Should Ukraine Be Admitted into NATO?

[Huntn]

How many of you think that admitting just about any country that professes to want to be democratic, and who wants to resist Russian expansionism, should be allowed to join NATO?

My guess is that the powers in control of NATO want to be sure that such a country would actually be a benefit to the alliance and not some kind of a Trojan Horse.

If they meet NATO requirements, I lean towards their membership into NATO but I am open minded about counter reasons,

 

[quagmire]

Certainly not now in the current situation. Fast way to get dragged into war......

Now lets say if Putin was behaving and wasn't invading Ukraine, someone brought up a good point and it is probably why Ukraine hasn't been accepted into NATO yet despite the "open door policy". Has Ukraine accepted that Crimea is no longer their territory? A persons point being Ukraine gets accepted into NATO-> they make a move to retake Crimea-> Russia defends-> rest of NATO gets dragged into conflict. But I am sure NATO has some kind of policy where a member state is the aggressor, other NATO nations are not obligated to help out the aggressor country? Right? Hopefully

 

[Scepticalscribe]

How many of you think that admitting just about any country that professes to want to be democratic, and who wants to resist Russian expansionism, should be allowed to join NATO?

My guess is that the powers in control of NATO want to be sure that such a country would actually be a benefit to the alliance and not some kind of a Trojan Horse.

If they meet NATO requirements, I lean towards their membership into NATO but I am open minded about counter reasons,

What we - any of us - think about admitting (or wanting or wishing to admit) Ukraine to membership of NATO is irrelevant.

If a country has borders, boundaries, frontiers, that are contested, or disputed, - if the geographical expression of the country does not reflect the political preferences of part of that country - then, NATO membership cannot, and will not, be offered.

NATO - not least because its articles of membership require it to go to the aid of a member that has been attacked - will not admit a country that cannot control its own borders, or frontiers, - which is manifestly the case, at present, with Ukraine - and nor will it admit a country that is so divided that it may descend and disintegrate into civil conflict, or civil war.

And this is one of the reasons - in my opinion - that Mr Putin has exerted such intense pressure on the political (and cultural) fault lines of a number of the countries of the former Soviet Union (such as Georgia, Moldova, and now, Ukraine), causing them to split, splinter and - ultimately - to divide and separate.

Therefore, a possibly more pertinent way to phrase your thread title (and poll) would be to ask whether the part of Ukraine that will vigorously contest Russian expansion - the west of the country - should be encouraged to apply for NATO membership.

But, bear in mind that such an invitation would hardly be entertained unless and until this 'west' Ukraine accepted, acknowledged, and recognised that the allegiance and loyalty (and identity) of much of the east of the country points in a different direction.

 

[Huntn]

@Scepticalscribe I’m surprised to hear you say in a forum based on interaction, presentation of information, and opinion, that what we think is irrelevant. Actually I agree but…

What we think is the basis of a conversation, the process of that conversation brings information into, to influence the individuals involved in the conversation and possibly change or reinforce some opinions.

No, what we think means nothing to NATO, but I’ll argue that is not why we are here talking about any topic. Although I think education is an excellent purpose of a forum like this and on some small scale, if accurate education takes place then this is a plus. It’s better than spreading misinformation.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

@Scepticalscribe I’m surprised to hear you say in a forum based on interaction, presentation of information, and opinion, that what we think is irrelevant. Actually I agree but…

What we think is the basis of a conversation, the process of that conversation brings information into, to influence the individuals involved in the conversation and possibly change or reinforce some opinions.

No, what we think means nothing to NATO, but I’ll argue that is not why we are here talking about any topic. Although I think education is an excellent purpose of a forum like this and on some small scale, if accurate education takes place then this is a plus. It’s better than spreading misinformation.

My use of the verb "think" was a direct response to the fact that this was the very verb you reached for, in the - your - first sentence of your original post - which read: "How many of you think that admitting just about any country that professes to want to be democratic, and who wants to resist Russian expansionism, should be allowed to join NATO?"

