Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

libroll t1_ja5zq9o wrote

None of the three or even all three together have the power to offer NATO membership to Ukraine.

Perhaps that’s why….

28

BigBeerBellyMan t1_ja69zmk wrote

One of the conditions for joining NATO is that the country must have resolved any conflicts with its neighbors or other countries in accordance with international law.

So even if France, Germany, and the UK did have the power to offer NATO membership to Ukraine, they could not accept it at this current time. Even pre-2022 before the invasion they could not get accepted because they had disputed territory in the Donbass and Crimea.

So, I guess a non-NATO guarantee of military support by individual nations is probably the best way forward for Ukraine.

18

nybbleth t1_ja8l4lj wrote

> One of the conditions for joining NATO is that the country must have resolved any conflicts with its neighbors or other countries in accordance with international law.

This often gets thrown around but this is a misconception based on policy rather than strict rules. There's no rule that says countries with existing territorial conflicts can not join.

The actual condition is that the country must demonstrate the intent to resolve any such conflicts in accordance with international law. Ukraine has met this condition.

Whether NATO would actually accept or refuse an application is a matter of politics, and not alliance rules.

1

BigBeerBellyMan t1_ja8ok2z wrote

>This often gets thrown around but this is a misconception based on policy rather than strict rules. There's no rule that says countries with existing territorial conflicts can not join.
>
>The actual condition is that the country must demonstrate the intent to resolve any such conflicts in accordance with international law. Ukraine has met this condition.

Chapter 1.6 of the 1995 Study of NATO Enlargement states:

>States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.

−1

nybbleth t1_ja8rgqq wrote

Yes. First; you're quoting a study regarding enlargement guidelines. These aren't hard rules. They don't show up in the Treaty text.

Secondly, it states it's a factor in deciding whether to invite a state to join. In other words, this is not a hard binary yes/no. It's not saying that countries must have settled their disputes to be members (or many existing NATO countries should not be in NATO); rather that they must show a commitment to settling them in that manner.

Furtherrmore, given that these guidelines are not part of the treaty text, NATO can simply change or override these rules if desired. So again, the decision on whether or not Ukraine can join NATO or not, is a political decision, and not an automatic one based on this rule you're imagining is a hardcoded one when it isn't.

2

BigBeerBellyMan t1_ja8xng4 wrote

>Yes. First; you're quoting a study regarding enlargement guidelines. These aren't hard rules. They don't show up in the Treaty text.

Yea but weren't the proposals in the 1995 Study of NATO Enlargement eventually adopted as official policy during the 1999 Washington Summit?

−1

nybbleth t1_ja98054 wrote

Yes. That's when NATO adopted the Membership Action Plan(MAP).

Note that the preamble ends with the following line: "The programme cannot be considered as a list of criteria for membership."

These are guidelines, not hard criteria.

And again, it's about showing the commitment to resolving these types of conflicts according to international law. Ukraine has shown this to be the case. The fact that a hostile power has illegally invaded them doesn't change that.

The idea that NATO can not accept prospective members if they have a territorial dispute is a propaganda tool that primarily serves Russian interests.

The first benefits by sowing the seeds of doubt in both its own and western audiences. It lets Russia paint NATO as a warmongering alliance that's either trying to provoke Russia or inadvertently about to get dragged into WW3 by considering an application from countries like Ukraine. At the same time, NATO governments concerned about exactly that sort of thing can also use this misconception about the rules by shrugging and saying 'well everyone knows we can't accept someone with ongoing disputes'; even though this is a lie (or misrepresentation at best).

1

xenoghost1 t1_ja61fl9 wrote

gigachad Czechia, holds the power to single-handedly offer NATO membership to anyone, anywhere.

15

dogeimistic t1_ja69nq4 wrote

Please expand

0

xenoghost1 t1_ja6azfp wrote

it is a joke about the Czech president who brought the idea up. he is the first western leader to propose Ukraine join a the end of the war.

15

Dazzling-Ad4701 t1_ja69qw9 wrote

I'm really pissed off.

>But it’s not clear to what extent the two objectives — arming Ukraine and pursuing peace negotiations with Russia — are conditionally linked, Fix said. “It might be that these two issues are discussed at the same time, but I would find it difficult if there was a linkage, and I find it difficult to believe that the linkage would be Ukraine only gets additional defense and security support if it agrees to negotiations.”

their own article reports this statement, yet all the rest of it seems determined to see the exact opposite in the situation.

23

gunnergoz t1_ja680z6 wrote

Kinda like your neighbors giving you water buckets to put out the fire the arsonist next door alighted on your porch, but the neighbors refuse to help you put out the fire and would prefer you and the arsonist next door make peace and let the arsonist have the porch.

11

spiteful_rr_dm_TA t1_ja7x9ql wrote

Well let's make the scenario more accurate; the arsonist also has a bomb strong enough to blow up the entire neighborhood, and so do your neighbors. The arsonist has stated multiple times that if your neighbors directly involve themself in the arson attack, he will detonate the bomb, and your neighbors would detonate their bombs too because of mutually assured destruction. So to avoid killing everyone in the neighborhood who have nothing to do with this, your neighbors all send you advanced fire-fighting suits, hoses, and supply you with tons of water. They also work to get the arsonist fired from his job so he can't afford as much gasoline to pour on your house, and get a number of people to agree to stop selling him luxury items.

That's more accurate.

4

gunnergoz t1_ja89ggh wrote

Whatever you say, Vlad.

−2

spiteful_rr_dm_TA t1_ja89zmi wrote

lmao you really think I am a ruzzian sympathizer? First of all, a casual stroll through my comment history on worldnews will show you how I feel about ruzzians, and second, correcting your shitty analogy to be accurate to the situation is not pro-ruzzian. Maybe try learning how international politics works before you open start saying absolute bullshit.

It is better to be quiet and considered a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it.

1

Miecznik t1_ja6ie8y wrote

And call themselves men of peace.

May be some prize is in order if this goes trough?

0

ser1k t1_ja6nnsn wrote

all sides already disproved this nonsense

7

Dry-Peach-6327 t1_ja6eg7b wrote

Ukraine joining NATO is inevitable

5

memnactor t1_ja6ptak wrote

Why?

4

Dry-Peach-6327 t1_ja6tcm8 wrote

Because it would make Putin shit his pants. And preventing it is why Putin started this war in the first place

−8

ZebrasGonnaZeb t1_ja6rjdo wrote

Because people are making Ukraine out to be saints and the defenders of the world.

−14

Miecznik t1_ja6itqi wrote

I believe such decision should be made on European level. With contact with allies such as US and Canada.

5

Adventurous-Sleep867 t1_ja7i4op wrote

You wrote on a European level, and then added ”allies such as US”. Why inolve the US?

−3

Miecznik t1_ja7kxi8 wrote

Because it involves security and military. And how it stands today - Europe is not that much without USA.

6

Adventurous-Sleep867 t1_ja8781d wrote

The news is about coming togheter through diplomacy.

−2

Miecznik t1_ja8ozjo wrote

Wonderful slogan

But... We got a war going on for an year already, and we need solid solutions.

3

autotldr t1_ja62grb wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)

> The proposed pact between Ukraine and NATO would provide the nation with sufficient firepower to fend off Russian aggression - while also tacitly encouraging talks between Russia and Ukraine - raising questions about the future of the conflict.

> One of Russia's initial terms for negotiation, after its invasion one year ago, was that Ukraine remain neutral and commit to never joining NATO; it's not clear whether the proposed pact would prevent Ukraine from ever joining the alliance, though Fix said Ukraine would certainly work to ensure that was not the case.

> The backdrop of the proposed plan is, according to French, German, and UK officials interviewed by the WSJ, to promise Ukraine protection and access to weapons in the hopes that such security guarantees would incentivize Ukraine to pursue peace negotiations with Russia.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Russia^#2 NATO^#3 support^#4 negotiation^#5

1

Miamiara t1_ja62rwx wrote

Appeasement, appeasement never changes.

−6

DifferenceThat8887 t1_ja9bz0t wrote

Its funny because the problem in world war 2 was that everyone assumed they should learn the lessons of world war 1 and prevent conflict via compromise when actually it was a different situation. Now people are doing the same and wrongly assume that this is like world war 2 and that no compromise should ever be made when actually this is again a different situation to world war 2 .

1

my20cworth t1_ja6is2l wrote

Allow Ukraine to join NATO (or come up with another security pact) with a caveat that if attacked, nations can choose to support or not and if that then supporting NATO country is attacked by Russia there is no automatic need for NATO to jump in as the "one attacked is an attack on all members" maybe why some are reluctant to let Ukraine in.

−8

drogoran t1_ja6r7zm wrote

if NATO is afraid to accept a member because they may have to defend them then NATO no longer has any reason to exist

6