Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ledow t1_ixwwa5r wrote

Well, Russia really achieved their aims there.

I want it to happen just to see what the fuck Russia does in that first 10 seconds where Ukraine officially becomes a NATO country.

Because though it might showboat right up to that point, and even try to attack just before to try to prove some kind of point, the second that becomes a NATO country, they'd run like fuck and stop everything for fear of triggering the infamous clause.

137

flaccidcolon t1_ixx17lf wrote

They won't become a nato country until the war is over. It's part of nato policy.

79

cole1114 t1_ixy0y5x wrote

This is not actually NATO policy by the by.

58

flaccidcolon t1_ixy19zp wrote

For real? I thought that the new country couldn't be engaged in any kind of warfare or even border disputes as part of the terms of nato acceptance.

13

cole1114 t1_ixy1huj wrote

That isn't one of the policies, though it's said to be so often that people just accept it as true.

39

Kjello0 t1_ixzh89k wrote

>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.

From the Study on NATO Enlargement document which regulate future enlargements of NATO.

17

116YearsWar t1_ixy9dn9 wrote

If that was the case Germany wouldn't have been able to join as they had rather significant border disputes with East Germany and Poland at the time.

32

Rogermcfarley t1_ixyi2cc wrote

There are rules about % of GDP allocated to military resources and corruption neither of which Ukraine can fulfill. There's no fast tracking Ukraine into NATO it will take time and there's zero chance whilst this war is going on as they can't fulfill their NATO obligations and it would bring NATO in to direct conflict with Russia.

10

116YearsWar t1_ixyilk6 wrote

I think the corruption is an EU rule, not a NATO one. Hence why Turkey is able to be a member.

23

raven_oscar t1_ixyp9sv wrote

Geography was the reason. Turkey is extremely useful for alliance.

4

legitan t1_ixyw4f9 wrote

“able to be”

2

raven_oscar t1_ixz3yw1 wrote

Was able to be.

−2

hipery2 t1_ixz69g8 wrote

Still is.

They are currently blockading Russian war ships from entering the Black Sea.

Also when Putin threatened to end the grain deal, it was Turkey's naval power that got Putin shut up.

1

raven_oscar t1_iy10cj9 wrote

We are talking about Turkey as part of NATO. Initially it seems to be accepted because of possibility to carry out plane based nuke strikes deep into russia. That's why B61 bombs were (and probably are) stationed in Incirlik Air Base. Now NATO has ICBMs so this role is less relevant. Yes thanks to Montreux Convention Turkey can limit warships transferred to Black Sea but in case of full scale russia vs nato war it is not that important as turkey would be part of NATO and there for target for nukes.

1

hipery2 t1_iy1cw0z wrote

Turkey has the second largest NATO army. Is that relevant enough for you?

2

raven_oscar t1_iy1eur6 wrote

I know that it has. Not really relevant in case ww3 with nukes and stuff. And I don't recall them as part of joint nato land operations. And it is quite hard to make land offensive to the north from their positions.

1

hipery2 t1_iy1h59o wrote

They can open a new front from the Caucasus.

1

bubalusarnee t1_iy0aqa0 wrote

If Australia wished to join NATO, few would look askance.

2

ukrokit t1_ixz4nwj wrote

>There are rules about % of GDP allocated to military resources

Ukraine spends 3-4% of GDP on millitary. NATO guideline is 2% which most nations fail anyway. And there's nothing about coruption anywhere in NATO criteria.

10

23ua t1_ixyc1rx wrote

I'm sorry, but why would you claim something like that if you haven't bothered to check?

−4

flaccidcolon t1_ixyho59 wrote

I legit thought it was true. I think it's a pretty common misconception. It's ok to be wrong sometimes, my guy.

8

23ua t1_ixyi83n wrote

Sure. I guess I was misled by the confident wording. If it said “I’ve heard this is the case” I’d consider that reasonable.

−5

flaccidcolon t1_ixzlo1w wrote

Fair point. I was for sure overly confident there, lol

1

RuslanZinin t1_ixyzv36 wrote

But they can become a nato country 10 seconds after the war finishes

0

MrFancyPanzer t1_ixx4dj7 wrote

Considering Crimea will probably be occupied for the foreseeable future i think the NATO membership think will probably be used as a bargaining chip in peace talks.

−19

xanderman524 t1_ixxc09y wrote

If by "foreseeable future" you mean next few months until it becomes impossible to resupply due to Ukrainian advances cutting off all supply routes and/or Ukraine just retaking it manually, then yes.

If you instead mean that Russia is going to keep control of it, then you should go back to whichever hole you've not been paying attention from for the past several months.

8

MrFancyPanzer t1_ixxchwg wrote

Even military experts think trying to take Crimea would stretch them too thin. I wish they could take all their land back, but the direction of the war is far from determined.

5

hipery2 t1_ixz727r wrote

Which military experts claim that?

Because from my non military expert point of view, Ukraine is one city away from signing Crimea.

3

xanderman524 t1_ixxe314 wrote

I mean, Ukraine has done nothing but advance and successfully defend from counter-attacks on all fronts, and already advanced to where the land routes to Crimea are under threat. They also hit the bridge, which though repaired, is still unusable by large trucks and trains due to structural damage. They did the same thing to the Russians at Kherson: made it impossible to maintain those positions and wait for the withdrawal. I see no reason why it couldn't happen again. And if the reason is "because nukes" then why, when Russia suffered previous major defeats, weren't they used already? Standard Russian doctrine at their wargames concludes with using a nuke to force negotiations. They would've used one by now if they were ever going to. They won't. They posture and brag and threaten but they're losing and can't do anything about it. Even if they use a nuke, Ukraine won't give in. Russia won't deplete their functional missiles over Ukraine. Ukraine surrendering means deaths for millions of innocents, as per the mass murders found everywhere the Russians have been, and a signal to every tin-pot tyrant that having or using nukes gets you a free-pass to conquer and pillage as you please. Ukraine can't give in, so Russia can't win.

