Next week there's a NATO summit in Vilnius and naturally Ukraine is on the agenda. Today, a group of 46 foreign policy experts signed a letter recommending membership for Ukraine as soon as possible:
In Vilnius, the alliance should launch a roadmap that will lead clearly to Ukraine’s membership in NATO at the earliest achievable date. As with Finland and Sweden, the process can bypass the Membership Action Plan in light of the close and ongoing interactions between NATO and Ukraine.
Is this really the mainstream view of the US foreign policy community these days? I know it's been on the table for years, and obviously Ukraine itself is eager to join NATO, but that open letter is missing something pretty important.
It goes on and on about the various kinds of military assistance we should offer Ukraine, but there's not so much as a peep about NATO Article 5. You know the one: "An attack on one is an attack on all." This is the part of the treaty that obligates the US to go to war if any other member is attacked.
In other words, joining NATO is not a game. It's not a way to "show strength." It's a guarantee that if, say, Russia attacks Ukraine or Moldova attacks Romania, the US will send troops and planes and ships in defense.
Is that what we want? A tripwire that automatically demands our entrance into a distant war if Ukraine is attacked? To ask the question is to answer it: We could have troops there right now but we've very deliberately chosen not to. Like it or not, we obviously don't consider Ukraine a longtime close ally—neither militarily, culturally, nor diplomatically—that we'd defend without hesitation.
NATO is not just a club of vaguely likeminded states that we feel sympathetic toward. It's a deadly serious mutual defense organization. Everyone should keep that top of mind.
that’s what I want. Putin is a monster and a tyrant. There was a time when we knew what to do with monsters. Now half the country wants one to be president again.
I make $100h while I’m courageous to the most distant corners of the planet. Last week I worked on my PC in Rome, Monti Carlo at the long final in Paris. This week I’m back inside the USA. All I
do fundamental errands from this one cool area see it. For more information,
Click on the link below… https://GetDreamJobs1.blogspot.com
there are lots of monsters and tyrants in the world. that doesn't make me want to start a war with russia and risk a nuclear holocaust.
Then have Ukraine join NATO as soon as this war is over. Russia will no longer fare attack them and we reduce the risk of something like this escalating to a global warming.
Not to worry, the US will not start a war with Russia. The only way such a war would happen would be with Russia starting it. And if it's not risking a military confrontation to protect a treaty-ally Ukraine, then what about treaty-ally Finland, treaty-ally Poland, treaty-ally Germany, etc.? Go on, tell us where you'd draw the line.
how about making the line no new nato countries that are currently in a war with russia.
there are lots of monsters and tyrants in the world. that doesn't make me want to start a war with russia and risk a nuclear holocaust.
+1
The Blob cannot fail. It can only be failed.
That "deadly serious trip wire" is what it's all about. The Russians DO NOT want to trip over that wire. That's why Putin's ambitions to reconstitute the USSR have led him to attack Ukraine but have not led to attacks on Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia, which are NATO members.
Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO while actively involved in a war. However, if the Russians can be driven out of Ukraine and the fighting stopped, Ukraine's membership in NATO would pretty much guarantee that it wouldn't start again.
Or guarantee that it would start again, with higher stakes and no easy out for either side
Don’t ask “what will a rational government do when confronted with annihilation”, ask “what would a semi-rational gambler do to avoid being deposed (and probably killed)”
A hostile military alliance posting missiles in the country that was 10 years ago their closest friend is pretty provocative. Esp given that Putin’s greatest threat is from the hawks to his right, who probably wouldn’t stand for it
But it's not a hostile military alliance.
NATO isn't going to invade Russia, and would be happy to accept Russia as a member if Russia became committed to democracy, human rights, market economies, and peaceful resolution of disputes.
I agree, we won’t invade Russia. But I’m an American. The Russian right wing disagrees and that’s sort of what matters
Plus there are many reasons short of invasion you might not want to be bordered by NATO all along your western frontier. For one, there’s a few areas of Russia which might prefer not to be (see Dagestan, Chechnya) and the prospect of having foreign powers easily able to reach across the border and meddle with domestic separatists might be a legitimate concern
Ukraine's membership in NATO would pretty much guarantee that it wouldn't start again.
Can I borrow your crystal ball? Also, what if that "pretty much" falls short with respect to your "guarantee"? Ukraine (especially Crimea) plays a far larger role in Russian irredentist ambitions than Poland or Finland. Indeed, Moscow acted on those ambitions as recently as last year!
