@no1marauder said“As NATO Secretary General Willy Claes noted, the 1995 study did not specify the "who or when,"[82] though it discussed how the then newly formed Partnership for Peace and North Atlantic Cooperation Council could assist in the enlargement process,[83] and noted that on-going territorial disputes could be an issue for whether a country was invited.[84] At the 1997 Madrid summit, the heads of state of NATO issued the "Madrid Declaration on Euro-Atlantic Security and Cooperation" which invited three Central European countries to join the alliance, out of the twelve that had at that point requested to join, laying out a path for others to follow.[80] The text of Article 10 was the origin for the April 1999 statement of a "NATO open door policy".[85]”
Show me the language in the NATO Charter that says that please.
“Complications in the relationship between NATO and Georgia includes the presence of Russian military forces in internationally recognized Georgian territory as a result of multiple recent conflicts, like the 2008 Russo-Georgian War over the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which are home to a large number of citizens of the Russian Federation. On 21 November 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev while addressing soldiers in Vladikavkaz near the Georgian border stated that Russia's 2008 invasion had prevented any further NATO enlargement into the former Soviet sphere.[155]”
Wikipedia
Show me where I said it was specifically in the charter please, it’s just something that us grownups know to be an obvious fact for obvious reasons.
Why would nato drag itself into a war by virtue of admitting a nation already at war or in a territorial dispute.
19 May 22
@vivify saidDepends on the nation. Some nations have to buy military weaponry if they don't have the amount required. That is why the military industrial complex likes that. They can sell more weapons. There are many different conditions that must be met.
Liar! No extra steps are needed!
Then there is the veto power all NATO members have. If they don't agree 100% nobody gets in. DUH!
19 May 22
@kevcvs57 saidThe NATO Treaty (I apologize for saying "Charter"😉 is the definitive statement of the rules the alliance operates under. IF there is no language in it saying that a country in an ongoing territorial dispute cannot be admitted (and there is not), then such a condition is not something the alliance is required to follow.
“As NATO Secretary General Willy Claes noted, the 1995 study did not specify the "who or when,"[82] though it discussed how the then newly formed Partnership for Peace and North Atlantic Cooperation Council could assist in the enlargement process,[83] and noted that on-going territorial disputes could be an issue for whether a country was invited.[84] At the 1997 Madr ...[text shortened]... o drag itself into a war by virtue of admitting a nation already at war or in a territorial dispute.
"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."
NATO Treaty, Article 10
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
@metal-brain saidNo1maurader said NO EXTRA STEPS needed.
Depends on the nation. Some nations have to buy military weaponry if they don't have the amount required. That is why the military industrial complex likes that. They can sell more weapons. There are many different conditions that must be met.
Then there is the veto power all NATO members have. If they don't agree 100% nobody gets in. DUH!
19 May 22
@no1marauder
Why would a Euro country be worried about what happens after Russia takes over Ukraine? Could it be they think Russia might want to hit a real Nato member like Poland, but you obviously know MUCH better than us laymen.
20 May 22
@no1marauder saidBut then clearly 100% of nato members were not going to agree to Ukraine or Georgia joining nato and my guess would be that’s because if their proximity to and relationship with Russia unless someone can come up with another good reason for them not getting membership even though they have applied.
The NATO Treaty (I apologize for saying "Charter"😉 is the definitive statement of the rules the alliance operates under. IF there is no language in it saying that a country in an ongoing territorial dispute cannot be admitted (and there is not), then such a condition is not something the alliance is required to follow.
"The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite a ...[text shortened]... ccession."
NATO Treaty, Article 10
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
I think the commitment of mutual defence which is the whole point of nato will mean any nation that looks likely to be attacked by a nuclear power with a large conventional force is a very poor candidate in terms of admission.
20 May 22
@kevcvs57 saidIt wasn't just a matter of agreement. Nations like Ukraine didn't meet NATO's requirements:
But then clearly 100% of nato members were not going to agree to Ukraine or Georgia joining nato
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"
Both Ukraine's political system and their treatment of ethnic minorities, per NATO's own guidelines, were barriers to NATO entry. Hence, why NATO declared:
https://www.nato.int/docu/update/2008/04-april/e0403h.html
"NATO Allies welcomed Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership and agreed that these countries will become members of NATO.
The Membership Action Plan (MAP) is the next step for the two countries on their direct way to membership."
As already discussed, MAP was set up to help aspiring nations meet the goals needed for membership; Ukraine, who did not meet the requirements, never even got past the application phase. After 20 years from when Ukraine first expressed interest in joining NATO back in 2002, Ukraine has gotten no closer to that goal.
Russia didn't annex Crimea due to NATO, it was because Ukrainian citizens wanted a deal with the EU. Russia blaming NATO for their invasion would fail in any international court.
@no1marauder saidYou've frequently cited the Bucharest summit (like your very first post on this thread), specifically that Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO." Yet you reject the same document when it states that Ukraine's next step is to go through MAP.
The NATO Treaty (I apologize for saying "Charter"😉 is the definitive statement of the rules the alliance operates under. IF there is no language in it saying that a country in an ongoing territorial dispute cannot be admitted (and there is not), then such a condition is not something the alliance is required to follow.
You can't have it both ways. You can't cite a NATO statement as evidence for your position then reject that same document refute your claim. If the NATO Charter, as you're now claiming, is the only guideline that matters, then your many posts using it in your debates are invalid.
You'd still be wrong about there being "no other steps required", as Sweden and Finland's year-long application process shows.
@vivify saidI agree with your last paragraph concerning the reasons for Russias 2014, EU membership was was the crux of the Maidan protests and the annexation of Crimea and everything else seemed to stem from.
It wasn't just a matter of agreement. Nations like Ukraine didn't meet NATO's requirements:
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160627_1607-factsheet-enlargement-eng.pdf
"[i]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 ...[text shortened]... d a deal with the EU. Russia blaming NATO for their invasion would fail in any international court.
My stance has always been Ukraine was not getting to join nato now or in the foreseeable future, and in reality that is more to do with its proximity to, and relationship with, Russia than any domestic political or military shortcomings.
Putin knew this and his big bad nato membership excuse has always been more for his domestic audience.
@kevcvs57 saidOf course that makes practical sense and is probably why the Ukraine hasn't been admitted yet (indeed if the conflict in the Donbass was considered a Russian invasion as the Ukraine and West claim NATO would be committed to direct military confrontation against Russia if Ukraine was a member). Nonetheless, both Ukranian and NATO officials have both reaffirmed that NATO is open to Ukraine joining since 2014. I assume you would agree this was unnecessary provocation given the factors you have enumerated.
But then clearly 100% of nato members were not going to agree to Ukraine or Georgia joining nato and my guess would be that’s because if their proximity to and relationship with Russia unless someone can come up with another good reason for them not getting membership even though they have applied.
I think the commitment of mutual defence which is the whole point of nato wi ...[text shortened]... d by a nuclear power with a large conventional force is a very poor candidate in terms of admission.
I think any rational person can discount Viv's absurd claim that NATO "rejected" the Ukraine because it had any concerns over its democratic institutions or persecution of its Russian minority; clearly no NATO official or Western leaders has ever said anything remotely supporting this fanciful theory.