1

orangejuicecake t1_ixxwx08 wrote

ukraine still needs to reclaim 42% of the land russia took over since the invasion (including crimea). Its still a tall order that might take another year or even more especially with the upcoming winter and damaged electrical grid

6

xanderman524 t1_ixy3huw wrote

With the upcoming winter, Conscript Ivan Notgayovich, currently VDV Sergeant previously double life without parole in Siberia for cannibalism, with his blue tarp tied to a tree that he shares with a dozen other conscripts, is going to die of hypothermia clutching the rusty AKM and half magazine he was issued while Ukraine, equipped with actual winter equipment, will make short work of the invaders. Or have you forgotten how winter benefits the country with intact logistics and stable equipment acquisitions, generally the defender?

4

orangejuicecake t1_ixy49wk wrote

historically russia was the defender benefitting from winters because advancing into the tundra wasn’t a good idea…

1

xanderman524 t1_ixy5rxs wrote

Russia is the attacker with the non-existent supply lines in Ukraine. The whole "winter" thing is the deaths of thousands of conscripts.

9

NockerJoe t1_ixxmcnm wrote

I think they'll have what it takes. There are Ukraining pilots who've been training for the f16 for a while, and about 10,000 Ukrainians are graduating from training as fresh troops in the UK fully equipped each month, and thats just the U.K. and not any other countries.

Ukraine is in a position where the numver of trained troops they're gaining is fsr exceeding their losses, and Russia is losing hundreds a day, every day, and is increasingly poorly armed.

We're in a position where as time goes on Ukraine is becoming increasingly more powerful and Russia increasingly weaker. They're also in this position explicitly because Russia broke all of its promises for peace prior to this and no new promises can br trusted.

Fighting Russia in Crimea would be hard, bloody, and costly, but Russia has essentially forced a situation where Ukraine has no real other option, and is also being armed well enough and fast enough that this time next year they'll have an army capable of actually doing it.

6

pedrohpauloh t1_ixyhyx8 wrote

Russia is getting weaker. Ukraine stronger. That's a problem Russia might use weapons mass destruction. So far it has not used nukes but it has escalated conflict targeting power grid, something it had not done untill now. So more surprises might be in store. Ukraine in in holy war. Very bad. They seem to be ready to sacrifice half population to have some hundreds of kilometers of land back. Ridiculous

−7

Alexander_Granite t1_iy04y5c wrote

Idk. Russia isn’t doing very well right now and Ukraine its in the stronger position. Finland and Sweden are in the process of joining NATO and Russia is going to have to finance a 800 KM border with a NATO county at the same time it fights a war in Ukraine. Also, Russian oil sanctions and price caps will start soon.

Soon the people of Russia will need to suffer more for Moscow

1

Shurqeh t1_ixyhuvj wrote

Or they could hold the line and essentially freeze the war where it lies.

Russia won't attack, because that will trigger said infamous clause. But Ukraine wouldn't be able to attack because that would nullify said clause.

4

Krawk101 t1_ixxzl3y wrote

Fire something a bit bigger than they’ve been using, unretaliated against afterwords.

1

Antilles1138 t1_ixz03bv wrote

They could sign the land along the border of Russia and Belarus to Poland just before applying on the agreement that Poland sign it back once the membership goes through.

1

thekarmabum t1_ixxupns wrote

Ukraine has to settle the dispute with Russia before they can join NATO. It literally says in the treaty that no countries currently undergoing a territorial dispute with any other country can join NATO. It is in there to prevent exactly this, a country joining NATO and NATO immediately going to full mobilization.

−13

Iron_Taipan t1_ixwpldl wrote

Might as well add Georgia to the list while they're at it

26

Miamiara t1_ixx2srp wrote

As I understand there are problems with the political course of Georgia right now. Their political leadership is Russia-friendly right now, and the opposition is weak.

18

AdventurousMiddle918 t1_ixyhd9p wrote

Good news from the Belgian front. Love it!

9

Barcys t1_iy09ac0 wrote

Belgium energy import from russia has increased 80ish% since start of.the sanctions. I work in one of the Brugge terminal ports and see russian gas ships every single day.

Its so twisted people believe this shit

−2

AdventurousMiddle918 t1_iy0rjmt wrote

Russian gas ships in Bruges are like russian mothers drinking tea with Putin: fake news.

−1

Barcys t1_iy0rvy8 wrote

Are you kidding me dude?? Yoo obviously havent been even near none of the terminals. Shut your mouth. Multiple ships come every single day. No exceptions. I see them with my own eyes and even my ukrainian coworkers dot give a shit anymore about them xD

2

AdventurousMiddle918 t1_iy2pwd8 wrote

Multiple ships, Ukrainian coworkers... in a ruzzian botfarm anything goes. Go clean out the toilets, you fail the troll exam. Not worth your computer.

1

JayR_97 t1_ixzs1i2 wrote

A good step in the right direction, but Ukraine is decades away from EU membership.

7

Baatun88 t1_iy07n45 wrote

That piece of paper is worthless. Germany and France rule the EU, everyone is going to do what they tell them.

0