Should Ukraine join NATO?

[Ferguson97]

Yes (sane). Russia should not dictate who can and cannot join NATO.

[Frodo]

I think official neutrality would be best for all concerned parties:

Ukrainian neutrality: a ‘golden bridge’ out of the current geopolitical trap
It may just be the ultimate agreement that neither the US or Russia can refuse.

[Dereich]

I think official neutrality would be best for all concerned parties:

Ukrainian neutrality: a ‘golden bridge’ out of the current geopolitical trap
It may just be the ultimate agreement that neither the US or Russia can refuse.

If you take Putin at his word from his speech two days ago, the existence of a Ukraine independent of Russia is a grave insult to the Russian people already. And Ukraine wasn't in pursuit of NATO membership in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea and started a civil war in the east. I can't think of any reason that they'd respect Ukrainian neutrality this time.

[Person Man]

I think official neutrality would be best for all concerned parties:

Ukrainian neutrality: a ‘golden bridge’ out of the current geopolitical trap
It may just be the ultimate agreement that neither the US or Russia can refuse.

I'd be OK with that if Belarus also did that.

[Sir Mohamed]

Theoretically yes, though they should have done so in 2008 already. At this particular moment in time, it's hardly possible since NATO statutes only allow countries with no territorial disputes to join. One "compromise" could be to formally give up Donbass and Crimea and then immediately join NATO (which would still give me headaches, because under no circumstances should any territory be formally surrendered to Putin).

[Big Abraham]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

[Ferguson97]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

Why should Russia get to decide if an independent country gets to join NATO?

[Big Abraham]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

Why should Russia get to decide if an independent country gets to join NATO?

Because NATO isn't the Red Cross. Russia is objectively correct to be concerned about a hostile military alliance covering nearly all of Russia's European borders. Russia was invaded twice in the last hundred years by nations to the west, Russia obviously wants a buffer region to protect ethnic Russians on the Russian hinterlands and against NATO's red-lines.

[Ferguson97]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

Why should Russia get to decide if an independent country gets to join NATO?

Because NATO isn't the Red Cross. Russia is objectively correct to be concerned about a hostile military alliance covering nearly all of Russia's European borders. Russia was invaded twice in the last hundred years by nations to the west, Russia obviously wants a buffer region to protect ethnic Russians on the Russian hinterlands and against NATO's red-lines.

That is not a sufficient argument. The idea that NATO admitting Ukraine would be an act of hostility is ridiculous. It’s entire purpose is to DEFEND other countries from invasion. Russia would have nothing to worry about as long as they did not invade Ukraine.

I really did not think I’d see you defend imperialism.

[Big Abraham]

That is not a sufficient argument. The idea that NATO admitting Ukraine would be an act of hostility is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous if you know your history. NATO was specifically set up as an alliance of Western European and North American countries with primarily the U.S. interest in control to oppose Russian expansion and Communism. Then, after Russia lost the Cold War, NATO captured much of the Warsaw Pact's former territory at the latter's expense, and now they are on Russian borders and want now to incorporate a country historically in the Russian heartland and home to millions of Russian-speaking people. This will obviously be perceived as an act of aggression against Russia, any reasonable country would interpret it as an act of aggression if their geopolitical adversary was doing that to them.

It’s entire purpose is to DEFEND other countries from invasion. Russia would have nothing to worry about as long as they did not invade Ukraine.

And The West would have nothing to worry about if they hadn't been meddling in the Ukraine and sending millions of dollars there to try and align Ukraine with The West instead of being aligned with Russia for the past twenty years.

I really did not think I’d see you defend imperialism.

I don't, which is why I don't side with NATO.

[Ferguson97]

That is not a sufficient argument. The idea that NATO admitting Ukraine would be an act of hostility is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous if you know your history. NATO was specifically set up as an alliance of Western European and North American countries with primarily the U.S. interest in control to oppose Russian expansion and Communism. Then, after Russia lost the Cold War, NATO captured much of the Warsaw Pact's former territory at the latter's expense, and now they are on Russian borders and want now to incorporate a country historically in the Russian heartland and home to millions of Russian-speaking people. This will obviously be perceived as an act of aggression against Russia, any reasonable country would interpret it as an act of aggression if their geopolitical adversary was doing that to them.

This makes sense if the US was invading Ukraine or forcing them into NATO against their will. But Ukraine wants to join NATO. “It would make Russia sad” is not an argument that an American should be making. And those are very similar arguments to how Russia is justifying their invasion.

