@no1marauder saidThis was after Russia had already invaded and annexed Crimea.
From last April:
"“NATO is the only way to end the war in Donbas,” Zelenskiy told NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in a phone call, according to a statement from Zelenskiy’s office. A Membership Action Plan laying out Ukraine’s entry path into the alliance “will be a real signal for Russia”, he said.
@vivify saidI hardly care about the errors that what you think "most posters" here would make.
What "baseless claim"?
Actually, in NO post did I ever make such a claim.
You've never cited "aggressive NATO expansionism" as a factor in the invasion of Ukraine? I think most posters who've read your comments would be surprised by that claim.
I speculated about what may have caused the Russian invasion in February in the thread I already linked to. I never said "THE reason" was "aggressive NATO expansion". That factor has surely aggravated the situation has had NATO's metamorphosis into a tool of neocon ambitions to cement permanent Western worldwide domination, however and it is dishonest to claim otherwise.
@no1marauder saidFine: in post after post, you've claimed A reason was "aggressive NATO expansion".
I never said "THE reason" was "aggressive NATO expansion".
What a useless legalistic argument.
@no1marauder saidCorrect. But Ukraine was still no closer to joining NATO than they were 14 years ago.
And after the illegal coup of an elected President triggered by his refusal to enter into an economic agreement with the West.
@vivify saidOMG, this is ridiculous.
Correct. But Ukraine was still no closer to joining NATO than they were 14 years ago.
See the repeated comments of NATO and Ukrainian officials after that.
@vivify saidNot really.
Fine: in post after post, you've claimed A reason was "aggressive NATO expansion".
What a useless legalistic argument.
Again, see the thread I linked to.
@no1marauder saidTrue or false: in 2014, Ukraine was no further *procedurally* than it was in 2014 to joining NATO?
OMG, this is ridiculous.
See the repeated comments of NATO and Ukrainian officials after that.
You know the answer.
A good article in the Intercept here: https://theintercept.com/2022/05/05/nato-countries-russia-ukraine-left/
An excerpt:
"“We have been calling for the delegitimization of NATO, and there is really no reason to change that,” said Reiner Braun, a German activist and executive director of the International Peace Bureau. Braun noted that a coalition of dozens of groups calling for NATO’s dissolution are planning a peace summit in Madrid in June, to counter the alliance’s official gathering in the same city. “The main reasons why we are against NATO, the militarization, the military spending, the aggressive attitude, NATO’s expansion — these are all criticisms that are still valid.”
“We are definitely in opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but without excusing Putin, we are also explaining that one of the reasons for the current situation is NATO’s expansion over the last 25 or so years,” he added. “It is not an excuse for the invasion, but it helps to understand how such a situation could happen.”
" In 2008, former President George W. Bush pledged that Ukraine and Georgia would one day join the alliance — a miscalculation that many analysts believe precipitated Russia’s aggression toward both countries in the following years. In the current climate, there seems to be little willingness on the part of U.S. officials to review that history or ask questions about how the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO might have played a role in what remains an unprovoked act of aggression on the part of Russia.
“Let’s try to be a little more objective and ask the question, why might Russia be fearful of NATO?” said Shifrinson. “That doesn’t mean the response is a war. You can blame Putin for the war. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for any Russian leader to be concerned over the prospect of Ukraine being in NATO. Most big powers don’t like their neighbors being part of hostile foreign alliances.”
In any event, the invasion has reinvigorated NATO’s own rationale for its continued role in containing Russia. If the collapse of the Warsaw Pact seemed to make NATO unnecessary back in the 1990s, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has appeared to give it a renewed reason to exist.It’s what De Brandeber describes as a “policy of self-fulfilling prophecy”: NATO taking a provocative action (expanding to Russia’s border) that contributes to a crisis that, in turn, justifies the existence of NATO. “Putin has become the best defender of NATO policy,” he added. “He made NATO very strong with this war.”
The rush to expand NATO and increase military spending throughout Europe, however, will likely come at the expense of social and environmental programs, health care, social security, and a more rational energy policy — all of which have been priorities for many countries in the alliance."
