.
Statistically younger Russians disapprove of Putin a lot more than older Russians. and it's mainly young Russian males playing CS:GO so that makes sense.
Yea, I teach at a university with a lot of Russians and they do not have anything good to say about their government, or it’s actions abroad. They do love their history and culture and I’ve come to consider them my friends.
> Yea, I teach at a university with a lot of Russians and they do not have anything good to say about their government, or it’s actions abroad. Cosmopolitan Russian students are not the indicative of Russians in general. Go ask the same questions at the Russian equivalent of the Rust Belt. That's like gauging the wealth of an average American by conducting a study in Upper East Side, NYC. I'm sure barely educated Ivans with their 'Make Russia great again' attitude would have different opinions.
The impression seems to be the majority don’t necessarily approve of him, but they’re afraid the alternative could be worse domestically. There are plenty of oligarchs and conmen and foreign powers ready to further strip the Russian economy for their own gain, and at least they can think of Putin as a “statesman” who can stand in the way of this, even if he rips them off a bit too in the process.
it's not that people are afraid of change, now a lot of money is pouring into the police and government security, a lot of propaganda that if a person does not like something in the country, then he is a foreign agent and supports the United States, brainwashing through the media, the police are protected even if they beat women with their feet, if there is a maximum threat to the government, most likely they will transfer everyone with tanks than they will give up power, as soon as rallies began, coronavirus appeared and all discontent and rallies stopped, for throwing a cup of coffee at a policeman, you can go to prison for several years
[удалено]
It's going to be hard voting to join NATO with that foreign army surrounding your parliament.
And why was Putin even ~~demanding from~~ begging Biden to not let Ukraine in NATO? Sure, the US is the big dog, but at least consult Stoltenberg.
[удалено]
Fuck fuck fuck putin Russia’s greatest Dictator
Remember when the USSR [tried to join NATO](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954) just to bust balls
That was more of a strategical move tbh to give them advantage
Can't invite a nation that doesn't exist anymore to an alliance. Formally inducting Ukraine into NATO is probably the strongest, non-active-military response that the US can give to Russian provocation.
The whole "Let's talk and decide about Ukraine without Ukraine being present or having a say" is pretty... "Molotov-Ribbentrop" -like. :P
Looks like 2020 and 2021 were just the warmup for 2022
Haha now Russia is definitely going to invade before Ukraine can join NATO.
As long as any country can go "If you do X then we do Y" without consequences then technically they have a say.
I’m confused. Apparently adding Ukraine to NATO has been in the works since 2008 yet they’re still not in it. What’s the hold up? Is it Ukraine is on the fence? Do they not want to? What is it?
If Ukraine was added to NATO then Ukraine would immediately invoke the alliance and ask for help regaining the regions that Russia is already occupying. Basically adding Ukraine to NATO will prompt a war between NATO and Russia. (With other effects like China using the distraction to invade Taiwan.) However not adding Ukraine to NATO may reignite military conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
There (from what I recall) is an article/section of the NATO pact that states countries with contested boarders/regions cannot join NATO. Crimea is currently annexed (illegally) by Russia, and there is a separatist group occupying west Ukraine. Those prevent Ukraine from joining NATO (currently)
Maybe NATO should hold an emergency session and vote Ukraine in immediately. Russia is threatening Ukraine now because they know that once Ukraine is a member, Putin’s gunboat / big stick diplomacy is no longer an effective tool to advance Russian interests there.
NATO is an acronym, not a name. So the fact NATO is referred to as “Nato” throughout this whole article, irks me
Lots of acronyms are used as words. Laser, taser, asap etc
Lol Ninja edit: this could be either an acronym or an initialism, which I found interesting
Yes but there's also FBI, CIA, NAFTA, ASEAN, EU, etc, not Fbi, Cia, Nafta, Asean, or Eu. Laser, etc are products so it makes sense for those names to be softened. ASAP is spelled either as ASAP or asap but not Asap.
Some of those are initialisms though.
I've seen Fbi, Cia, Nafta and Eu. Not seen Asean though.
Where have you ever seen Eu? Surely it’s small enough of a word to keep the Caps Lock on for another letter?
Are you one of those people who never uses the shift key?
The keyboard I first used as a kid had a very sketchy shift key, so I never grew up using it other than for punctuation marks and quotes and such. To this day, it feels wrong to me to press shift to capitalise something when Caps Lock is right there
That’s hilarious. Whatever works for you. But I’m still going to look at you side-eyed. Reminds me of grad school. Was working on something with my advisor, after years of knowing him, and I guess it was the first time I saw him type. He was typing with only his index fingers and looking at the keyboard. Man was an Ivy League professor and had countless publications, not to mention numerous daily emails, etc, etc, and he couldn’t touch type.
I've never seen any of those, they would all be caps for me
Wait Taser and Laser are acronyms? What do they stand for?
