@vivifysaid You're using Av Joes "who decides what's misinformation?" tactic.
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-e ...[text shortened]... istically been a threat to become a member. Therefore, Russia's excuse for invasion is baseless BS.
LMAO!
Nothing you have said changes the fact that the only judge of the criteria are the member nations themselves.
Nothing you have said changes the fact that the only judge of the criteria are the member nations themselves.
You've called Ukraine a dictatorship who mistreats ethnic minorities. Funny thing: NATO's own criteria agrees.
So now that you can't argue that NATO is wrong (since you also agree) you're left trying to imply that NATO's criteria is arbitrary, when that's clearly not true based on who has gone through MAP.
It's not that NATO is wrong about Ukraine, you just need a reason to avoid admitting that Ukraine was never close to joining NATO, thereby invalidating Russian's finger-pointing to justify their invasion.
@vivifysaid You've called Ukraine a dictatorship who mistreats ethnic minorities. Funny thing: NATO's own criteria agrees.
So now that you can't argue that NATO is wrong (since you also agree) you're left trying to imply that NATO's criteria is arbitrary, when that's clearly not true based on who has gone through MAP.
It's not that NATO is wrong about Ukraine, you just need a r ...[text shortened]... NATO, thereby invalidating Russian's finger-pointing to justify their invasion.
It's been fun.
Actually, I never called a Ukraine a dictatorship.
But hey keep lying.
It's almost comical how you started this thread with a claim and now feel absolutely required to insist on its truth regardless of the fact that it has crumbled to dust in face of the evidence.
@no1maraudersaid Actually, I never called a Ukraine a dictatorship.
But hey keep lying.
It's almost comical how you started this thread with a claim and now feel absolutely required to insist on its truth regardless of the fact that it has crumbled to dust in face of the evidence.
Yawn.
You know what I mean. You've described Ukraine in terms similar to a dictatorship: an anti-democratic government that engages in military coups and mistreats minorities. And guess what? NATO agrees, based on the criteria laid out for membership and the reason they refer countries like Ukraine to MAP.
So if your point hinged on the fact that you didn't use "dictatorship" specifically, you've made another weak post.
You know what I mean. You've described Ukraine in terms similar to a dictatorship: an anti-democratic government that engages in military coups and mistreats minorities. And guess what? NATO agrees, based on the criteria laid out for membership and the reason they refer countries like Ukraine to MAP.
So if your point hinged on the fact that you didn't use "dictatorship" specifically, you've made another weak post.
No, I don't consider the Ukraine a "dictatorship" and never said or suggested otherwise.
It's ridiculous you keep relying on a non-existent procedural requirement to try to save your really bad argument.
@no1maraudersaid No, I don't consider the Ukraine a "dictatorship" and never said or suggested otherwise.
Fine. You agree they've been an anti-democratic government that engages in coups and mistreats ethnic minorities, right? Well so does NATO, per NATO's criteria for membership that you've already been shown, and they reason they're in MAP.
It's ridiculous you keep relying on a non-existent procedural requirement to try to save your really bad argument.
MAP is not a "non-existent" procedural requirement; otherwise, why hasn't NATO approve Ukrainian membership after 14 years? Can you answer that? Oh, you can't?
@vivifysaid Fine. You agree they've been an anti-democratic government that engages in coups and mistreats ethnic minorities, right? Well so does NATO, per NATO's criteria for membership that you've already been shown, and they reason they're in MAP.
It's ridiculous you keep relying on a non-existent procedural requirement to try to save your really bad argument.
MAP is not ...[text shortened]... ove Ukrainian membership after 14 years? Can you answer that? Oh, you can't?
Didn't think so.
NATO, at least all its member nations, approved of the coup and haven't said a word about Ukrainian mistreatment of its Russian minority.
They aren't in MAP and are not required to be in it for membership to be granted. That's something you have invented, not a requirement of the NATO Charter as I already showed you.
Sure, I can answer it; because NATO didn't want to risk conflict with Russia not because of any concern about the Ukraine's internal policies.
