Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grim5 said:
I see the nato secretary general is floating some interesting ideas for getting Ukraine into nato.

None of which I think will happen though

The first thing is to do away with the mandatory action plan and give Ukraine a fast tracked invitation like Finland and Sweden. Biden says he likes this idea, Indont think everyone will though

The second idea from the general will be much more controversial - currently it would be impossible to admit Ukraine because they are at war, so the idea he had was to change article 5 in a way so that countries in conflict could still be admitted without bringing nato into the conflict. This would be unpopular for various reason but I guess one of the main ones is that it would weaken article 5 and therefore weaken the protections afforded to smaller members. For example you may need to change article 5 to say that nato can only go to war if all members agree, so even if one member is attacked that member can't force nato to go to war under article 5, all members could vote to do something or do nothing - this would make the bigger members in a future event not want to help smaller members unless it benefits them

But with such changes, in theory Ukraine could join and other NATO members would not be at war with Russia. What might happen though is that Ukraine agrees to a line in the sand with NATO and if Russia crosses the line then they could vote on article 5 to do something or not, NATO might also choose to station its own troops within the conflict free part of Ukraine on the nato side of this line, while ukraine and Russia fights on the other side. Again I really don't see members agreeing to this
Click to expand...

Im sure they can find a way
As pointed out before Germany was a member when the East was annexed so a similar type of split situation can probably be worked out.
 
I'm looking forward to when the big breakout does happen. I currently read one Russian propaganda news site for a laugh and it's always fascinating how they completely change the narrative each time a key event happens in the war. I'm looking forward to see how they will be able to spin it when the line collapses and they start losing masses of territory again.
 
potatolord said:
Nato didn't exist in 1945, and East and West Germany were defacto states when nato was formed. West Germany didn't join nato until the mid 50s, a few years after nato was founded.
Click to expand...

Sorry my bad can see how you misinterpreted what I wrote.
I mean that West Germany became a member WHILST East Germany was annexed. :)

My bad :)
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Sorry my bad can see how you misinterpreted what I wrote.
I mean that West Germany became a member WHILST East Germany was annexed. :)

My bad :)
Click to expand...

I think it is slightly different, in that West germany was a recognised state, with no active territorial disputes. Effectively, East Germany was a separate country at that point.

I believe there is a rule about nato accession, regarding active border disputes- but I may be wrong?
 
potatolord said:
I think it is slightly different, in that West germany was a recognised state, with no active territorial disputes. Effectively, East Germany was a separate country at that point.

I believe there is a rule about nato accession, regarding active border disputes- but I may be wrong?
Click to expand...

Thats my point. Recognise say "West Ukraine" as a different state, and say that "East Ukraine" is now an annexed country, so treat them EXACTLY like Germany was treated.

Yes you cannot ascend to Nato whilst in an actual border dispute that could lead to article 5 being called.

Hence split into the part of Ukraine that has no dispute, and allow them to ascend.
If there is the will, there is a way :)
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Thats my point. Recognise say "West Ukraine" as a different state, and say that "East Ukraine" is now an annexed country, so treat them EXACTLY like Germany was treated.

Yes you cannot ascend to Nato whilst in an actual border dispute that could lead to article 5 being called.

Hence split into the part of Ukraine that has no dispute, and allow them to ascend.
If there is the will, there is a way :)
Click to expand...

Hello Comrade - splitting Ukraine is EXACTLY what Putin wants.
 
Last edited:
Harlequin said:
Hello Comrade - splitting Ukraine is EXACTLY what Putin wants.
Click to expand...

Grow up.

I am not saying this to support Russia, I am saying it gets Ukraine into NATO and gives them a better position.

Grim5 said:
Unless you reword article 5 which is precisely what the secretary general suggested
Click to expand...

My concern with that is that its already quite loose (compared to what people think).
 
Grim5 said:
First Brics member to visit ukraine and while Russian missiles incoming



Click to expand...

I don't get the point personally.

Putin is never going to negotiate a peace that can be trusted. Hes never going to negotiate a peace thats going to be acceptable.
They need to kicked out, then allow Ukraine into the EU and NATO sharpish.

IMO let them join both without the lengthy processes, as say "emergency members" and with some specifications on meeting all the normal criteria laid down with timelines.
Joining NATO would probably be easier but still not as simple a walk in the park as it could be.
Whilst their boots on the ground will be in some cases able to integrate with NATO that wouldn't apply fully.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I don't get the point personally.

Putin is never going to negotiate a peace that can be trusted. Hes never going to negotiate a peace thats going to be acceptable.
They need to kicked out, then allow Ukraine into the EU and NATO sharpish.

IMO let them join both without the lengthy processes, as say "emergency members" and with some specifications on meeting all the normal criteria laid down with timelines.
Joining NATO would probably be easier but still not as simple a walk in the park as it could be.
Whilst their boots on the ground will be in some cases able to integrate with NATO that wouldn't apply fully.
Click to expand...

Ukraine are at pains to show willingness to talk ... which is the sensible thing to do. Pointing out the other side's utter bullcrap and total lack of trustworthiness is far better than stomping off and slamming the bedroom door like some moody teenager.

It also costs nothing to gives politicians like Rhamphosa the ability to go back and say "we did our best" when coming back empty handed. Better to give a graceful way out than refuse to talk at all.
 
Harlequin said:
Touch a nerve ;) - however splitting Ukraine would validate Putins position of eastern Ukraine - the Donetsk Oblast is his.
Click to expand...

Nope no nerve touched. :rolleyes:

Look for any posts on here of me supporting the Russian position.

I called out a childish post thats all. :D

peterwalkley said:
Ukraine are at pains to show willingness to talk ... which is the sensible thing to do. Pointing out the other side's utter bullcrap and total lack of trustworthiness is far better than stomping off and slamming the bedroom door like some moody teenager.

It also costs nothing to gives politicians like Rhamphosa the ability to go back and say "we did our best" when coming back empty handed. Better to give a graceful way out than refuse to talk at all.
Click to expand...

They are indeed, and I agree from that perspective.
But you know that SA are basically supporting Russia in this via how they vote in UN etc right?

We need rational peace talks from decent actors.
SA are basically about as neutral as Belarus right now.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Thats my point. Recognise say "West Ukraine" as a different state, and say that "East Ukraine" is now an annexed country, so treat them EXACTLY like Germany was treated.

Yes you cannot ascend to Nato whilst in an actual border dispute that could lead to article 5 being called.

Hence split into the part of Ukraine that has no dispute, and allow them to ascend.
If there is the will, there is a way :)
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand now.

I don't think that's a good idea.

I think recognising Ukraine as "lesser ukraine" just encourages Russia to seize more territory in the immediate future. That seems like the rational move for the Russian mindset.

Also, I guess (*I am a pessimist) that this would encourage a lot of members to accept the new status quo and support for Ukraine would be limited to retaining the new reality, which would again encourage Russia.

A "lesser ukraine" within nato would then be forced by other members to cease operations s against Russia, as if it actively attacked another state, it could not count on Nato support in that conflict.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Thats my point. Recognise say "West Ukraine" as a different state, and say that "East Ukraine" is now an annexed country, so treat them EXACTLY like Germany was treated.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense. Germany was a defeated military opponent, divided into four segments between four of the major powers on the allied side. Three of those segments were unified into West Germany, the fourth became East Germany. East and West Germany were just an annexed as each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom