Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Barrister]

Why suddenly this talk of not getting into NATO?

Seriously?

Because NATO has been talking about it since 2008 and little to nothing has happened.  Even 2+ years into the full invasion, nothing has happened.

The prospects of Ukrainian NATO membership do not seem great at this time.

[Admiral Yi]

Seriously?

Because NATO has been talking about it since 2008 and little to nothing has happened.  Even 2+ years into the full invasion, nothing has happened.

The prospects of Ukrainian NATO membership do not seem great at this time.

Seriously.

Everyone here knows a country in engaged in war can not become a member.  Given that, what is supposed to be happening?

[Josquius]

Yeah, Ukraine have pretty clearly made the case for nato membership and they seem basically an automatic member as soon as the war is over.
The problem of course lies in the war going on pause.

[crazy canuck]

Zelenskyy was visiting NATO HQ and presenting his peace plan, so naturally the question came up.

Plus Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, possibly Germany and their usual shenanigans.

It's not just that. The commitment to enter NATO was a central part of the peace plan.

In answer to Yi's question, that is why it is being actively discussed now.

[grumbler]

I guarantee you Ukrainians do no give a fuck about being seen by westerners as the good guys, after 10 years of inaction and broken promises from the west. This is an existential fight. If NATO is a no, how exactly are they supposed to safeguard their state from a genocidal neighbor like muscovy?

I guarantee you that you are not the expert on Ukrainian public opinion you believe yourself to be.

The Ukrainians are bending over backwards to ensure that the Western world see them as the good guys.  It would be moronic of them to abandon that stance, as you claim they have done.

[grumbler]

It's not just that. The commitment to enter NATO was a central part of the peace plan.

In answer to Yi's question, that is why it is being actively discussed now.

Zelenskyy's peace plan is not an option for now and won't be for some time in the future (though there are elements that could and should be implemented immediately).  There's no point in talking about NATO membership for Ukraine while the war goes on - even if (as was the case 2014-2022) it returns to a frozen conflict.

Ukraine did not apply for NATO membership in 2008, as some here seem to believe.  In fact, in 2010, Ukraine explicitly rejected the idea of NATO membership.  Only since 2014 has Ukraine actively sought NATO membership and by then the frozen war had started.

[Sheilbh]

Fair enough.
Though I do wonder how much of this is the face they put on for consumption of people outside the government inner circle and how much the Russian leadership has actually swallowed this themselves. As it is pretty clearly nonsense from the slightest understanding of the setup

I mean that take on the Russian interpretation of the situation is from Russia specialists - I think they genuinely believe it. Just like I think the CCP leaders genuinely believe their rhetoric.

It's kind of off-topic but I've recently read some of the flood of books that came out about the collapse of the USSR and I've never had my understanding of an event so transformed. Both because of how incredibly contingent it was, but also because of how contingent specifically on Gorbachev and his idealism.

It's something I've been thinking about in everything about China around the idea of there not just being CCP true believers, but idealists. I don't think it's quite the same in Russia where I think the divide is technocrat v security bod - but I think, at least as long as Putin's around, this is genuinely what they think. It's not for popular consumption it explains their behaviour.

The nuclear factor is a key issue I had in mind when I referenced the difficulty restarting the war again.
I'd think it would require waiting until Putin is gone and hoping Russia becomes very unstable...but even then someone would have that nuclear button and if they're a weak wannabe nationalist strongman of the sort that is the only allowable opposition in Russia they're a lot more likely to press it than a reasonably stable dictator.
Its tricky.

I think there's a range of nuclear. Everything that's being talked about is "tactical" nuclear weapons. They are many multiples more destructive than the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. That in it's own way is alarming.

And a further complication with Russia is that we know missiles have failed, they've not done a nuclear test in decades so we're not really sure - and they're not really sure - how this force would work. It feels like (from a Russian perspective) the only thing worse than launching a tactical nuke would be launching a tactical nuke and it fails to go off.

Sure.
But it has this western support and it has great fundamentals and room to grow. Its also a considerably smaller economy than Russia.

What are the great fundamentals? It's an agricultural economy whose trade with the rest of the world has been destroyed, its infrastructure heavily bombed and its manpower decimated. It's got room to grow because it's been devastated and several of its major cities have been leveled and/or occupied.

I do think there is space to criticise the US.
Europe has scraped beyond the bottom of the barrel in terms of giving Ukraine their excess stocks. We've simply nothing left to give.
The US meanwhile has vast stockpiles of spare equipment. Literal fields full of armoured vehicles.

Yes if someone wants to make this US vs. Europe they can knee jerk and go "Thats because Europe failed to invest properly in the past!" but it is the reality we've got.

Europe is certainly failing too. Its ramping up arms production but not at anything like the speed necessary. But Europe is failing to support Ukraine in the longer term- the US has at its finger tips the immediate support Ukraine needs.

Why should the US care? From a US perspective they've got the Middle East (major Europe-China trade route and European energy supplier), a conflict in Europe and a rising, more aggressive China in the Pacific. Why should this be their priority?

I'm not saying US policy is unblemished - I think Zoups' criticism is fair - but you've got multiple EU member states saying they have existential concerns about their security with Russia, and there is a country everyone agrees should be in the EU being invaded - and apparently it's America's fault they're not sending enough aid. For Europe Ukraine really matters, it is in Europe. I think there is a pretty strong argument from an American pov that it (and the Middle East) is a distraction from China which is the real challenge. (Although, like Biden, I think America can do it all but it does need some serious partners...)[/quote]

Zelenskyy was visiting NATO HQ and presenting his peace plan, so naturally the question came up.

    Plus Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, possibly Germany and their usual shenanigans.

And Greece - by some distance the most pro-Russian government in Europe.

But also I think Zelensky's victory plan includes an element of security guarantees precisely because Ukraine won't be in NATO until they have settled borders. Like an active war or a frozen conflict is, I think, impassable in terms of joining NATO.

Chirac and Schroeder got criticised for it but they were right to say absolutely no to any idea of Georgia or Ukraine in NATO in 2008. I think it would simply have shown NATO up as a paper tiger because the reality is we weren't really willing to go to war for Donbas or Abkhazia.

In expanding eastwards EU membership has always followed NATO membership - which makes sense to fix the security before expanding the economic wing. But I think that is a challenge for Ukraine's ambitions unless Western powers provide the support sufficient to meet their own objectives. If the goal of Western states is Ukraine in NATO and the EU, then that's not what their policies are set to deliver whic is frozen war.

[crazy canuck]

It's not just that. The commitment to enter NATO was a central part of the peace plan.

In answer to Yi's question, that is why it is being actively discussed now.

Zelenskyy's peace plan is not an option for now and won't be for some time in the future (though there are elements that could and should be implemented immediately).  There's no point in talking about NATO membership for Ukraine while the war goes on - even if (as was the case 2014-2022) it returns to a frozen conflict.

Ukraine did not apply for NATO membership in 2008, as some here seem to believe.  In fact, in 2010, Ukraine explicitly rejected the idea of NATO membership.  Only since 2014 has Ukraine actively sought NATO membership and by then the frozen war had started.

I agree.  I was surprised the Ukrainians thought this was a wise strategy.

[Tonitrus]

And a further complication with Russia is that we know missiles have failed, they've not done a nuclear test in decades so we're not really sure - and they're not really sure - how this force would work. It feels like (from a Russian perspective) the only thing worse than launching a tactical nuke would be launching a tactical nuke and it fails to go off.

And that brings out another good point.  Even if Ukraine could redevelop nuclear weapons...it does little to almost no good to develop just one.  I would think you'd need the capacity to produce several/dozens in very short order.

[Zoupa]

Why should the US care? From a US perspective they've got the Middle East (major Europe-China trade route and European energy supplier), a conflict in Europe and a rising, more aggressive China in the Pacific. Why should this be their priority?

I'm not saying US policy is unblemished - I think Zoups' criticism is fair - but you've got multiple EU member states saying they have existential concerns about their security with Russia, and there is a country everyone agrees should be in the EU being invaded - and apparently it's America's fault they're not sending enough aid. For Europe Ukraine really matters, it is in Europe. I think there is a pretty strong argument from an American pov that it (and the Middle East) is a distraction from China which is the real challenge. (Although, like Biden, I think America can do it all but it does need some serious partners...)

You would think after Crimea, after 2016, after the increasing and ongoing disinformation and especially after January 6th, that the US should care.

Biden was in a very strong position to cripple russia after Feb2022. A paltry 6 HIMARS launchers wrecked havoc in russia's supply lines that summer, killing their momentum. They gave Ukraine 1980's tech and russians couldn't (still can't) deal with it.

Time and again, every new system or capability comes after months of flip-flopping. ATACMS took 2 YEARS. The US finally gave Ukraine missiles that were expired and were to be destroyed. A few missiles later and there are no more active Ka-52s on the front lines.

russia's "red lines" have been crossed a zillion times. They only seem to work in scaring Washington.

[The Brain]

Yeah, Ukraine have pretty clearly made the case for nato membership and they seem basically an automatic member as soon as the war is over.
The problem of course lies in the war going on pause.

Sweden had a bumpy road to NATO membership, and Sweden was a much simpler case than Ukraine. Sweden finally got in but the entrance fee included many things, among them sending guys to Turkish torture prison. We won't know how Ukraine will have to pay to get in until the process is much further along, and if they will be able to pay or not. For instance, it's not obvious to me that Turkey will consider Ukrainian membership to be in their interest.