Ukraine applies for fast-track NATO accession

  1. It’s a strategic move. After the announcement from Russia on the annexation and any attacks on the territory, a counter announcement by Ukraine on applying for NATO and willing to hold talks with Russia but not with Putin. Smart.

  2. May be a way to get the people to revolt as hard as possible so they can get somebody willing to negotiate in power (regardless of Putin's state)?

  3. He did not read the nato articles, and believes it is not required. Article 8 excludes any current conflicts.

  4. "It was our state that repeatedly offered Russia to agree on coexistence on equal, honest, dignified, and fair terms. It is obvious that this is impossible with this Russian president. He does not know what dignity and honesty are. Therefore, we are ready for a dialogue with Russia, but with another president of Russia," Zelensky added.

  5. Ukraine would've been fine since they were only looking at an EU membership back in 2014. Ukraine wouldn't have joined NATO if it weren't for the "insurgency" and invasion, but now NATO is fast-tracking their membership to NATO and is in the process of joining the EU.

  6. Honestly, NATO has never been anything other than a strawman to Putin. A boogeyman, really. He's not actually concerned with where NATO is, other than its value as something ambiguously bad he can point to while making nationalist speeches.

  7. LMAO, this. Putin's speech was so fucking insane that even BBC stopped posting their live updates on their page. They only played the live stream and that's it. Normally they update it every couple of minutes during such events. But today it was silent for like 25+ minutes at one point. I bet most folks at BBC were like "WTF is this guy on about?!"

  8. I doubt this would have been announced if there were zero talks happening behind the scenes, and seeing NATO announced that Stoltenberg will have an press-conference in an hour and half this might amount to something

  9. The chance is zero. The instant Ukraine joins NATO, article 5 would be invoked. Until Ukraine is no longer at war with Russia, there just isn't a way to make this happen without immediately jumping into NATO declaring war on Russia, which I'm quite sure NATO has zero interest in doing.

  10. With Putins psychotic speech today I could definitely see them making it happen and then protecting Ukraines original borders. Putin is the one escalating this situation and the west cannot flinch

  11. There's zero chance it goes anywhere, but Zelensky already knows that. It's a big middle finger to Putin declaring the annexation of their land. Zelensky's reiterating his defiance and pissing Putin off even more.

  12. Isn’t it extremely likely the two sides will remain in a state of war (or dispute the borders as they’ve been redrawn) for many, many years to come? Short of Putin being overthrown…I don’t see an amicable resolution here.

  13. Well Putin guaranteed that at least for the mid-term future no Ukrainian government (except if Russia succeeds in forcefully installing a puppet) would be pro-Russia. I doubt that NATO accession would happen any time soon but I hope the conflict ends soon and Russia pays astronomical reparations because although Ukraine is pushing back, it is Ukrainian land that is being ravaged.

  14. Time to announce NATO-X. This is the group of countries that are in the wings for eventual NATO membership. They help each other get their faster. They don't get article 5 protection except if nukes are used. They get all the conventional wepons to fight off any aggressor. NATO will have bases in these countries for training and logistics.

  15. I was just talking about how we need provisional NATO membership or something. This thing started because Putin was afraid Ukraine would join NATO and he wouldn't be able to bully them anymore. So he preemptively struck.

  16. I mean this already exists, has existed for 30 years. Ukraine is a member of that group. It's one of the main reasons why NATO is flooding them with unlimited support.

  17. You could add a lot of cooperation to that. Maybe an article 5 type protection between the members of NATO X themselves? If Russia attacks Ukraine they will be automatically at war with i.e. Georgia, Montenegro and other members and all of them will get weapons and logistical support from the NATO countries.

  18. Seen from Ukraine's perspective: a very logical request. Seen from NATO: Not doable in the present situation. But.... If Russia starts nuking Ukraine territory NATO membership might be installed overnight and Russia will have to deal with another adversary.

  19. At present Russia is not de-escalating. If NATO sees an eventual use of nukes as further escalation by an unstoppable Putin leading to more chaos in Europe and the rest of the world, I think rules will be changed. If the world peace is at stake you can only accept so much. History is a good lesson.

  20. If Russia launches a nuke at Ukraine, NATO membership would be the last concern for either Ukraine or NATO. At that point US and most likely NATO will step in regardless of Ukraine not being in NATO.

  21. Joining NATO requires treaty ratification by every current member. Sweden and Finland are the most uncontroversial ascensions in a while and they're still only 80% approved after four months.

  22. Lol this comment couldn't be more wrong. If nukes were launched on Ukraine tomorrow NATO membership would not be anywhere in the cards, just as it is not now. In order to become a NATO member, the applicant must not currently be at war with any other country. Ukraine is still at war with Russia. Some of it's territory has been illegitimately annexed and they will continue to fight for those territories as they have stated multiple times. Because of this, NATO membership is not on the table. Nukes would only further this statement.