I'm just not seeing the "what's in it for us? (America)" factor.
Larger markets and investment opportunities.
It's risky to invest in places where the state can arbitrarily confiscate your investment. In order for Ukraine to join NATO, they have to commit to Western style rule of law, which would make the country more valuable to western investors.
In order for Ukraine to join NATO, they have to commit to Western style rule of law
To join the EU, sure (FWIW I support EU membership for Ukraine). But are you sure about the rule of law thing with NATO? Spain, Greece, Portugal and Turkey (and arguably now Hungary) were all welcomed by NATO during periods of blatant autocracy.
I think at this point it’s an accepted belief in the FP community that Russia would not attack a NATO country, specifically because of Article 5. It seems like a pretty credible belief to me given the countries Russia has chosen not to attack (the Baltics, Poland) during its past 15 years or so of aggression.
Ukraine specifically seems to have been a red line for the Russians
As opposed to the Baltics and Poland, Ukraine was both part of the USSR proper and a staunch ally even for most of the post-Soviet era, whereas B&P were basically reluctant buffer states
I would frame it differently: it seems that we got away with closer military alliances with Poland and the Baltics without triggering a conflict, whereas what we did with Ukraine started (or at least contributed to) a hot war. Worth thinking hard before pushing it further
The Baltic states were republics of the Soviet Union, just like Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union
Poland was a member of the Warsaw Pact but it was not a Soviet republic.
Yes, sorry for confusing wording. That’s why I added the “both”
Baltics were part of USSR proper but perhaps reluctant. In any case it’s fair to say Ukraine is considered more important and (formerly) a more staunch Russian ally. Not to mention has a sizeable ethnically Russian population (shades of the Sudetenland maybe, ha, which Putin made sure to emphasize in his formal casus belli)
Thanks for keeping me honest
I think at this point it’s an accepted belief in the FP community that Russia would not attack a NATO country
Sure. Because the FP never gets things wrong.
Even if they're on fairly firm ground, A) there are no guarantees, and B) again (!), what's the advantage for America? I strongly favor our current policy (military aid) but the long term status of Ukraine doesn't appear to be a vital US interest: America grew into the mightiest and richest power in history all during the long years when most of Ukraine was part of Russia (that is, the Czarist empire).
I'd be a lot more blase about things like this if nuclear weapons didn't exist, or if Moscow didn't have them. But given the incalculably disastrous consequences of a war involving such weapons, I deem it desirable for America to refrain from nudging the risk of such a conflict upwards, even if only incrementally. Tail risk management 101.
But we seem to be going out of our way to finding yet more nuclear tripwires. (Taiwan's an even scarier case). I just don't get it.
its not at all clear that adding Ukraine to NATO increases the risk of nuclear war.
Given the number of times that Russia has invaded a NATO member vs the number of times they have invaded non-NATO members, it appears that inclusion in NATO might reduce the tail risk.
As this topic moves along we will certainly see Russia and their mouthpieces advance the narrative that expanding NATO is dangerous for NATO members and the world. They have said the same thing regarding all levels of support for the countries they want to invade. Supplying munitions, medical supplies, planes, long range missles, tanks....repeatedly we heard that the West was crossing a line and increasing the risk of harm and suffering .
its not at all clear that adding Ukraine to NATO increases the risk of nuclear war.
It's crystal clear it does just that. What's debatable is by how much. I doubt it increases this risk substantially, sure. One would hope the same deterrent effect that has prevented Russia from attacking Latvia or Poland will prevail. Still, when it comes to nuclear war, even incremental increases in probability should be given a great deal of thought.
So, there are obviously no guarantees this new, added NATO territory would remain conflict-free. And there are likewise no guarantees that either Putin or a future Russian leader will always maintain full control over Russian military assets. We saw an example of this several weeks ago. Who knows what a rogue commander might be capable of along the Russia-Ukraine border?
So, given the serious, existing irredentist sentiment in Russia vis-a-vis Ukraine, and given the non-feasibility of a guarantee that conflict between these two enemies can be avoided indefinitely, it's obvious that extending a formal security guarantee to Ukraine increases the probability the guarantor (namely America) will be required to go to war with Russia to back up its obligation.
I fervently wish Ukraine well. But I'm not under the illusion it affects my life as an American whether that country's policies are decided in Kyiv or Moscow.
It may be crystal clear, but I certainly can't see it. Could you explain your reasoning? The precise mechanisms and scenarios?