Of course we can have a discussion - interact, debate, discuss, disagree, express opinions, present information and opinions, and the online world allows for this both cross country and cross continent.

Thus, in this discussion, I suppose that I should have been more precise in how I expressed myself: What I should have said is to offer what one thinks - when under current circumstances (a divided - and disintegrating) country) it is utterly inconceivable that NATO membership will be offered to Ukraine, or that Ukraine could, or would, - let alone will - be admitted to NATO, is to miss the point.

Under current circumstances, it cannot happen (which is one of the reasons Mr Putin is trying to split the country by exerting extraordinary and impossible pressure on its political fault lines).

Therefore, to discuss this - by using the verb "think" - is, to my mind, to almost seriously suggest that this (NATO membership) is a real possibility currently on the political menu for Ukraine (it's not), and is to run the risk of confusing what one might like to see happen with what is likely to happen.

Under current conditions, it cannot happen: One might as well ask should the tooth fairy exist?

If you want a serious discussion - rather than a political wish list - then the question to ask is under what conditions - if any - might a future "west Ukraine" be considered for membership of NATO?

 

[Ulenspiegel]

How many of you think that admitting just about any country that professes to want to be democratic, and who wants to resist Russian expansionism, should be allowed to join NATO?

This is spot on.

There are criteria to NATO membership (democracy is one of them).

And one more thing: it has to be a unanimous decision, i.e. if only one member-state opposes, the country won't become a member of NATO. And there are member-states that will block the membership of this country amongst others for its minority policy (i.e. the latest Language Law).

 

[Zoidberg]

"How many of you think that admitting just about any country that professes to want to be democratic, and who wants to resist Russian expansionism, should be allowed to join NATO?"

Yes, this is the big question. A country needs to be stable enough to be allowed in, otherwise their admission might prove to be a trojan horse. We're seeing that lately with the rise of far-right eurosceptic parties that openly aim to sap the EU from within.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

We're seeing that lately with the rise of far-right eurosceptic parties that openly aim to sap the EU from within.

Would you be so kind to elaborate?

And if I may ask: on the discrepancies of representing national interests in a multinational, many-faceted environment.

Representing such view how do you label the UK?

Thank you.

 

[Huntn]

My use of the verb "think" was a direct response to the fact that this was the very verb you reached for, in the - your - first sentence of your original post - which read: "How many of you think that admitting just about any country that professes to want to be democratic, and who wants to resist Russian expansionism, should be allowed to join NATO?"

Of course we can have a discussion - interact, debate, discuss, disagree, express opinions, present information and opinions, and the online world allows for this both cross country and cross continent.

Thus, in this discussion, I suppose that I should have been more precise in how I expressed myself: What I should have said is to offer what one thinks - when under current circumstances (a divided - and disintegrating) country) it is utterly inconceivable that NATO membership will be offered to Ukraine, or that Ukraine could, or would, - let alone will - be admitted to NATO, is to miss the point.

Under current circumstances, it cannot happen (which is one of the reasons Mr Putin is trying to split the country by exerting extraordinary and impossible pressure on its political fault lines).

Therefore, to discuss this - by using the verb "think" - is, to my mind, to almost seriously suggest that this (NATO membership) is a real possibility currently on the political menu for Ukraine (it's not), and is to run the risk of confusing what one might like to see happen with what is likely to happen.

Under current conditions, it cannot happen: One might as well ask should the tooth fairy exist?

If you want a serious discussion - rather than a political wish list - then the question to ask is under what conditions - if any - might a future "west Ukraine" be considered for membership of NATO?

How about you reread my lead sentence, I did not single out Ukraine, but asked a general question about countries being threatened by Russian aggression who desire membership into NATO. And I do realize there are established procedures that NATO has.

How many of you think that admitting just about any country that professes to want to be democratic, and who wants to resist Russian expansionism, should be allowed to join NATO?

As far as the poll it asked it Ukraine should be admitted, soliciting an opinion about the circumstances regardless if it could actually happen or not. I appreciate your input that it could not happen, but I did not ask that. This crowd certainly thinks and has opinions including you. I accept your complete rejection of such a poll. I’m going to leave the conversation there.

 

[Zoidberg]

How about you reread my lead sentence, I did not single out Ukraine, but asked a general question about countries being threatened by Russian aggression who desire membership into NATO. And I do realize there are established procedures that NATO has.

How many of you think that admitting just about any country that professes to want to be democratic, and who wants to resist Russian expansionism, should be allowed to join NATO?

As far as the poll it asked it Ukraine should be admitted, soliciting an opinion about the circumstances regardless if it could actually happen or not. I appreciate your input that it could not happen, but I did not ask that. This crowd certainly thinks and has opinions including you. I accept your complete rejection of such a poll. I’m going to leave the conversation there.

It's like asking myself whether I should join the US Navy. I simply can't.

Ideally it would have joined NATO some time ago, but the 2014 Russian invasion made sure it was never in a position that it could.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It's like asking myself whether I should join the US Navy. I simply can't.

Ideally it would have joined NATO some time ago, but the 2014 Russian invasion made sure it was never in a position that it could.

Exactly.

Ukraine isn't blameless in all of this - and that is quite aside from the specific issues regarding the socio-economic-cultural-political-linguistic-theological-historical background of the east of the country.

Their political elite (and not just corrupt individuals such as Mr Yanukovych) were abysmal and extraordinarily irresponsible at times, and worse, many of these times included periods when "western" leaning political leaders held office; here, specifically, I am referring to the insanely self-indulgent and utterly destructive (mutually destructive) conflict between Ms Timoshenko and Mr Yushchenko (which was discussed in an excellent post written by @theSeb elsewhere, in the other thread dicussion on Ukraine).

That period - from the time of the Orange Revolution, in 2004, until the defeat of both Yushchenko and Timoshenko by Yanukovych in 2010, - was the time for Ukraine to explore the possibility and avenues to possible NATO membership, and to undertake as many of the necessary steps to try to achieve this as were feasible.

 

[Huntn]

Yes, this is the big question. A country needs to be stable enough to be allowed in, otherwise their admission might prove to be a trojan horse. We're seeing that lately with the rise of far-right eurosceptic parties that openly aim to sap the EU from within.

My understanding is that they (Ukraine) are/were going through the process of seeking admittance. Besides being threaten by Russia, otherwise I wonder if they are a stable democracy?

I’m certainly not an expert on the regional politics of Europe, it looks like a group of 10 Eastern European countries formerly under the Iron Curtain since 2004. (<-Correct me if I’m a wrong) I can see the NATO Alliance loving expansion of the alliance as a further buffer against an aggressive Russia.

As I said in the original post, the danger as I see it, is that we want these new member states to be really onboard and see eye to eye with NATO priorities. My guess is through the established channels these considerations and determinations are made.

 

[Huntn]

It's like asking myself whether I should join the US Navy. I simply can't.

Ideally it would have joined NATO some time ago, but the 2014 Russian invasion made sure it was never in a position that it could.

Fortunately I did not ask that. And not the poll, but the first paragraph of my post where “think” was mentioned was about a general hypothetical about countries seeking admittance to NATO.

The poll asked for an opinion based on principles/criterias, and it included both a recognition of NATO standards and an acknowledgement there is a state of war. I’ve not argued that it should be possible for Ukraine under present circumstances to be allowed to join, I have accepted the info that it is impossible at this point, and I have accepted criticism of such a poll. So what else?

 

[Zoidberg]

Would you be so kind to elaborate?

And if I may ask: on the discrepancies of representing national interests in a multinational, many-faceted environment.

Representing such view how do you label the UK?

Thank you.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1493305167940313088/

Likewise, Le Pen in France has been under investigation for a while for financing her campaigns with loans from the now defunct, Russian state-owned, First Czech Russian Bank.