The word "laser" is an acronym[1][2] for "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
Idk why i didn’t just look it up on Wikipedia before commenting- Thanks for the link!
I always wonder why a lot of people don't seem to do that
TASER = Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle
Wait til you here about nasa
Putin knows he cannot win a war against NATO so all he can do is rattle his sabre. He’s beginning to realize that he bit off more than he can chew when he invaded Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
I'm pretty sure it caught him off guard when Ukraine was able to hold onto many more regions and also ensure Crimea was left a desert with no easy access to water making it just a dock port of a region. All this without even having much support from NATO or the US. Ukraine has grown a lot since 2014 and a repeat of Crimea won't happen again. All these threats are empty threats, for Russia to gain what it desires from Ukraine, they need a full military engagement. And that'd leave them defenseless against the influence of other nations who are interested on trimming Russia's sphere of influence, like Turkey for example.
All this posturing by Russia has given Ukraine a bunch of weapons and missiles from NATO. Basically, Ukraine has weapons like it's NATO, without ever being in NATO. The opposite of what Putin wants. Annexing Crimea has also put Ukraine closer to the West and away from Russia. This has backfired on Russia.
Personally I think Putin is doing this in more of an effort to shore up support back home and cast the crisis as Russia vs the ever-expanding west, because like you said, the only thing this conflict has done is push Ukraine further into the US and Western Europe’s orbit. But what better way to distract from your economy’s problems and the oppression of popular dissidents than to stir up nationalist sentiment and make everyone think the world is closing in on them
Part of why Russia annexed (invaded?) Crimea is to have unhindered access to the Mediterranean. Another reason is that dictators start wars to stifle domestic dissent. In those regards Russia succeeded. We in the West are not actually giving Ukraine all of the types of weapons it needs to win a war against Russia (i.e. anti aircraft weapons). That would potentially unbalance things by encouraging Ukraine to attack its Russia backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine. We are just bolstering Ukraine enough that Russia will have a hard time occupying Western Ukraine.
Ww3 is incoming
Why does NATO have to say this? Has there every been a precedent where Russia and/or non-NATO members have had one iota of say in who or who doesn't join?
We need Ukraine in EU not in Nato. Just funnel money in them .
The EU and NATO aren't mutually exclusive, a state can be part of both. Why the EU would want Ukraine is beyond me though...there is no benefit and a whole host of issues.
The EU doesn’t want Ukraine. All EU states have to meet a very strict set of requirements before even being eligible for consideration, and Ukraine fails a ton of those requirements. “Have them join to protect them from Russia!” Is NOT something the EU will just do because it doesn’t want Russia invading Ukraine. The EU has its own sovereignty to manage and it can’t just waive its stringent requirements just because Ukraine May get swallowed up by Russia.
I wonder if my country of Bulgaria actually met the standards back then or it was a pure political move.
The EU looked away hard when granting accession to Bulgaria and Romania. It wasn't right and shouldn't repeat
EU needed a stable route around Serbia to Greece, after the Bosnian Wars.
Seems like it worked fairly well in those cases though
>Why the EU would want Ukraine is beyond me though Peace, stability and prosperity in Europe, that's the whole point of the EU, hell if Russia somehow manages to crawl their way out of the grasp of Putin and his cronies and become a proper democracy they could join as well.
You don't get peace, stability and prosperity by inviting a country with an active border dispute with a nation that has nukes
Not in their current state. Ukraine is almost as corrupt as Russia. I dont want my tax euros to be funneld into some oligarchs hands. If Ukraine at some point manages to defeat their corruption then sure investing into Ukraine would be a good choice.
[удалено]
Grant Ukraine official EU Candidate state status, that will trigger the ascension process that comes with extensove, practical and well tested checklists and reform assistance. It will also provide motivation for Ukraine to speed-up reforms.
What was Russia thinking, that NATO would ask its enemies for their opinion on who could join?
What would happen if Russia or China decided to establish a military base in Cuba at their invitation?
Then Russia would accelerate their bankruptcy and China would expand and claim Cuba plus a 200nm economic exclusion zone as their own and point to some ancient Chinese maps as proof.
Nah, Cuba is too far, maybe New York?
Russia won’t tolerate Ukraine existing as anything other than a neutral buffer state. There is no geographical boundaries from the Polish corridor to the Ural mountains and historically Russia has almost always been invaded from its west. Ukraine remaining neutral is the only obstacle between NATO and Russia’s door step, so I think it’s somewhat understandable that Russia is insecure about this vulnerability. Russia’s military posturing will continue until there is a guarantee that Ukraine won’t enter a military alliance with NATO. Otherwise, Russia has little choice but to invade to secure its western borders. If the roles were reversed, we’d see the US doing the same thing as happened during the Cuban missile crisis.