@no1maraudersaid They aren't in MAP and are not required to be in it for membership to be granted. That's something you have invented, not a requirement of the NATO Charter as I already showed you.
The NATO Charter was created in 1949; MAP was started in 1999. So the fact that the Charter doesn't mention MAP as a requirement is non-issue.
Sure, I can answer it; because NATO didn't want to risk conflict with Russia not because of any concern about the Ukraine's internal policies.
NATO rejected Ukraine (a strategically significant striking point on the Russian border), because they didn't want to anger the nation it was created to combat...at the same they engaged in "aggressive expansionism"?
@no1maraudersaid NATO, at least all its member nations, approved of the coup and haven't said a word about Ukrainian mistreatment of its Russian minority.
Quite true. Doesn't change the fact that Ukraine has a history of being an anti-democratic government that mistreated it's minority, which violates the requirements for membership you were already shown.
@vivifysaid The NATO Charter was created in 1949; MAP was started in 1999. So the fact that the Charter doesn't mention MAP as a requirement is non-issue.
Sure, I can answer it; because NATO didn't want to risk conflict with Russia not because of any concern about the Ukraine's internal policies.
NATO rejected Ukraine (a strategically significant striking point on the Russ ...[text shortened]... was created to combat...at the same they engaged in "aggressive expansionism"?
Rethink that one.
LMAO! You really don't understand that it is the NATO Charter which is binding?
There is absolutely nothing making a MAP either necessary and/or sufficient.
NATO never "rejected" the Ukraine and has consistently said it will one day be a member. It's a question of timing and it's brain trust has decided up until now that the risks of Russian reaction outweighed the benefits of immediate Ukrainian membership. It's hard to say how long that equilibrium would have lasted though the West's cavalier dismissal of Russian security proposals and Ukraine's increasingly favorable comments to quick NATO membership (some of which I have cited and you have ignored) may have led Moscow to believe it wouldn't be for long.
This has been discussed in multiple threads already, so you're either playing dumb or not playing.
@vivifysaid Quite true. Doesn't change the fact that Ukraine has a history of being an anti-democratic government that mistreated it's minority, which violates the requirements for membership you were already shown.
And what NATO country has said it agrees with such conclusions?
@no1maraudersaid There is absolutely nothing making a MAP either necessary and/or sufficient.
You're confused about what I said regarding MAP. That is simply a program to help applicants reach the goals needed to be join. It's not that MAP itself is a requirement, it's the goal MAP helps nations like Ukraine reach that's required.
So far Ukraine hasn't even gotten that far despite NATO making it clear that Ukraine needs to complete MAP before joining:
@vivifysaid You're confused about what I said regarding MAP. That is simply a program to help applicants reach the goals needed to be join. It's not that MAP itself is a requirement, it's the goal MAP helps nations like Ukraine reach that's required.
So far Ukraine hasn't even gotten that far despite NATO making it clear that Ukraine needs to complete MAP before joining:
https://ww ...[text shortened]... eir direct way to membership.[/quote]
You're just plugging your ears and screaming at this point.
How many times does this need to be explained to you?
There is no MAP application!
There is no requirement that there ever would be a MAP application!
IF NATO members decide they wish the Ukraine to be a member at any time, they can make it happen. The only actual requirement is that they all agree.
Since you seem insistent on just repeating over and over and over again the same faulty arguments, I'll let you have the last word.
@no1maraudersaid How many times does this need to be explained to you?
There is no MAP application!
There is no requirement that there ever would be a MAP application!
IF NATO members decide they wish the Ukraine to be a member at any time, they can make it happen. The only actual requirement is that they all agree.
You're misquoting me. I'm not saying MAP is a requirement for NATO; I just explained that in very post you just quoted, but you'd rather pretend you didn't see it just to win an argument. The goals MAP helps applicants reach are the requirement, not MAP itself.
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
MAP simply helps NATO applicants reach that goal; it's not a requirement in of itself.
These are goals Ukraine wasn't close to reaching and why they were never realistically was a threat to join NATO.
Was Ukraine joining NATO ever realistic?
16 May '22 21:22
Back to Top