Salvini’s advisor was taped in a meeting with Russians, during which they were discussing the particulars of a kickback of ~60 million Euros that would go toward financing their campaigns, while Salvini himself was in Russia. Another one of his close advisors was outed as one of the writers of agitprop blogs.

Most EU countries have seen a rise in populist, right wing, eurosceptic parties. In the UK, it ended up working out. Read their manifestos: like Farage, their goal is to sabotage the EU and render it inefficient until eventually break it apart.

 

[Huntn]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1493305167940313088/

Likewise, Le Pen in France has been under investigation for a while for financing her campaigns with loans from the now defunct, Russian state-owned, First Czech Russian Bank.

Salvini’s advisor was taped in a meeting with Russians, during which they were discussing the particulars of a kickback of ~60 million Euros that would go toward financing their campaigns, while Salvini himself was in Russia. Another one of his close advisors was outed as one of the writers of agitprop blogs.

Most EU countries have seen a rise in populist, right wing, eurosceptic parties. In the UK, it ended up working out. Read their manifestos: like Farage, their goal is to sabotage the EU and render it inefficient until eventually break it apart.

Maybe Nigel would prefer that NATO disband. Isn’t a larger military alliance better? Especially in light of Russian autocrat seeking to reestablish the former “greatness” of the USSR by force. I’m curious how you feel about Putin actually dictating who and who can’t take be taken on as members of the NATO alliance?

 

[Zoidberg]

Maybe Nigel would prefer that NATO disband. Isn’t a larger military alliance better? Especially in light of Russian autocrat seeking to reestablish the former “greatness” of the USSR by force. I’m curious how you feel about Putin actually dictating who and who can’t take be taken on as members of the NATO alliance?

I've made my opinion very clear about the matter in the other thread, but to sum it up, I consider that –politics aside– Le Pen is guilty of treason, and should spend the rest of her sad days in a cell. As for Putin, not much I can do about it, but NATO admission rules are clear and make perfect sense.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1493305167940313088/

Likewise, Le Pen in France has been under investigation for a while for financing her campaigns with loans from the now defunct, Russian state-owned, First Czech Russian Bank.

Salvini’s advisor was taped in a meeting with Russians, during which they were discussing the particulars of a kickback of ~60 million Euros that would go toward financing their campaigns, while Salvini himself was in Russia. Another one of his close advisors was outed as one of the writers of agitprop blogs.

Most EU countries have seen a rise in populist, right wing, eurosceptic parties. In the UK, it ended up working out. Read their manifestos: like Farage, their goal is to sabotage the EU and render it inefficient until eventually break it apart.

Oh I see.

I would suggest looking up the activity of the Open Society Foundations* (OSF)** in Brussels and especially the list of EP members who were on the list of "Reliable allies in the European Parliament 2014-2019" as per the database of the Open Society European Policy Institute (226 EP members out of 751 (SIC!)).

Here you go.

* Total expenditures of OSF 18.1 billion USD over the past three decades.
** Founder and chair of the OSF is George Soros.

 

[Zoidberg]

Oh I see.

I would suggest looking up the activity of the Open Society Foundations* (OSF)** in Brussels and especially the list of EP members who were on the list of "Reliable allies in the European Parliament 2014-2019" as per the database of the Open Society European Policy Institute (226 EP members out of 751 (SIC!)).

Here you go.

* Total expenditures of OSF 18.1 billion USD over the past three decades.
** Founder and chair of the OSF is George Soros.

And your point (edit: about George Soros) is...?

 

[Ulenspiegel]

And your point is...?

You didn't get it...?

 

[Zoidberg]

You didn't get it...?

It's a good compendium of who's who (although a bit old, many names are not in the EP anymore) but I don't see the link with Le Pen or Putin. I do tend to have a knee-jerk reaction anytime anyone brings up Soros as an Aha! moment to be honest, so I'm not sure I get what you were trying to say. From what I know about it, and from reading the pdf, good for them, it's good that there's a counterweight to the Kochs of the world.

If anything it reminds me that the UK sent a bunch of eurosceptic MEPs.