It’s entire purpose is to DEFEND other countries from invasion. Russia would have nothing to worry about as long as they did not invade Ukraine.

And The West would have nothing to worry about if they hadn't been meddling in the Ukraine and sending millions of dollars there to try and align Ukraine with The West instead of being aligned with Russia for the past twenty years.

UKRAINE DOES NOT WANT TO BE ALIGNED WITH RUSSIA.

I really did not think I’d see you defend imperialism.

I don't, which is why I don't side with NATO.

Imperialism is when you defend countries from invasion. I am very intelligent.

Don’t be coy. You are defending RUSSIAN imperialism.

[Cassius]

The problem with NATO is that it should have been disbanded in 1991 (or earlier actually, given that the Cold War was functionally over by 1989 at the latest). Whilst the text of the founding treaty is open ended and open to interpretation (as international treaties of that type tend to be), the obvious unspoken (well, often spoken) purpose of NATO was to contain an ideologically expansionist Soviet Union within its post-war sphere of influence. The need for that ceased thirty years ago.

Since that point NATO has effectively been repurposed as part of the package of liberal reform and democracy promotion - joining NATO is what you do in order to become a part of the respectable liberal world (even if half of its members barely qualify as liberal democracies, something that Ukraine would be no exception to). Thus NATO has shifted from being an instrument of ideological containment to one of ideological expansion, so it’s no wonder that a country with a very different understanding of the world, like Russia, views NATO expansion right up to the borders of its heartlands as a threat.

Of course, expansion benefits countries like Poland and the Baltic states that have long wished to wrench themselves out of the Russosphere (Ukraine is a little different given the presence of a minority that prefers deeper relations with Russia). The question is, does the extension of open ended security commitments further benefit the original NATO members? In the post-Soviet era (there’s a debate to be had about the seriousness of the threat for much of the Cold War, but that’s another topic) there is no serious Russian threat to the UK, no serious Russian threat to Germany, no serious Russian threat even to the United States, and on and on. The only reason for the impasse we’re currently stuck in with Russia is that we’ve decided to take an interest in places we have no business taking an interest in.

Obviously, a plurality of Ukrainians have a strong aspiration to join ‘the West’ (whether they’re willing to make the adjustments that becoming a member of ‘the West’ would entail is another matter). They’re entitled to that aspiration, but on the other hand they’re not entitled to Western support for it, given that comes at the cost of souring relations with Russia, which, ultimately, is a far more important economic partner for the West and could be, would but that the politicians would let it, be a much more important cultural and security partner than Ukraine ever could be.

Of course, to a degree the latter is unfortunately fantasy politics. As I said at the beginning, NATO should’ve been disbanded once the threat it was originally formed to contain ceased to exist, however, we are where we are now. That’s no reason to keep digging and dangling the prospect of some kind of membership over Ukraine, which p****s off Russia but on the other hand doesn’t improve Ukraine’s security and actually makes the country less safe. Western countries should stop acting as if Ukraine is some ersatz member of the alliance that is entitled to protection (it’s not).

[Ferguson97]

The problem with NATO is that it should have been disbanded in 1991 (or earlier actually, given that the Cold War was functionally over by 1989 at the latest). Whilst the text of the founding treaty is open ended and open to interpretation (as international treaties of that type tend to be), the obvious unspoken (well, often spoken) purpose of NATO was to contain an ideologically expansionist Soviet Union within its post-war sphere of influence. The need for that ceased thirty years ago.

Well evidently this is not the case considering Russia’s recent actions

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The problem with NATO is that it should have been disbanded in 1991 (or earlier actually, given that the Cold War was functionally over by 1989 at the latest). Whilst the text of the founding treaty is open ended and open to interpretation (as international treaties of that type tend to be), the obvious unspoken (well, often spoken) purpose of NATO was to contain an ideologically expansionist Soviet Union within its post-war sphere of influence. The need for that ceased thirty years ago.

Since that point NATO has effectively been repurposed as part of the package of liberal reform and democracy promotion - joining NATO is what you do in order to become a part of the respectable liberal world (even if half of its members barely qualify as liberal democracies, something that Ukraine would be no exception to). Thus NATO has shifted from being an instrument of ideological containment to one of ideological expansion, so it’s no wonder that a country with a very different understanding of the world, like Russia, views NATO expansion right up to the borders of its heartlands as a threat.

