They'd be a defacto member if that were the case, as thats effectively article 5 without being technically Nato member.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
You must be trolling, Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO any time soon if ever... and we had/have minimal numbers of troops in eastern Europe (before this all kicked off IIRC it was barely over 20K total spread over 8 countries)... nothing even remotely close to a threat to Russia.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,618
Yes, exactly.
But it should also assuade Russia's 'fears' about NATO buildup on their border. Ukraine can't have NATO's offensive weapons, but they have the full force of NATOs defensive capabilities.
Ukraine had no interest in becoming a part of NATO, and it was only with the Russian invasion of 2014 they even made any movement towards NATO. There are slightly sinister reasons behind that - Ukraine's defence industry wasn't exactly the cleanest - being the source of a lot of black market hardware and where Iran sourced missile plans, etc. etc. but they've repeatedly under both pro-Russian and pro-Western leaders stated they wanted only cooperation not integration with foreign military alliances. Maybe one day in the very far future they might have moved more towards NATO who knows.
I agree, so we could've simply agreed to their terms - which weren't at all unreasonable, yet we very deliberately chose not to.
Ukraine crisis: Putin says military drills 'purely defensive' and 'not a threat' as Western leaders warn invasion imminent
The West has said Russia is likely to invade Ukraine soon but Vladimir Putin denies this, saying he is just carrying out planned military exercises.
Agree to what? the level of NATO missions in eastern Europe were perfectly reasonable, not something which Russia should be taking exception to unless they have ulterior motives. There is nothing reasonable about demanding a neighbouring country doesn't take steps so as to secure their own protection.
The notion that NATO missions in the region presented a threat to Russia is laughable - and NATO doesn't need bases on the borders of Russia to attack it - thanks to the US Reach capabilities, NATO heavy airlift wing and UK logistics capabilities we can deploy a huge force half-way around the globe in a matter of hours.
EDIT: Besides it has become abundantly clear since that these were just pretexts and Putin was going to go ahead with this anyhow.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
So do as we say or we’ll invade is reasonable?
Ukraine crisis: Putin says military drills 'purely defensive' and 'not a threat' as Western leaders warn invasion imminent
The West has said Russia is likely to invade Ukraine soon but Vladimir Putin denies this, saying he is just carrying out planned military exercises.news.sky.com
I remember Russia stating it was all an exercise. Everyone else said nah, it’s an invasion force.
Was John F Kennedy also wrong for pulling missiles out of Turkey to avoid a conflict with the USSR? Was Khrushchev wrong for pulling missiles out of Cuba to avoid a conflict with the US? No one should take actions to avoid a conflict, even if those actions are fairly reasonable given the other sides apparent strong feelings?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
So you finally agree countries should stop aggressively deploying their weapons in places they're not welcome and take them home.
Last edited:
That's not an equivalent argument to your point that we should have agreed to Russian terms to avoid conflict. Your new argument above is the equivalent to the west agreeing to no longer supply and train Ukraine in exchange for Russia withdrawing from all occupied Ukrainian territory. I think most people agree that may be a suitable end point but Russia would never agree to give up that territory now.
The original argument about agreeing to Russian terms to avoid conflict starting in Ukraine, is the equivalent to asking "Was John F Kennedy right to stand up to Russia when Khrushchev stationed troops and prepared a nuclear missile base in Cuba?". I think history agrees that, for the US at least, that was the right course of action.
I also think history agrees that standing up to Hitler was the right course of action and appeasement just led to more conflict.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,988
- Location
- South Wirral
Invading Ukraine triggered Finland and Sweden to join NATO. I rather think that "strategy" of Putin's backfired.
Looks like an interesting morning…
Those landing craft the Ukrainians attacked have sunk. One had an APC and the other an anti air system aboard.
Russia also sent another armoured column and many more young squires toward Avdiivka. Any guesses to what happened this time…
Those landing craft the Ukrainians attacked have sunk. One had an APC and the other an anti air system aboard.
Russia also sent another armoured column and many more young squires toward Avdiivka. Any guesses to what happened this time…
Last edited:
two to one, I assume
two to one, I assume
Maybe for the Russian on Russian phase.
As opposed to peacefully deploying? I agree, all overseas bases should be removed.
Accelerated the join, such decisions are not made overnight.
Ukraine was merely a useful event to sway public opinion and finally commit to joining openly.
Last edited:
- Status