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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

This is not actually NATO policy by the by.

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.

[removed]

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

[removed]

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?

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

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

[deleted]

Like Russian victory?

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.

[deleted]

[removed]

Interesting. Well I learned something new today!

[removed]

and the unanimous ratification of all the countries of the eu to be in eu

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

False. Read article 10.

Good news from the Belgian front. Love it!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

“able to be”

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

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.

Was able to be.

>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.

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.

Which military experts claim that?

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

>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.

It is a necessity

Mark Milley.

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

He is also in favor of supporting Ukraine for as long as Ukraine is willing to fight.

Yes, i didn't say we shouldn't support Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

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

We can debate easily documented facts, but I prefer to look them up.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/05/12/what-does-it-take-to-join-nato

I don't always agree with the Economists' opinions, but they do get their facts in a row.

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

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

[deleted]

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.

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

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.

They can open a new front from the Caucasus.

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

[removed]

[removed]