Of course, expansion benefits countries like Poland and the Baltic states that have long wished to wrench themselves out of the Russosphere (Ukraine is a little different given the presence of a minority that prefers deeper relations with Russia). The question is, does the extension of open ended security commitments further benefit the original NATO members? In the post-Soviet era (there’s a debate to be had about the seriousness of the threat for much of the Cold War, but that’s another topic) there is no serious Russian threat to the UK, no serious Russian threat to Germany, no serious Russian threat even to the United States, and on and on. The only reason for the impasse we’re currently stuck in with Russia is that we’ve decided to take an interest in places we have no business taking an interest in.

Obviously, a plurality of Ukrainians have a strong aspiration to join ‘the West’ (whether they’re willing to make the adjustments that becoming a member of ‘the West’ would entail is another matter). They’re entitled to that aspiration, but on the other hand they’re not entitled to Western support for it, given that comes at the cost of souring relations with Russia, which, ultimately, is a far more important economic partner for the West and could be, would but that the politicians would let it, be a much more important cultural and security partner than Ukraine ever could be.

Of course, to a degree the latter is unfortunately fantasy politics. As I said at the beginning, NATO should’ve been disbanded once the threat it was originally formed to contain ceased to exist, however, we are where we are now. That’s no reason to keep digging and dangling the prospect of some kind of membership over Ukraine, which p****s off Russia but on the other hand doesn’t improve Ukraine’s security and actually makes the country less safe. Western countries should stop acting as if Ukraine is some ersatz member of the alliance that is entitled to protection (it’s not).

I wouldn't necessarily say even a plurality of Ukrainians have a strong aspiration to join "the West". The strong majority of Ukrainians on English-language social media, sure, but I strongly suspect that for most people in Ukraine, matters of corruption, the abject poverty of Ukraine (which probably fared the worst of any post-Soviet republic since the fall of the Soviet Union), and the ongoing instability are the biggest concerns, and they don't have a strong pro-Western bias on these sorts of questions. But, 60 year old pensioner Oleksiy in Poltava isn't exactly going to have any interest in engaging with Western media outlets or talking on English social media. Why would those have any relevance to his world?

If the Ukrainians we saw on social media were really representative of their political mainstream, Yanukyvch would never have been able to become democratically elected president of Ukraine.

[Aurelius]

Unfortunately for Ukraine that is objectively not in the interest of NATO countries. There's a good chance it would lead to American and Russian troops on the ground shooting at each other, which is a surefire way to start WW3. The better approach is to arm and aid Ukraine as much as we can, not to make overreaching commitments that are sure to backfire.

The time to do this would have been from 1995-2005 when Russia was historically weak.

Finland and Sweden are a different matter as Putin doesn't want to bring them into Russia and thus there's no real risk of dragging the West into a direct war with Russia.

[Storr]

I think official neutrality would be best for all concerned parties:

Ukrainian neutrality: a ‘golden bridge’ out of the current geopolitical trap
It may just be the ultimate agreement that neither the US or Russia can refuse.

I'd be OK with that if Belarus also did that.

Belarus is already a member of CSTO, which is Russia's version of NATO.

[Alcibiades]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

Why does Russia get to have a sphere of influence, but Ukraine does not? Put simply, you are using the language and justifications of imperialism here; no country should have the right to dominate its neighbours and block them from exercising their right to self-determination.

I’ve seen you and others defend the “sphere of influence” talking point by arguing that the US would never tolerate Mexico being part of a hostile military alliance, so why should Russia Ukraine? This is a uniquely braindead comparison. In recent years, the US has not annexed regions of Mexico (and proceeded to, for instance, torture and murder locals for the crime of flying a Mexican flag), and is not potentially about to invade the rest. Therefore, why would Mexico ever need to join a military alliance to defend itself against the USA?

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

Why should Russia get to decide if an independent country gets to join NATO?

Because NATO isn't the Red Cross. Russia is objectively correct to be concerned about a hostile military alliance covering nearly all of Russia's European borders. Russia was invaded twice in the last hundred years by nations to the west, Russia obviously wants a buffer region to protect ethnic Russians on the Russian hinterlands and against NATO's red-lines.

Why should Russia fear NATO? It’s pretty clear why Eastern Europe should fear Russia; they could get invaded by them without the deterrent that NATO membership provides. But what similar threat does NATO pose to Russia? Let’s dispel with the fiction that the recent Russian actions are following rational geopolitical self-interest; they are instead based entirely on the whims of one increasingly unhinged man. Putin knows he hasn’t got long left, and wants to secure a historical ‘legacy’ for himself, no matter how much blood is shed to achieve that. You heard him — he quite simply does not believe Ukraine has the right to exist. How can NATO possibly negotiate with or appease Russia over that? There’s only one aggressor in the region, and it sure as hell ain’t NATO or Ukraine.

That is not a sufficient argument. The idea that NATO admitting Ukraine would be an act of hostility is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous if you know your history. NATO was specifically set up as an alliance of Western European and North American countries with primarily the U.S. interest in control to oppose Russian expansion and Communism. Then, after Russia lost the Cold War, NATO captured much of the Warsaw Pact's former territory at the latter's expense, and now they are on Russian borders and want now to incorporate a country historically in the Russian heartland and home to millions of Russian-speaking people. This will obviously be perceived as an act of aggression against Russia, any reasonable country would interpret it as an act of aggression if their geopolitical adversary was doing that to them.

“Captured”?? Come on, you’re just taking the piss now. Gee, I wonder why, for instance, the Baltics and Poland might have wanted to join NATO completely of their own volition. It’s not like they’ve had to endure centuries of brutal Russian subjugation or anything…

Once again, only in the paranoid, disturbed minds of Putin and his fascistic defenders would any of this be seen an act of aggression. None of what Russia is doing is self-defence; it is a nakedly imperialistic, expansionist project. If many of these ex-Warsaw Pact countries had not joined NATO, it is very likely that Putin would now be threatening their sovereignty.

To bring up the fact that Ukraine contains millions of Russian-speakers seems odd when most of these Russian speakers, following the events of the past decade, now favour closer ties with the West. And finally, yeah, you might want to reconsider this alleged NATO encirclement of Russia…

It’s entire purpose is to DEFEND other countries from invasion. Russia would have nothing to worry about as long as they did not invade Ukraine.

And The West would have nothing to worry about if they hadn't been meddling in the Ukraine and sending millions of dollars there to try and align Ukraine with The West instead of being aligned with Russia for the past twenty years.

Lol. I know it fries your brain that the people of a nation would positively want to align with the West because it undercuts your entire worldview, but it really shouldn’t take a genius to figure just why the Ukrainian people might possibly prefer NATO to Russia unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past God knows how many years.

I really did not think I’d see you defend imperialism.

I don't, which is why I don't side with NATO.

https://mobile.twitter.com/4kshatra/status/1494050564811931652?s=21

[TDAS04]

Yes, along with Georgia.

[AGA]

The problem is that Ukraine's territorial disputes would make its NATO admission much more complicated. The same goes for Georgia and Moldova.

[Pericles]

Russia's neighbours should be allowed to be as 'hostile' as they want to Russia-except for actually going to war with it which of course would never happen. Russia is not a better country than Ukraine and does not have any valid reason to decide Ukrainian foreign policy.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Until Wednesday last week: No.

Today: Yes.

[Del Tachi]

Admitting Ukraine to NATO will break it.  You cannot admit Ukraine in its current state without either destroying the territorial integrity of the country*, eviscerating NATO's Article V commitment, or starting direct West-Russia conflict. 

And that is to say nothing of how uninterested countries like Belgium and Portugal are to expand their defense commitments to a country directly in Putin's crosshairs. 

*it is more important for the U.S./NATO to maintain that Putin's invasions of Ukraine are illegal than it is to admit non-occupied regions of "rump Ukraine" to the organization

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence. Can’t believe the Roosevelt Corollary is the “anti-imperialist” position.

[Big Abraham]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

[Del Tachi]

Absolutely not, Russia is a nuclear power and they have a sphere of influence, Russia would not accept this deal nor should they.

The cool and leftist thing to do is support nuclear powers having spheres of influence.

That's the world we live in. I'm not a liberal internationalist, I'm a realist. The fact of the matter is that nuclear powers do have spheres of influence (the USA's apparently extends to the whole world) and they would not tolerate such a threat to their national security and a NATO-aligned Ukraine leaves Russia with no buffer zone in Eastern Europe.

This would be a more coherent (although still lacking) argument if Russia hadn't already recognized the territorial integrity and self-determination of Ukraine on several occasions (i.e., the 1994 Budapest memo, Minsk accords, etc.)  Putin reneging on these acknowledgments is an assault on an already-established international order.

The U.S. "sphere of influence" appropriately includes the Americas.  I have no doubt that the U.S. would be acting very similarly to Putin in Ukraine if China itself was trying to establish a military foothold in Peru, for example.  I personally would support no shortage of U.S. blood and treasure being expended to prevent a permanent Chinese presence anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.