Not really. There is a non-zero chance that a nuclear war will grow from the US response to a Russian invasion of a country that is not part of NATO. The question is, does adding Ukraine to NATO make Russia more willing to escalate, or less willing. The answer is not "crystal clear," and anyone who says otherwise is speaking before they think.
The question is, does adding Ukraine to NATO make Russia more willing to escalate, or less willing.
That might be your question. But it's not mine. Mine is: what is in the best interest of the United States of America?
Ukraine is an important interest (yes to aid!) but not a vital one (no to NATO membership!).
And yes, sorry, but it is crystal clear that expanding the part of the world map called "US nuclear tripwire states" mechanically increases the chances America will have to engage in a hot war. Reasonable people can disagree about how much that risk increases, but not about whether or not it increases. The same was true of the Baltics.
I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it. It's more of an issue of what's in our interests.
Let's say the US excludes itself from an intervention and the rest of NATO steps up...but struggles and ultimately fails.
Well then, now what?
We become isolationists and the world order flips away from our interests. No one trusts us, or more accurately, our soft power loses out to the hard power of others. NATO is dead.
Yeah. We should kowtow to authoritarian bullies instead of acknowledging reality. Letting bullies push us around is definitely in American interests and always gets the pushee what one wants.
I have to agree with you here. I'm not saying Ukraine should never join NATO, although everyone should think carefully before that happens. But if Ukraine is admitted to NATO while Russia is invading, Russia will see that as tantamount to a declaration of war. And under the circumstances, why wouldn't they? In that move NATO'd be saying, "Withdraw or we'll attack."
Yes, it's possible that fear of nuclear war would keep us out of war. It might even push Russia out of Ukraine. But it could cause a series of stumbling events that leads to both sides feeling existentially obligated to prove their resolve. Dumber things have happened.
We're doing all we realistically, safely can, and thank God Ukraine is hanging in there, or this would be much more bleak.
This post is framed very deceptively/dishonestly.
Of course the people discussing this matter are aware of this fact. Obviously if they support membership, they support the joint defense pact that membership would entail.
I would venture that literally noone is unaware of this 'revelation' that Kevin has breathlessly unearthed.
Through its history, NATO has shown a good track record as a means to avoid war. So far it has not been a means to increase active, hot war zones. That Kevin doesnt mention this basic fact is curious and màkes it look like he is trying to mislead the reader.
Using the collective 'we' in place of 'I' is almost always a sign of deception.
Your points are well taken. I think Kevin's post can be summarised in one sentence: "Membership in NATO is not a game, but a deadly serious matter and must be approached carefully." The rest of the post is at best, filler.
The fact of the matter is that NATO is a very successful defense alliance and Article 5 is a cautionary line for would-be empire builders like Putin - and frankly, Russia in general. Many really, really dislike the current government of Turkey - sometimes with good reason; but, I might remind Kevin that if Turkey were to be attacked would he wring his hands about Article 5? Maybe. In addition, the straw man example of Moldova invading Romania is unworthy of Kevin.
The fact is that, so far, Russia has assiduously avoided a confrontation with any NATO member. There is a reason for that and goodwill on the part of Russia is not it.
Of course, this is going to be carefully implemented. There is a process. No one is arguing that the process be streamlined or short-circuited. No one. If Article 5 applies to Turkey, the Baltics, or Finland, it most certainly applies to Ukraine.
Finally, the remark that Ukraine is not in the US or European foreign policy sphere of interests is simply wrong and Kevin should be ashamed of himself.
Of course, this is going to be carefully implemented.
Says you. It's entirely possible it won't be implemented at all. Formal invitations to new members require unanimous approval. Hopefully the Germans or French put the kibosh on this ludicrous idea.
Kevin's quite correct to raise the issues he does.
Neither Germany nor France will oppose it and I did not say it would be implemented - I said it has to be carefully implemented, which takes time and consideration. Your antipathy toward Ukraine is apparent however, I would imagine you would support the common defense of Hungary and Turkey - correct? No? Wow. Your simplicity is bordering on naivety. Furthermore, Kevin did not raise any issues that experts - which do not include him - already know.
Your antipathy toward Ukraine is apparent however
Not nearly as apparent as your cluelessness about defense and foreign policy.