  23. Special NATO operation. They're not part of NATO, just every country accepted them, and the treaty updated and signed, and the NATO Wikipedia page revised. But they're not part of NATO.

  24. Ukraine will never be safe from Russia even if they defeat them. They’ll try again, and even if they don’t Ukraine will forever live with the anticipation which will certainly effect the east of their country foremost.

  25. I suspect that Ukraine has such an advantage and they are goading Russia to throw their forces and attempt an offensive.

  26. This reminds me more of pre-ww1 with all the prebuilt triggers moving the world towards something the vast majority have zero interest in.

  27. Russia does not have the resources to go against the western world. There cannot be a war between Russia and the west. The conflict will stay in Ukraine, while Russia slowly collapses onto itself. The only thing that Russia can do to the west are terrorist attacks.

  28. Russia on the global scale is rather poor; their GDP is on par with nations like Brazil and Australia. Unless China joins Russia they simply are too tiny to trigger anything remotely close to a world war.

  29. If the West sent their armies to fight it would either be a swift decimation of Russian forces, or a swift series of nukes being fired across the world.

  30. I just don't believe something like that could happen again with nuclear arms now. If I was a betting man, something is going to happen to Putin before we get to that point.

  31. Japan is already a NATO associate and permanently under the US defense umbrella, so it's in NATO in all but name and military integration, but in a sort of one directional way. That said, I think Japan is strengthening its relationship with NATO and I wouldn't put if off to see it officially join at some point, the only issue is they are constitutionally pacifist, so idk if they'd need to do some legal work to do everything required to join.

  32. The actual North Atlantic Treaty itself would need changes to do that. It’s defence pact is geographically limited in scope. Some NATO members wouldn’t be interested in collective defence outside of Europe anyways

  33. A different pacific alliance would probably be better. I don’t think that the people there would want to get involved in European affairs except for maybe Australia.

  34. The US already has bilateral defense treaties with Japan, SK, and AUS/NZ. Kazakhstan and Mongolia enjoys the same status as Ukraine (i.e. nothing but possible discretionary allotments of weapons upon Congressional approval)

  35. What great war? Cunts like Putin wish it was a great war, look at the state of their army. Do you really think anyone's gonna support Russia in this? They've already burned through all the goodwill and actual resources they've had.

  36. Great war? There will be no great war. Russia will get crushed almost immediately if the US intervenes on the level you are thinking of. It won't be a months long ordeal. It would literally destroy the Russian forces in Ukraine in under a week. My guess is 96 hours.

  37. Wise decision as Putin is essentially threatening you with "you try saving your people that we now hold hostage in the new russian areas and we nuke you".

  38. More than likely this would mean that they intend to join NATO after the war has concluded. It has been said before that NATO cannot accept new members while they are in a state of open conflict. Secondly joining NATO would have its own standards and regulations that would need to be met, which is also something that can hardly be achieved when you are currently fighting a war on your home soil.

  39. Turkey has been supporting both Ukraine's and Georgia's accession to NATO since they got independence, it was France and Germany who were reluctant to consider it when it was first discussed at NATO summit in 2008.

  40. This won't go anywhere. Every NATO member must accept, and i'm fairly certain a few nations will say no. Not because they don't want Ukraine, but because the immediate consequence would be a activation of Article 5.

  41. But NATO doesn't need to vote Ukraine in today to consider this a win. No one actually expects NATO to vote yes immediately. But 1 year, 2 years, or 10 years from now Ukraine will be in NATO which is a win for the west.

  42. Its actually concerning seeing how many people here are keen for the US and other nuclear-armed countries to respond with nuclear weapons if Russia uses them. I legitimately dont think people understand A SINGLE nuclear weapon being used means the end of the world because countries will just adopt M.A.D.

  43. Rule 1 if a nuclear nation threatens a non nuclear nation with Armageddon arm the non nuclear nation with the means to protect itself against the bullying because otherwise what is the point of non proliferation, once a nuclear power nukes a non nuclear power every country on earth should be able to develop nuclear weapons as self defence

  44. One thing that pisses me off are the people - apparently even Chomsky (!?!?) - who tried to excuse Russian actions because NATO was getting too close to their borders. NATO wasn't and isn't ANY threat to Russia, it's only a threat to Russian ambitions of empire.

  45. I mean it could possibly have made sense… if they hadn’t repeatedly attacked their neighbors, commuted terrorist attacks in Western Europe and attacked elections, etc, etc.They got so many chances and so many western leaders that didn’t do shit about it. They forced our hand and the gloves are just about off. NATO shouldn’t have a reason to exist much less expand but obviously Eastern Europe has a long shitty history with Russia and Putin is fucking determined to be everyone’s enemy. It seems like people like Chomsky only remember things up until the fall of the USSR when things were okay. I don’t understand how decently intelligent people don’t get that everyone is sick of being attacked and now that we have a proxy fighting them we’re going to throw everything at them.

