| UA-RU WAR | NATO Crisis | ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

[Publius]

All of them, except for Turkey and perhaps Slovakia.
Even though, initially, France and Germany were opposed.

Ukraine should have been brought into NATO back in 2013 and 2014.
Germany and France were against it.

Possibly correct, it would have short circuited several things.
This brings up another question. There is a process and qualifiers for a nation to join the organization. From clearly known stable boarders to certain domestic processes that must be in sync with the treaty. If I remember correctly it was those domestic processes and practices that were used to block Russia from joining. How fair or credible those were I don’t really know.

But it does identify a conundrum. In 2013 and 14 there was not consensus in the organization for Ukraine to join. Unclear and disputed boarders being one and as of that time unproven domestic practices and policies.
There was a general consensus that Ukraine could join eventually but there were several constraints for why they could not yet. Even Poland and bordering nations with Ukraine were not expecting immediate membership.

Then Russia roiled the boarder and Crimea with insurgency activity and the whole question of joining at the time was moot.

We’re expecting NATO members to defend Ukraine like a quasi member even though there was never any real consensus to letting them join

The argument of what about Russia consuming the next small non NATO state is not a NATO mandate. No member has been attacked.

None of this says Ukraine shouldn’t be defended, but just as there were limits 10-15 years ago on them joining. There are limits to how far members are willing to go in this defense.

I don’t or can’t say what the outcome will be for Ukraine except it’s going to take a much more proactive and aggressive possibly force on force to regain Ukraines territory and once accepted sovereignty.
I just don’t see any scenario of only sending aid and weapons to Ukraine as an eventual win for Ukraine.
I could be wrong I suppose but I’ve read no one anywhere claim this as a long term winning strategy.

I can also concede that how Trump is trying to press the issue of negotiated settlement might fail or be wrong in its approach. Just that it is not wrong to try.

 

[Sentry]

Possibly correct, it would have short circuited several things.
This brings up another question. There is a process and qualifiers for a nation to join the organization. From clearly known stable boarders to certain domestic processes that must be in sync with the treaty. If I remember correctly it was those domestic processes and practices that were used to block Russia from joining. How fair or credible those were I don’t really know.

But it does identify a conundrum. In 2013 and 14 there was not consensus in the organization for Ukraine to join. Unclear and disputed boarders being one and as of that time unproven domestic practices and policies.
There was a general consensus that Ukraine could join eventually but there were several constraints for why they could not yet. Even Poland and bordering nations with Ukraine were not expecting immediate membership.

Then Russia roiled the boarder and Crimea with insurgency activity and the whole question of joining at the time was moot.

We’re expecting NATO members to defend Ukraine like a quasi member even though there was never any real consensus to letting them join

The argument of what about Russia consuming the next small non NATO state is not a NATO mandate. No member has been attacked.

None of this says Ukraine shouldn’t be defended, but just as there were limits 10-15 years ago on them joining. There are limits to how far members are willing to go in this defense.

I don’t or can’t say what the outcome will be for Ukraine except it’s going to take a much more proactive and aggressive possibly force on force to regain Ukraines territory and once accepted sovereignty.
I just don’t see any scenario of only sending aid and weapons to Ukraine as an eventual win for Ukraine.
I could be wrong I suppose but I’ve read no one anywhere claim this as a long term winning strategy.

I can also concede that how Trump is trying to press the issue of negotiated settlement might fail or be wrong in its approach. Just that it is not wrong to try.

What is a solution that establishes deterrence and prevents Russia from doing this to someone else in the future?