I fervently support President Biden's current policy vis-a-vis Ukraine (robust aid) including, yes, cluster munitions. I also fervently hope Putin is deposed by a color revolution. If that's your definition of "antipathy toward Ukraine" well, I guess you're welcome to your (bizarre) perceptions.
"the straw man example of Moldova invading Romania "
It's not so much Moldova itself, but rather all the Russian troops stationed there.
I agree with earlier commenters that if and when the Ukraine war ends and there is some kind of peace settlement between Kyiv and Moscow, admitting Ukraine to the EU and NATO would be the most effective way to prevent further Russian agression. The alternatives - a Ukrainian declaration of "neutrality" or a reversion to its pre-2014 status as a country torn by pro-Russian v pro-EU parties - would virtually guarantee its continuing instability and an eventual resumption of Russian attacks.
What is your solution to disincentivize Russia from attacking a much smaller, less capable Baltic state -- the type of country that would actually collapse in a matter of days?
I'm also a little fuzzy on the logic of why the length of time of being allies matters -- is the alliance in force on the first day of membership or is there a waiting period?
As far as I can tell, you're left with two choices:
- Accept that Article 5 is a serious tripwire and we'd send US forces to Europe to fight Russia if Russia invaded a Baltic state, in which case, it sure seems like a good enough reason for Ukraine's inclusion.
- Kick out the newer NATO states for whom we're unwilling to send US forces to fight against Russia, risking the collapse of the alliance altogether and an everlasting distrust of US foreign policy, all to the cheers of Trump.
Would be nice if we can give Ukraine security guarantees without jeopardizing our word vis-a-vis Article 5
No one really doubts we will put boots on the ground in the Baltics if it comes to it. But if we are forced to start shooting down MiGs in Ukraine or flinch on Article 5, it’s sort of a toss-up what happens. And if we flinch, the Baltics are toast
Best case scenario is we rig up some separate security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a negotiated settlement, for which if we renege it won’t put all our existing NATO obligations into question. The bonus is that it’s probably easier for the Russian nationalist right wing (and Putin) to swallow than full-fledged NATO membership
Letting Ukraine into NATO feels pretty Versailles-ish. Laying the groundwork for the next conflict rather than preventing it
I would argue it's the opposite -- attempting to reach a negotiated settlement w/ Russia with security guarantees is to swap nukes for empty guarantees that result in 2014.
THIS. Russia has proven time and again that it will not honor treaties, negotiated settlements, etc., of which the above is most significant for this conversation. I suppose one could argue that it was just by chance the Putin invaded Ukraine _after_ it no longer had a nuclear armament. But I wouldn't bet on it.
And if we flinch, the Baltics are toast
And if we don't flinch NY, LA and DC are very likely toast.
Just a reminder that this same scare tactic was used to argue against any and all common defenses against Russia. The founding of NATO, the inclusion of all members, all the weapons sharing, new bases/airfields, missles and missle defenses....literally every move was framed by some as risking the annihilation of (insert american city). Even sending supplies and weapons to Ukraine was risking the wrath of Putins missles.
This scare tactic rings very hollow after so many decades of use.
This scare tactic rings very hollow after so many decades of use.
NATO was formed before the USSR acquired its first nuclear weapon. The "scare tactic" you cite was mostly a non-factor.
But in any event, being cautious with respect to our exposure to possible nuclear war doesn't ring hollow to me. What are the chances that, if these horrible weapons are not one day banned (and all stockpiles destroyed), their use can be avoided indefinitely?
The question answers itself.
Given enough time, nuclear weapons will again be used in warfare (the probability approaches 100%, mathematically, with the passage of time). Mind you, I'm not a sour pessimist on this score because I deem it quite possible cooler heads will prevail, and eventually (perhaps after color revolutions in places like China and Russia), humankind will destroy the planet's nuclear weapons stockpiles. But that day is a probably a long ways off. And in the interim some basic prudence seems in order.
Also, there's a big difference between guaranteeing the territorial integrity of, say, Canada or Italy or the Netherlands—territories that have never been in Russia's sphere of influence—and doing the same vis-a-vis a state that is currently at war with Russia!
Kevin's 100% correct: we should keep in mind that NATO is a deadly serious mutual defense organization.
Yeah. We should tell Russia it's okay for them to invade whoever they like so long as it's not a member of NATO. Bullies should be allowed to do whatever they want, especially irrational bullies.
We should tell Russia it's okay for them to invade whoever they like so long as it's not a member of NATO.
Really? What would prompt you to hold such a strange view?
Also, is it your impression that our actions vis-a-vis Russia over the last 17 months (blistering sanctions, massive military aid to Ukraine, etc) constitute telling them "it's ok" to invade Ukraine?
I find that scenario exceedingly unlikely.
While a desperate Russia may want to use tactical nukes -- as I suggested well over a year ago -- out of desperation, it would be self-defeating to resort to strategic nukes to win a war over territory that it invaded. You can't win if you trigger an all-out nuclear war, after all.
On top of that, Putin would have to trust his military to push the buttons. I'm not so sure he can count on them following his lead to the end of Russia.
Finally, Ukraine shot down Russia's hypersonic Kinzhal. I think if you're Russia, you're not so confident that you could overcome the neutralizing effect of mutually assured destruction, and in fact, you might lose that war.
"On top of that, Putin would have to trust his military to push the buttons. I'm not so sure he can count on them following his lead to the end of Russia."
One point to remember is that when Prigozhin and his Wagner troops took over Russia's main southern military base at Rostov-on-Don (without a fight) before heading straight towards Moscow, not one Russian soldier was willing to risk his life to stop him or to save Putin or Putin's regime.
I think that tells you all you need to know about the willingness of a Russian nuclear officer to accept an order from Putin to start a nuclear war.
You're gone from 'slightlyt-but-more likely' to 'very likely' in the course of this conversation. Could you please tell me what changed? Really, I'd like to know.
One big problem with NATO membership is the veto that all members have over new memberships. I fully support Ukraine in this war and Zelensky seems like the kind of leader that NATO members should welcome but Ukraine could easily have an unstable or corrupt goverment and/or judiciary for years to come. Admitting them will be very difficult in the near term.
I think NATO needs to add a new type of probationary member that gets Article 5 protection but not a veto and can be suspended if they backslide on NATO core priciples. While they're drawing up the new membership type they should go ahead and move Hungary and it's quasi-democratic "hybrid regime" to that new type.
Is NATO a defense alliance or a democratic club? Or is it essentially both? I ask that because Hungary and Turkiye are straining the democratic requirement, and no one with any authority has threatened them.
Losing either would be a huge boost for Putin. Hungary leaving would create a new, much larger Kaliningrad enclave for Putin to place nuclear weapons three minutes from several European capitals. It would be a catastrophe.
The loss of Turkiye would put Putin firmly in control of the eastern Mediterranean and surround Georgia and Azerbaijan. He would immediately demand that Abkhazia be "widened" to the full shoreline of Georgia on the Black Sea in order to create a land corridor to his new vassal state.
The alliance is first and foremost a combination in restraint of Russia and less crucially a democratic club. That's the EU's job.
Hungary leaving would create a new, much larger Kaliningrad enclave for Putin to place nuclear weapons three minutes from several European capitals. It would be a catastrophe.
Hungary's leaving the alliance would be a setback for the West, for sure. But Russian missiles are already "minutes from" not just several but all European capitals, and Washington and Ottawa, too.
Yeah, that was my reaction, too. Between MIRVs and hypersonic missiles, distance is irrelevant as long as you have the element of surprise.
Anankados, I totally agree with you. Good logical thinking and very frightening. Well worth discussion and consideration by all countries, with an open mind and into the future.
One big problem with NATO membership is the veto that all members have over new memberships.
That's a not a problem. That's a highly desirable feature. I want vigorous debate regarding the addition of nuclear tripwires. Everyone should.
What we want is for the Russians to withdraw, disarm, and apologize profusely. Alternatively, I’d like to see every Russian exterminated like the vermin they are. But…my revenge fantasies are my own.
It’s funny, you know, just how much violence we’re all willing to accept. We accept random shootings. We accept men killing their families. We accept war most of all.
I don’t know how to defend innocent people next door, down the street or in Ukraine.
“God forbid some tragedy should befall you and you should be in my place,” he said. “And if people with shared values do not help, what will you do?
And my gosh, Putin is making a trip to visit alleged NATO “ally” Turkey. I’m guessing this isn’t going to result in some landmark peace agreement, but we can hope! The things we accept as perfectly normal.
Trump whacked some Iranian general back in the day. Come on Joe. Do the deed.
"I’d like to see every Russian exterminated like the vermin they are."
Because in your mind, Russia is a democracy and every Russian citizen is foursquare behind Putin's foreign policy.
Feh.