  46. At the risk of downvotes- *winces* its more nuanced, and Ukraine is just as much a prize of empire for western countries as for Russia... we just do it better.

  47. Thats like if Russia put their bases in Mexico and Cuba and had nukes pointed at the US and that’s not considered a threat? You remember the cuban missile crisis?

  48. Chomsky also denied and then downplayed the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge because it served his political views. He’s one of the OG tankies

  49. Zelenskyy was willing to agree not to join NATO in return for peace before the invasion in February. But Putin made such a compelling case for NATO

  50. Putin really is speedrunning his way to another October revolution isn't he? Three months ago we were at 1905. Now we're in January 1917 and speeding up...

  51. Possibly. Should’ve seen Putin’s speech with the annexation nonsense. He was the shortest person on stage after they signed the papers.

  52. Why can’t the UN strip Russia of its veto power? The Ukraine war has shown they are not what the world had thought them to be. Russia should never be considered even no. 3 after US, and China, nuclear arsenal notwithstanding. Not on same level as it was before. UN act!

  53. Im halfway across the world from all of this and just feel as though theyre somehow still playing with my life

  54. I want Ukraine to win, but there's no way this will or should happen while the war is still going. Ukraine joining NATO during the war would immediately lead to a war involving four nuclear powers. It's not worth the risk.

  55. It’s insane how many people look at geopolitics like it’s a marvel movie. Just casually talking about nuclear war because why not

  56. If Ukraine gains NATO membership and Russia has %15 percent of it illegally annexed. Would this immediately trigger Article 5 of the NATO agreements? Meaning boots on the ground war between NATO and Russia?

  57. If Ukraine joins NATO for sure, that means they will be able to invoke article 5 and call NATO countries to come and fight Russia?

  58. FR. I support Ukraine, and I support the West continuing to provide weapons and aid to them. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to them, and if they win or survive the war, I'm down to bring them into NATO. But Jesus, I know supporting Ukraine is the hot trendy thing, but this is an extremely complex geopolitical issue, involving the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Ukrainian independence is worth taking the economic hit. It is not worth nuclear annihilation.

  59. The unfortunate side effect of that is Russia has learned starting territorial disputes with countries who are looking to join is a good way to keep them from joining. See Georgia.

  60. Is that policy, or is it just sortof an agreement they've had? I can't seem to find good info on it.

  61. There doesn’t actually seem to be rules in the agreement itself about this that I could find quickly just now, it seems more of a nice to have?

  62. while i support ukraine in its defense against russia, they are not without MAJOR flaws and we should wait until the wars subsides.

  63. My understand is as per the NATO charter countries cannot join if they are involved in a active conflict. This is nothing more than a PR move.

  64. Isn't this the same as applying for insurance when your house is on fire? Many of your neighbors are helping you to try to put out the fire already by giving you buckets of water. Pushing it a bit to try to get the insurance payout too.

  65. I’m pretty sure it’s NATO policy to reject applicants with outstanding border issues so they don’t get drawn into a shooting war. Especially against a nuclear state run by a madman.

  66. What's the alternative? Handing him parts of neighbouring countries every year? Ukraine this year, even more of Georgia next year...

  67. Seeing as not joining NATO was part of their negotiating to stop the invasion and it didnt work I don't see why they can't join NATO after all this shit that's been going on.

  68. No to NATO which means we all go into WWIII over Ukraine, I’m sorry for Ukraine but the whole planet shouldn’t suffer over this and the world doesn’t want to get involved in WWIII Zelensky.

  69. These people have no grasp of the reality of what they're cheering for. This is a very bad thing.

  70. Pretty much impossible right now since one of the requirements for admission is no ongoing territorial disputes, isn't it? Now, I'm certainly of the position that the "dispute" in question is an illegal land grab by Russia with completely illegitimate, made-up justifications, but it still seems like a major barrier to entry.

  71. Nothing in the NATO treaty says anything about ongoing territorial disputes. Accession decisions are on a case-by-case basis. NATO members can decide to accept or reject a prospective member based on any conditions they want.

  72. Obviously not going through before the current situation is through - cause then we’re looking at an article 5 world war

  73. Can’t ukraine get NATO membership excluding the regions russia is trying to annex? This means no direct engagement for NATO but Ukraine can put all of its military towards the east and let NATO defend the north and southwest

  74. Vladimir Putin is another Hitler thinking he can do what he wants when he wants. But when the United States gets involved he cry nuke them.

  75. I guess if Ukraine becomes a part of a NATO then all the allies can send their troops in Ukraine. Troops, air defense everything. Full on. That's what it supposed to be doing anyway. That's all NATO is for. If this really happens, Russia is fucked. All they really have left then are nuclear weapons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin