I meant in the de facto sense. Unless I missed something, offering Ukraine membership in NATO wasn’t something that was on the table. So no, it wasn’t written down in some treaty somewhere, but in terms of realistic possibilities, I don’t recall admitting Ukraine to NATO being a thing, anymore than admitting some other random country like Nigeria or Vietnam. It was a thing in the past, but in the present it’s not something that was on the table.
You could quibble with that, because although it’s not currently on the table (mostly due to Russian opposition) it’s been on the table fairly recently in geopolitical terms, and would reasonably be a concern.
But beyond that, the real point is that the difference between what you call “de facto” and an actual guarantee is apparantly a big deal to both NATO and Russia.
What we should do is say “Sure, we will not offer them NATO membership.”
If Russia withdraws, then great.
If they don’t, then they’re lying liars (it is certainly this).
Then have Ukraine ask for membership, and grant it to them.
Worth reading from the NYT (via Yahoo): Russia’s Military, Once Creaky, Is Modern and Lethal (yahoo.com)
Actually, I think the big issue is that Russia is demanding that NATO withdraw forces from ‘Eastern Europe’, i.e. former Warsaw pact nations that ran to NATO. Kicking countries out of NATO is certainly a non-starter, but removing NATO troops and deployments from NATO members is also a non-starter.
Russia, of course, knows this, so these ‘demands’ are just window dressing. We aren’t going to kick anyone out. We aren’t going to stop deploying NATO forces to members either. What we MIGHT do is not allow states requesting NATO membership in…if Russia has an issue with it. In fact, we kind of have delayed admitting Ukraine in for just this reason.
I saw an article earlier that several NATO countries have been sending weapons and munitions to Ukraine to help them out and bolster their creaky military. Germany, on the other hand, sent 5000 helmets which was kind of met with eye rolls by the Ukrainians who said something like ‘what will they send as a follow-up…pillows??’. This kind of underscores how dependent Germany has become on Russian energy and how it’s undermined NATO’s unified response to all of this. I think Putin is using this as a wedge to break apart NATO or fragment its response to what Russia is doing. It might be that this is the whole point of this build-up…just to show how fragmented NATO has become. Maybe to demonstrate to some of the members that NATO might not have their back in the event of a conflict, or to countries who are thinking about joining and why that might not be a great idea.
Or, it could be that Putin really does want to launch a war with Ukraine to take at least the eastern half of the country (which is all he can reasonably hope to take unless the country completely collapses) within a window of opportunity (i.e. the winter while Germany is over a barrel). It might be all they can afford for that matter, especially if the military costs in lives and equipment is higher than a cake walk.
I have wondered what Germany’s interest is in Russian oil. Merkel didn’t seem like the sort to tie herself to a bad guy just for some cheap gas, unless there was more to it.
Maybe she figured that the axe cuts both ways, once they’re linked?
Analysis: New discord between Ukraine and US plays right into Putin’s hands - CNNPolitics
Interesting angles there. Both Biden and Zelensky have potential ulterior motives for spinning the threats the way they do.
In Biden’s case, he stands to gain if he plays up the invasion likelihood while simultaneously taking a hard line on it; this way, if it doesn’t eventually happen, he looks like the guy who stared down Putin and forced him to back off. OTOH, this risks provoking Putin into invading just in order to maintain his own Tough Guy image (which has always been a big deal for him).
In Zelensky’s case, he has some incentive to play down the threat in order to prevent widespread panic and having the country fall apart. But conversely, he also needs to play it up a bit, in order to encourage allies to stick their necks out for him.
Another reason NATO may be reluctant to admit Ukraine is simply…sheer self-interest. NATO gains relatively little by admitting Ukraine. It stands to lose a lot by admitting Ukraine.
What exactly does Ukraine have to offer? It doesn’t have a powerful military, it being geographically close to Russia has more cons than pros…other than some high-minded international ideal about democracy or whatnot, it’s hard to think of a compelling NATO interest to let Ukraine join. It’s much more of a burden, a liability, to NATO than anything. (Although the same could have been said of the Baltic states too.)
Finland and Sweden, on the other hand, have a compelling “We’re worth it to you” argument to let NATO have them join.