And so they are, as you point out, incapable of tolerance, decency, and humanity. They would rather wage war on innocent Ukraine than stand up to their own monster. Vermin.
Collective guilt. I see.
Reading the exact same argument in TASS this morning. Kevin's gone tankie.
He's not only gone tankie but commie, too. And pinko!
Longtime expat has been fully absorbed into the mindset of the country he is residing in.
Longtime expat has been fully absorbed into the mindset of the country he is residing in.
Sure, failing to see the advantage to the US of an ever-growing profusion of nuclear tripwires definitely means one has become a card-carrying member of the Communist Party!
To what do you attribute Kevin Drum's skepticism? Chemo-induced dementia?
(Hint: failing to agree with you on foreign policy doesn't make one anything but, uh, someone who disagree with you.)
I think you are failing to see how your life has shaped your viewpoints. MAD was successful in containing the Soviet Union. Putin wants to get the old band back together by gunpoint if necessary and then even more. Ensuring a united NATO backing a free and democratic Ukraine will keep Putin contained. If Putin is allowed to keep Ukraine or even major parts of it he will want Moldova next.
I think you are failing to see how your life has shaped your viewpoints.
Same goes for you. I mean, by definition every human being's life is shaped by their viewpoints.
But unlike you, I actually have real world experience of the very real horrors of living under autocratic governance.
If Putin is allowed to keep Ukraine or even major parts of it he will want Moldova next.
I'm sure there are lots of things Putin wants. Which is one reason I support President Biden's robust policy of aid to Ukraine. I also support, as it happens, the president's caution with respect to Ukraine's joining NATO.
Maybe if Russia annexes the Southern Tier.
As you say, I suppose the good people of Binghamton, Elmira and Ithaca would become inured to it in time.
That was my first reaction too. Shows how insidious the disinfo campaigns are.
Is that what we want?
It's not what I want. I don't speak for others.
It seems to me this view is incorrect.
The war does not end unless Russia and Ukraine agree it should end, therefore, Russia has a de-facto veto on Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Of course both sides can just stop fighting, as in Korea, without formally ending the war. Thus, we should ask, how is formal peace superior to enduring ceasefire.
Enduring peace would allow Ukraine to stand down its armies and reap a peace dividend, but this cannot happen without a credible security guarantee, and it is clear that the only security guarantee that deters Russia is NATO membership.
On Russia’s side, only formal peace will allow international rapprochement, mitigate the potential threat of the Ukrainian army at their borders, and mitigate the revolution-risk of keeping their own army permanently field-deployed.
But either way, Ukraine’s NATO membership can only come with Russia’s agreement, because they have the veto-point of simply continuing the war.
One thing to remember about Sweden is that it already has de facto Article 5 protection. It's in a military alliance with the UK, Norway, Finland and The Netherlands called the Joint Expeditionary Force. One for all and all for one and all that.
Well, that means if Putin attacks Sweden he will be fighting four NATO member states within a few hours. It would be devilishly difficult to defeat Sweden without trespassing on either Norway or Finland, thus activating Article 5 by a boomerang.
Also the US has signed new agreements with Sweden this past week when the PM visited with Biden. It is NATO membership in all but name.
NATO is not just a club of vaguely likeminded states that we feel sympathetic toward. It's a deadly serious mutual defense organization. Everyone should keep that top of mind.
Nonsense, Kevin. The Blob smells another opportunity for the extension of The American Empire's frontiers. And what the The Blob wants, the The Blob gets. One day it's going to get it good.
Do you really think Ukraine is outside our field of defensible interest but Turkey and Finland are not?
Turkey and Finland are water under the bridge at this point in terms of America's legal obligation to go to war in the event either is attacked. Same goes for Estonia or Poland or any other NATO member. What's done is done.
Ukraine is not yet in this category. It's not unreasonable to have a debate when new additions to America's nuclear tripwire are proposed.
Also, I interpret Kevin to be (rightly) implying that Russia harbors deep-seated, highly emotionalized, historical territorial ambitions with respect to Ukraine that are lacking with respect to the two other countries you mention, so extending a defense guarantee to Ukraine is an inherently riskier proposition.
They also harbor deep-seated emotional attachment to shoring up the passageways that historically invaders used to attack Russia....like the Suwalki Gap in Poland. ¯\(°_o)/¯
That didn't seem to bother anyone until Putin and the Nazis decided it should.