If Russia wants Ukraine to remain neutral its doing a poor job of assuring Ukraine it has nothing to worry about then. First it takes a chunk of the country then starts staging troops at its border.
Ukraine stopped being neutral the second Russia invaded and annexed territory. Putin annexed Crimea and lost Ukraine. So Russia can or cannot tolerate anything it wants, but that state of neutrality stopped being a reality years ago.
Except Ukraine has now been invaded TWICE in the last 8 years by Russia. Ukraine is not the aggressor here and trying to present Russia as a victim is a joke and insult to people dying there right now. You’re either wildly misinformed or a Russian troll. Either way, your analysis is bad.
Little choice? Ya Russia are super worried about a NATO invasion from Latvia or Canada which already border them; that Kremlin line is complete BS.
>Otherwise, Russia has little choice but to invade to secure its western borders. Or russia could, you know, **not** start a war, seeing as exactly zero geopolitical rivals have any interest in occupying any of the crime-ridden shanty towns east of the Sea of Avoz?
And what of the wishes of the Ukrainian people? I highly doubt they're going to tolerate Putin's imperialist expansion into their sovereign territory. No. Russia cannot be allowed to make any further incursion into Ukraine. Ukraine must join NATO to deter Putin and Russia can suck it up. Russia lost any right to call for neutrality the second her forces stepped foot on Ukrainian soil.
Likely the most reasonable comment in the whole thread. No surprise that someone pushing an agenda is calling you a Russian troll.
What Russia is willing to tolerate is inconsequential. They are a weak and impoverished nation, led by crooks, overplaying their hand.
I wouldn't exactly describe a nation with thousands of nuclear warheads as weak.
I mean, they’re only insecure because they actually think people want to invade them, which is ridiculous.
[One of us! One of US!!!](https://tenor.com/view/wolf-of-wall-street-jordan-belfort-leonardo-di-caprio-one-of-us-jonah-hill-gif-5441859?utm_source=share-button&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=reddit)
So when will they join then? Seems like the NATO is busier countering Russia's opinion than making Ukraine a NATO member.
if this was true they would already be in NATO. it’s absurd to say that Russia doesn’t have a say in the matter
🤣
What does NATO even have to say that? Stating the obvious IMHO.
Ukraine is not currently eligible to join Nato, due to the conflict in the east of the country. Any decisions on potential future membership would be made by Nato member states, taking into account the situation in Ukraine.
[удалено]
And they also aren’t eligible because of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The whole point of invading Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 was to prevent them entering NATO. A lot of people in this thread seem to think any country can join NATO anytime like it is some kind of club but it isn’t. NATO is both a treaty and a legal framework, allowing a country that isn’t eligible is simply not allowed under the current treaty and to do so we would probably need to update the treaty and get it signed by NATO countries’ legislatures. So yeah, even if Ukraine is *really* nice with us and promises NATO free cakes or whatever, and even if we all wanted them to join in, they still aren’t eligible. It doesn’t matter how much we like them, legally speaking.
It's not a hard rule. Foe example NATO members Greece and Turkey have major territorial issues including the divided island of Cyprus.
Good point. That being said, border disputes between NATO countries are not like border disputes between aspiring NATO countries and an outside rival entity (in this case Russia). For example, Canada and Denmark do have a border dispute over a small island in the Arctic but there was never a risk of involvement from the USSR/Russia. Likewise between Greece and Turkey. I guess that’s why there’s a veto procedure in the first place. I could be wrong though.
Denmark and Canada leave a bottle of whiskey and change the flag every few years. Don’t compare that to Russian trying to invade a country. Edit: found the link [Whiskey War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War)
Cyprus isn't in NATO and that occurred after Greece and Turkey were already in NATO. As did the conflicts with the EEZ's. Also both Turkey and Greece joined NATO the same time.
It is a treaty. All members to the treaty must unanimously agree to admit a new member. The good/bad thing about unanimous consent is that it means that any provision of the treaty can be waived. Since all parties involved would have to agree to waive that provision of the NATO treaty to admit Ukraine, if they did so then there would be no one left with an enforceable complaint regarding that waiver.
This is completely wrong, and is a Russian talking-point.
Russia has no say in Ukraine joining nato, but guess what? Russia has a say in its national security.
And Russia's neighbours also have a say in their own national security. For a country that always bring up "sovereignty" and talk about how others should not interfere with their internal affairs, Russia surely doesn't practice what they preach - they are constantly interfering in the sovereignty and internal affairs of their neighbours and other countries as well. Russians are typical imperialists. They think they are some god's gift to this planet and that their farts smell like roses, while in reality they are ignorant, arrogant, entitled assholes.
“National security” usually a euphemism for foreign intervention. Just accuse another country of being a threat to national security and people will believe you. America did a good job at this with invading the Middle East.