It’s hard to say what they might bring. Initially, they certainly would be more of a con than a pro, no doubt. The same could be said about Poland and, as you mentioned, the Baltic states as well. That said, bringing in fresh blood can and has been a benefit to NATO. Plus, we wouldn’t be looking at the possibility of war, as if Ukraine was formally in NATO there is no way Russia would be making the moves it’s making, as this would bring in everyone…and Russia doesn’t want that. They seem to be hesitating just based on the potential economic ramifications (I think that Putin actually won’t pull the trigger on this thing mainly because of that in fact). Time will tell, but the more countries in NATO the better the potential stability…IMHO of course and assuming the alliance even holds together in the face of the various forces pulling it apart.
What is interesting about this is that both countries are considering joining NATO (though I don’t think in either case it’s a serious consideration considering their citizens take on joining). IF Russia pulls the trigger on this war, I think both countries will be more inclined to join than to stay non-aligned…so, ironically, something Russia definitely doesn’t want to happen will happen due to their own stupidity. And I doubt they will be the only country to take a look at things and decide they would like to be in the alliance (of course, NATO still has to approve them, so it’s not a done deal just because they want to be in…like Ukraine for instance).
Clear something up for me- I thought that NATO rules prevented any country with an active border dispute from joining. (For obvious reasons) If this is the case, with the conflict on the Russian border, wouldn’t they be disqualified from membership anyway?
And the first signs of cracks may already be showing. One of the threats against Russia is to cancel the new Nord 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany, but that was a threat from the US - the Germans, who’s companies have invested a lot into the line, have not said the same.
The German’s contribution to the lethal aid provided by NATO countries to Ukraine is a field hospital and 5,000 helmets. The Mayor of Kiev said this week: “The behaviour of the German government leaves me speechless, the defence ministry apparently hasn’t realised that we are confronted with perfectly equipped Russian forces that can start another invasion of Ukraine at any time. What kind of support will Germany send next, pillows?”
Germany are also withholding permission for Estonian howitzers, being stored in east Germany, to be handed over to Ukraine. And they are blocking an EU plan to send troops into Ukraine for a military training mission.
It’s odd behaviour from the Germans but they seem to be overly reliant on Russia for energy and are fearful of poking the bear.
No doubt Putin will use his own stick to prise away at what is currently still only a hairline fracture.
A friend of mine asked me why I thought Putin was delaying an invasion. I told him I wasn’t sure but figured he was waiting for NATO unity and resolve to crack. I hate being right.
Didn’t stop the addition of Turkey and Greece in 1952 (and NATO didn’t directly intervene in 1974 during the Cyprus crisis, though thankfully that never developed into a full-on war). NATO articles are somewhat malleable and have been amended before to deal with circumstances on the ground - indeed there was a modification in 1952 to include Asiatic Turkey and the assorted islands into the geographic scope of the alliance.
How a group of Irish fishermen forced the Russian Navy into a U-turn - CNN
irish fishermen take on the russian navy and win! there are also atlantic communication lines that the russian navy has been eyeing. i’m betting those are more of a target than prawns.
I just not getting what the end (war) game is. Does one supposes Ukraine is a distraction for the crap that if going on in the US?
I find it rather annoying how many European-NATO nations seem to be a lot more lackadaisical about this than America. There’s no reason America, 5,000 miles away, should somehow be the one to evince more concern or urgency over the matter than Europeans next door to Ukraine. And then there’s Zelensky himself who seems to want a free ride.
People tend to be more blind to the things that admitting would be disastrous for themselves.
We’re more able to see it because it matters less to us (would be my read).
It’s long been a criticism of Europe that they’re a little too happy to let the US worry about these things, both geopolitically and economically. I think it’s a fair criticism.
For the US, it’s a matter of whether we take a tough love stance on that, or act in our own interest (which is a Europe where Russia does not run amok).
Sadly, if one looks at the Trumposphere, this is being portrayed as the US getting into yet another foreign entanglement.
China is watching closely the response to Putins aggressive posturing for signs that US support for its allies may lack commitment.
This is a poker game. It pays not to blink.
I would be mighty surprised if I found anyone actually was supposing that. It would be mighty convenient for Putin to start putting troops on Ukraine’s borders and making unreasonable demands to create a distraction for Biden.
Really, the question in my mind is: OK, Putin is putting just enough troops on the border to make a run to grab the land necessary to secure land access to Crimea plausible, and making unreasonable demands to keep him from using those troops. That’s all he really seems to have there. What other plan could he have, if it’s anything more than threats?