Ukraine's strategic issue, it's one issue, is the same issue that NATO was created to address, Turkey on the other hand has a wide range of strategic issues that are really alien to the rest of the alliance and idiosyncratic to itself, as it has been aggressively demonstrating in it's attitude toward Sweden.
The value of Turkey in the alliance seems quite a bit more questionable than Ukraine.
That didn't seem to bother anyone until Putin and the Nazis decided it should.
Plenty of people possessed deep misgivings about NATO expansion after the fall of the USSR. We cannot visit the parallel universe where the West and Russia agreed that "Finlandization" of Eastern Europe was the way to go. Maybe Russia would now be dominating its old Warsaw Pact vassal states. It's possible! But maybe not—the parallels between 1919 and 1991 aren't illusory. Certainly the almost instantaneous expansion of NATO after the USSR's fall contributed strongly to the growth of right wing nationalist, irredentist elements in Russia—that much is abundantly clear.
(Just like with Finland, non-NATO membership would not have precluded EU membership for the former Eastern Bloc).
After Ukraine wins the war, if they are not admitted to NATO, I think developing nuclear weapons would be one of their first priorities to ensure future security from Russia.
The issue is not whether a Russian reinvasion would trigger article 5. The choice is between Ukraine cooperating within NATO to deter a future Russian invasion, or having their own nuclear deterrent to do so.
As to their capability to develop nuclear weapons, they are probably more technologically advanced than Pakistan or North Korea, and equally motivated to do so.
Will the US remain in NATO if Trump is re-elected? If not, is there any possibility that the remaining members can stop a nuclear powered Russia?
I was under the impression that Putin waited on attacking Ukraine in hopes that Trump would win the election and withdraw from NATO. He thought his army would crush Ukraine and be free to reestablish the boundaries of the old Soviet Union. But Trump lost and his army wasn’t as tuff as he thought it was. So now his main hope is to hold out and hope for a return to a Trump presidency.
At least, that’s how I understood things.
Wasn't that one of the arguments to not even send one round to Ukraine? Wasn't that another of the arguments some sectors used to say this war was NATO's, and especially the US's, fault?
This moment was going to come - since before 2014. The transformation of the armed of forces of Ukraine began before then with NATO's assistance and Ukraine's participation in NATO operations. Since the 2000's this road was travelled. Everything has backfired for Russia. Everything. Time to surrender. And come in from the cold, admit the atrocities, beg forgiveness...
The anti-war Russian block is neutered. The hawks are Putin’s real threat
Ukraine was a red line for the hawks + he thought he would get away with it, so he invaded. Giving weapons to Ukes was provocative but we rolled those dice and it worked out. But NATO membership and formal military alliances are ostensibly what the war was fought over in the first place
Not to mention the deterrent value is basically reversed if Putin’s of the mind that his regime can’t stomach this and survive the threat from the Russian right
I was referencingthe anti-war bloc worldwide, not specifically Russia. And I'm going slightly disagree here as how you get to the point of why the trigger was pulled by Putin. That disagreement stems from before the Soviet Union dissolved. There was always an uneasy tension in the SU. Between the power brokers, the people, the True Believers, the reformers, and the veterans of the Great Patriotic War. We really cannot forget that the Russian people have been low key clamoring to escape since before the last Tsar was killed. That all said, once Ukraine was "free" of the Soviet I firmly believe they saw their chance to run and took it. This is backed up by their actions right after the dissolution and what a lot of their writing has said. Even if Russia had many of the cards, money, and bullets, this was the way they headed.
So, if we accept your proposition, what security guarantees are you willing to give Ukraine?
Nukes?
Who is obligated to go to war when the US attacks/invades/occupies?
“They (NATO) claim to be acting responsibly. But this too-familiar milksoppery, which unnecessarily and unwisely restricts Nato’s actions, is actually rooted in American and west European fears that Putin, provoked, might attack the west.
This is such facile thinking. Even when sober and with the wind behind it, Russia’s blundering army could not beat Ukraine’s 2nd XI. For all his threats, Putin fears Russia-Nato conflict, too. For him, it would be political and military suicide.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2023/jul/08/ukraine-nato-must-step-in-to-stop-russia
Is time to put the Russians down for good.
I wonder how many of the folks on this thread advocating for Ukraine membership in NATO are willing to suit up, grab a gun and die for Ukraine. Show of hands?
And how many liberals or progressive or good Christians take in the homeless off the street? Very few. So that is also the answer to your question. But I still think we should fund homeless shelters, provide benefits to the helpless, and defend the innocent from assault. Some people become firefighters and police officers. Some have actually joined the US military and those in other NATO countries.
