@vivify saidJake Sullivan is a liar.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-administration-jake-sullivan-throws-cold-water-ukraine-joining-nato-1748079
Biden Administration Throws Cold Water on Ukraine Joining NATO
I already proved you wrong.
On Friday, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Ukraine had filed an application to join NATO under the fast-track procedure.
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/ukraine-should-have-held-referendum-on-nato-before-enshrining-it-in-constitution-zelensky-articleshow.html
Kyiv's stance of joining the European Union (EU) and NATO was enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution by a majority vote in the federal parliament in February 2019, breaking a long-standing vow to remain neutral and refuse to join any military alliances. The decision was taken by a new generation of Ukrainian lawmakers, who came to power in 2014 following a Western-backed coup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bucharest_summit
01 Oct 22
@vivify saidNo need; the present members can say whatever they want but if they ever decide that they want the Ukraine in the alliance NOW, it will be within a short period of time.
NATO explicitly declared Ukraine was to complete MAP before joining. Go argue with them.
Why it isn't is because at least some members don't want to commit to open war with Russia, not because of the Ukraine's many internal problems.
@no1marauder
While there is no official checklist for membership, the alliance maintains a list of minimum requirements that aspiring countries should be able to meet:
New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity
New members must be making progress toward a market economy
Their military forces must be under firm civilian control
They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders
They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces
Since Ukraine does not "uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity" they should not be allowed to join. Zelenskyy is a dictator that supports neo nazis who were killing ethnic Russians.
01 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidThat may be the case now but it wasn't for the last two decades.
No need; the present members can say whatever they want but if they ever decide that they want the Ukraine in the alliance NOW, it will be within a short period of time.
Why it isn't is because at least some members don't want to commit to open war with Russia, not because of the Ukraine's many internal problems.
Citing a war that only started a few months ago to explain Ukraine's failure to join for two decades is a poor argument.
01 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidDo you want to give a date on this one?
Russia still controls the air. They can bomb more targets than Ukraine can. This is just temporary. Any advances will probably be cut off and those Ukrainians will be isolated and vulnerable. They are overconfident.
01 Oct 22
@Ponderable
Russia is not losing the war. Setbacks happen in all wars.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-really-losing-ukraine/5795004
01 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidyou posted that previousy, I just want a date from you, so that you can rightly bragg about having been right (for once)...
@Ponderable
Russia is not losing the war. Setbacks happen in all wars.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-really-losing-ukraine/5795004
01 Oct 22
@ponderable saidWhat if a nuclear weapon is used?
you posted that previousy, I just want a date from you, so that you can rightly bragg about having been right (for once)...
01 Oct 22
@vivify saidOK. They didn't want to commit to open war with Russia IF it invaded Ukraine. That seemed plausible considering the Russia Georgia war. And it would have been a reality in 2014.
That may be the case now but it wasn't for the last two decades.
Citing a war that only started a few months ago to explain Ukraine's failure to join for two decades is a poor argument.
Better?
01 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidWhile the loss of territory around Kharkov doesn't seem like a big deal (the Ukrainians had taken back a limited area to the north of the city in May-June without any major effect), the fact that the Russians just abandoned Lyman seems significant. The Ukrainians seem in a position to threaten Russian gains in the Donbass from both flanks and if they roll back the invaders there it would be a major strategic victory.
@Ponderable
Russia is not losing the war. Setbacks happen in all wars.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-really-losing-ukraine/5795004
It does seem their much ballyhooed counterattack in the South has stalled with few gains, however.
01 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidYou've constantly repeated that NATO's been provoking war with Russia by continually expanding but now you claim NATO didn't want to provoke war all years?
OK. They didn't want to commit to open war with Russia IF it invaded Ukraine. That seemed plausible considering the Russia Georgia war. And it would have been a reality in 2014.
Better?
01 Oct 22
@vivify saidIf you stopped deliberately miscontruing what I have said, you'd have to admit that the West's goal of pushing NATO to Russia's borders while also avoiding open war are hardly inconsistent.
You've constantly repeated that NATO's been provoking war with Russia by continually expanding but now you claim NATO didn't want to provoke war all years?
The West doesn't want war with Russia; it does want the latter weakened, Isolated and contained.
@no1marauder saidYour words: "They didn't want to commit to open war with Russia IF it invaded Ukraine"
If you stopped deliberately miscontruing what I have said, you'd have to admit that the West's goal of pushing NATO to Russia's borders while also avoiding open war are hardly inconsistent.
The West doesn't want war with Russia; it does want the latter weakened, Isolated and contained.
Yet NATO openly welcomed Ukraine as a prospective member at the Bucharest summit. This, a point that you've used as evidence of NATO provocation, contradicts your claim.
01 Oct 22
@vivify saidNo, it doesn't.
Your words: "They didn't want to commit to open war with Russia IF it invaded Ukraine"
Yet NATO openly welcomed Ukraine as a prospective member at the Bucharest summit. This, a point that you've used as evidence of NATO provocation, contradicts your claim.
The West wants Russia to eventually acquiesce or at least not aggressively oppose the Ukraine joining NATO, the same blueprint it used for the former Warsaw Pact countries and the Baltics.
There's no treaty obligation to defend a "prospective" member while there is one to defend a member. Surely you know this and are just engaging in sophistry.
@no1marauder saidWhich is why they're allowing Finland to join, knowing that putting NATO on their border angers Russia?
No, it doesn't.
The West wants Russia to eventually acquiesce or at least not aggressively oppose the Ukraine joining NATO
Your arguments are inconsistent.