Most of the European Left has long been critical of NATO; when did you all become such apologists for militarization?
@vivify saidAnd you know the question is meaningless.
True or false: in 2014, Ukraine was no further *procedurally* than it was in 2014 to joining NATO?
You know the answer.
An article I read today, said Finland and Sweden could be accepted into the Alliance in less than four months (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-says-they-will-not-accept-sweden-finland-joining-nato-1706833) and they haven't started the MAP process either.
@no1marauder saidMy problem with you is the same one I have with Sh76: you've proven time and time again that you know better than to use the arguments you make.
And you know the question is meaningless.
An article I read today, said Finland and Sweden could be accepted into the Alliance in less than four months (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-says-they-will-not-accept-sweden-finland-joining-nato-1706833) and they haven't started the MAP process either.
You know full well that MAP was created for countries like Ukraine, Bosnia & Herzegovina, etc., who need to improve their political and and financial situations before joining; issues like corruption, poverty, treatment of minorities, etc. These are issues that Sweden and Finland do not have (to the same degree).
You know this, and you probably know this better than I do. Why you would make that useless point is beyond me.
@vivify saidThe point is there is no requirement that MAP be used at all, so your whole "procedural" argument is BS.
My problem with you is the same one I have with Sh76: you've proven time and time again that you know better than to use the arguments you make.
You know full well that MAP was created for countries like Ukraine, Bosnia & Herzegovina, etc., who need to improve their political and and financial situations before joining; issues like corruption, poverty, treatment of minoriti ...[text shortened]... s, and you probably know this better than I do. Why you would make that useless point is beyond me.
IF NATO countries want to let in the Ukraine in the near future, they can. Here's what the NATO Charter says:
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
That's it; everything else can be waived.
@no1marauder saidYour own post, it says nations can be invited who are "in a position to further the principles of this Treaty". That doesn't mean "let anyone in", that's a clear condition which Ukraine does not meet.
The point is there is no requirement that MAP be used at all, so your whole "procedural" argument is BS.
IF NATO countries want to let in the Ukraine in the near future, they can. Here's what the NATO Charter says:
Article 10
[b]The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to con ...[text shortened]...
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
That's it; everything else can be waived.
Look at the countries who have been in MAP, like Bulgaria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia....what do all these countries have in common? None of these countries were as well off as socially or financially as Sweden or Finland.
Nothing in what you posted implied the requirements can just be "waived", it actually said laid out conditions for membership, being that they must be in a position to further NATO's "values", which countries like Ukraine are not.
Your own link refuted you.
@vivify saidOf course it didn't. Who decides what nation is ""in a position to further the principles of this Treaty"? The existing member nations themselves. And if they decide the Ukraine does then they can invite it in; no need for any extra steps.
Your own post, it says nations can be invited who are "in a position to further the principles of this Treaty". That doesn't mean "let anyone in", that's a clear condition which Ukraine does not meet.
Look at the countries who have been in MAP, like Bulgaria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia....what do all these countries have in common? None of these co ...[text shortened]... tion to further NATO's "values", which countries like Ukraine are not.
Your own link refuted you.
You really are in a hole and should stop digging.
@no1marauder saidYou're using Av Joes "who decides what's misinformation?" tactic.
Of course it didn't. Who decides what nation is ""in a position to further the principles of this Treaty"? The existing member nations themselves. And if they decide the Ukraine does then they can invite it in; no need for any extra steps.
You really are in a hole and should stop digging.
One look at who has been in MAP makes it quite clear what type of governments needed work before joining NATO. But since you're clearly clueless as to what those nations have in common historically, here:
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160627_1607-factsheet-enlargement-eng.pdf
To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement. These criteria include a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations
This does not include a government that has been a dictatorship and mistreated it's minorities, which you've pointed out in great detail, has been the Ukraine. Your attempts to make NATO membership seem arbitrary fail.
Since Ukraine has never met the standards needed to join NATO, Ukraine has never realistically been a threat to become a member. Therefore, Russia's excuse for invasion is baseless BS.