No one wants to die for Ukraine. Nor do we want to leave them for dead at the hands of Russian war criminals. It’s the age old problem of evil. Whatcha gonna do about it?
"I wonder how many of the folks on this thread advocating for Ukraine membership in NATO are willing to suit up, grab a gun and die for Ukraine. Show of hands?"
@joel, Why do you wonder this? Do you think this is our only option?
I'm waiting for Russia to go bankrupt. Russia's military is entirely made of mercenaries. None of them are fighting for their homeland's freedom. The problem with mercenaries is that you only have to pay them a bit more than they could make doing something else and, in Russia, that's not a lot. So Russia is going to have to be really, really broke before they stop sending paid killers to Ukraine.
Of course, if Ukraine were part of Nato, there would be less likelihood that one would need to die for Ukraine...
Actually, just the opposite. By welcoming Ukraine into NATO, the US is saying that it is willing to send its citizens to be maimed and killed in defense of Ukraine.
1. Kevin, I think does not understand the idea: Not to have Ukraine join now. But to have plans ready for it to join when the war ends. Those plans are part of an effort to communicate to the Russians that their expansionism will not be tolerated.
2. I find it strange that Munich 1938, which has (wrongly) featured in most of the recent war vs. anti-war debates is all of a sudden missing in this particular debate, the first time it actually applies. The parallels are striking: The Nazi takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1938 was part of a larger plan of expansionism, agitation among linguistic minorities was used to create dissension as a preparation to taking over a whole country. Almost everyone now agrees that Chamberlin was wrong to rubber-stamp Germany's takeover of Czechoslovakia. Unlike back then though the US and NATO have the power to fight back. It would be irresponsible to let Putin win this one. It would lead to a Russian attack on the next country (Moldavia probably) in short order and we would be back to where we were a year ago with another country. And at some point Putin would challenge article 5 by attacking a NATO member, speculating on NATO failing to rally.
3. It does not matter if NATO expansion was a mistake or not. We have to deal with the situation as it is now, regardless of how we got there.
4. No problem can be fixed for eternity. Putin will be out of power at some point (by death, incapacitation or putsch) and under his successor Russia will probably have different priorities and Western countries will need (and get a chance) to rethink their stance.
Well said azumbrunn.
Munich 1938 is exactly why I support US involvement in Ukraine and for eventual NATO membership for Ukraine.
It makes perfect sense when you consider that virtually all of these foreign policy hawks are in the hire of the defense industry and their job is to promote weapon sales. WWIII might be bad for the human race, but it will be great for Raytheon.
No. WWIII fucks over Raytheon too. It's hard to make money from weapon sales when the capital you owned in the form of factories no longer exists.
In the meantime, it sounds like the U.S. military production system is having a hard time keeping up with demand and losing out on a bunch of potential profits...
In the end there can be only one.
It's good to be the one.
I think that Ukraine should be admitted to NATO after this war is settled.
Maybe also after Ukraine qualifies for membership in the EU.
Both of these things could be years off, but we (in Europe) need a clear definition of Europe’s borders, admitting Ukraine into either of these organisations in the middle of a war for territory is asking for all kinds of trouble.
America’s help in this war is essential but since the end of WWll it has a tendency to exit wars unfinished or by accepting territorial partitions, so I’m hoping for a united front, over time, of the Five Eyes and all of the EU. To get there, Europe has to do a lot more than it’s doing at this time. Americans should not have to carry most of the burden, Europe should.
The war will not end without a security guarantee for Ukraine provided by the western powers, either NATO membership or agreements that would not be much different than Article 5. I can't see Ukraine signing any agreement with Russia without such assurances.
The war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan ended without any security guarantees for Afghanistan.
Based on Russia’s performance in Ukraine, NATO could take out Russia in about a week. Russia knows this. Let Ukraine in and either Russia will never bother them again, or, they make a bad decision and continue hostilities, in which case it would be the end of Putin. Either outcome sounds good to me.
NATO is a mutual defense organization with requirements for behavior in order to join the organization. I think it's possible that Turkey is veering away from the required behavior and should perhaps be asked to leave the club. The commitment to democracy, human rights, market economies, and peaceful resolution of disputes is more important than the mutual defense aspects. Because the mutual defense aspects aren't invoked in practice, but the rest is required to be put into practice.