NATO Must Welcome Ukraine

[snakestretcher]

You do get it, but that's not your shtick. Either you're a sideline fan of Russia, or you are an anti-West individual.

Many of your posts are constructed to diminish the US, the West, NATO, or Ukraine. Far too often to just be an anomaly.

Your opinion is noted. Ukraine joining NATO, now, would be giving Putin the green light to start a larger European war-with no guarantees that he would stop there. You want that? NATO is treaty-bound to defend any member state attacked by Russia; we've had two European wars which eventually enveloped the whole world. We don't want another-and with Putin clearly stating that no option is off the table-including nuclear-caution is even more necessary to avoid provoking someone clearly as unstable as Putin. This is so simple that even a conservative should be able to understand.

 

[Chagos]

Tough call. Russia/US. USSR/US.

First option (bolded by me) looks even worse today.

Not having ever been a friend of the Soviets I'll grant them that at least they were predictable. Nowadays that country is clearly run by an emotional basket case.

 

[Chagos]

Your opinion is noted. Ukraine joining NATO, now, would be giving Putin the green light to start a larger European war-with no guarantees that he would stop there. You want that? NATO is treaty-bound to defend any member state attacked by Russia; we've had two European wars which eventually enveloped the whole world. We don't want another.

That's all crystal ball gazing, seeing how one might as well assume (with equal reason or lack thereof) that Vlad will war on NATO states anyway.

That said, Ukraine has no eligibility for being accepted as member. Not, that is, as long as it remains in conflict over Donbas, Crimea and whatever else Russia may succeed in taking from its South. That the conflict(s) was (were) initiated by Russia is, criminal as that is seen, irrelevant to NATO's rules of "entry".

Catch-22.

 

[snakestretcher]

That's all crystal ball gazing, seeing how one might as well assume (with equal reason or lack thereof) that Vlad will war on NATO states anyway.

That said, Ukraine has no eligibility for being accepted as member. Not, that is, as long as it remains in conflict over Donbas, Crimea and whatever else Russia may succeed in taking from its South. That the conflict(s) was (were) initiated by Russia is, criminal as that is seen, irrelevant to NATO's rules of "entry".

Catch-22.

I trust Vlad about as much as I trust the US to not invade, bomb, destabilise, overturn legitimate democracies in countries which don't play by Washington's rules. The West are no angels either, but we're great at finger-pointing and ignoring accusations of hypocrisy...

Here's a list of all the countries the US has bombed since World War II

The London Economic - From China to Iran, here's the full list of the countries the US has bombed since the Second World War - News

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Countries bombed by the United States, 1946—2020

 

[Rogue Valley]

That's all crystal ball gazing, seeing how one might as well assume (with equal reason or lack thereof) that Vlad will war on NATO states anyway.

That said, Ukraine has no eligibility for being accepted as member. Not, that is, as long as it remains in conflict over Donbas, Crimea and whatever else Russia may succeed in taking from its South. That the conflict(s) was (were) initiated by Russia is, criminal as that is seen, irrelevant to NATO's rules of "entry".

Catch-22.

True enough. A NATO applicant cannot have border issues with another state. This is why Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova are stranded... just as Moscow intended.

North Macedonia also had to wait until its country-name issue with Greece was cleared up to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[Chagos]

I trust Vlad about as much as I trust the US to not invade, bomb, destabilise, overturn legitimate democracies in countries which don't play by Washington's rules. The West are no angels either, but we're great at finger-pointing and ignoring accusations of hypocrisy...

Here's a list of all the countries the US has bombed since World War II

The London Economic - From China to Iran, here's the full list of the countries the US has bombed since the Second World War - News

www.thelondoneconomic.com

Countries bombed by the United States, 1946—2020

Well, I'm not ignoring anything mentioned here (by you) but this current issue as well as the thread is about Ukraine and Russia today.

Tu quoque is not a useful feature for discussing these issues.

It isn't a useful feature in any other context either.

 

[Chagos]

True enough. A NATO applicant cannot have border issues with another state. This is why Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova are stranded... just as Moscow intended.

North Macedonia also had to wait until its country-name issue with Greece was cleared up to everyone's satisfaction.

It's actual a clever move by Moscow but I'm not interested in either praising or criticizing it, seeing as it is what it is.

Of far greater concern to me is being dragged into a war not of our making.

While it may well happen that Vlad attacks a NATO country, THAT would be, as far as I'm concerned, a valid reason for waging war against that aggression and its perpetrator.

But it would be "our" decision as it should be.

Not to be misunderstood here, I fully sympathize with Ukraine and detest the Kremlin completely. But I don't want Kyiv to call all the shots on what NATO must do.

On the one hand I completely understand the desperation that leads to Kyiv constantly demanding "more" and would probably act in similar manner, were I in government there. But in my world it's still the dog that wags its tail and not the other way round.

Beyond all the understandable emotion over this issue, fact is that NATO has not assistance pact with Ukraine the way Poland had with UK and France by end of the thirties. That doesn't imply doing nothing to help but assistance should be moderated by these considerations.

 

[Juin]

It's actual a clever move by Moscow but I'm not interested in either praising or criticizing it, seeing as it is what it is.

Of far greater concern to me is being dragged into a war not of our making.

While it may well happen that Vlad attacks a NATO country, THAT would be, as far as I'm concerned, a valid reason for waging war against that aggression and its perpetrator.

But it would be "our" decision as it should be.

Not to be misunderstood here, I fully sympathize with Ukraine and detest the Kremlin completely. But I don't want Kyiv to call all the shots on what NATO must do.

On the one hand I completely understand the desperation that leads to Kyiv constantly demanding "more" and would probably act in similar manner, were I in government there. But in my world it's still the dog that wags its tail and not the other way round.

Beyond all the understandable emotion over this issue, fact is that NATO has not assistance pact with Ukraine the way Poland had with UK and France by end of the thirties. That doesn't imply doing nothing to help but assistance should be moderated by these considerations.

Excellent analysis.

 

[snakestretcher]

Well, I'm not ignoring anything mentioned here (by you) but this current issue as well as the thread is about Ukraine and Russia today.

Tu quoque is not a useful feature for discussing these issues.

It isn't a useful feature in any other context either.

I'm only pointing out, in the interests of balance, that nobody is immune from criticism or accusations of hypocrisy. We can express outrage as loudly as we like when it's the other guy doing the warmongering, but when one points a finger, there are three pointing right back.

 

[Chagos]

Excellent analysis.

Caution is the mother of the porcelain cupboard.

Or, translated to American, damage in China Shops is easily avoided by refusing entry to any bulls.

 

[Chagos]

I'm only pointing out, in the interests of balance, that nobody is immune from criticism or accusations of hypocrisy. We can express outrage as loudly as we like, but when one points a finger, there are three pointing right back.

Laudable position

In that spirit I totally condemned the Iraq adventure in its time as much as I'm condemning the Kremlin aggression today.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I'm only pointing out, in the interests of balance, that nobody is immune from criticism or accusations of hypocrisy. We can express outrage as loudly as we like when it's the other guy doing the warmongering, but when one points a finger, there are three pointing right back.

Laudable position

In that spirit I totally condemned the Iraq adventure in its time as much as I'm condemning the Kremlin aggression today.

Except he never points out the crimes committed by Britain to demonstrate equivalence.

Always and only actions by the US.

 

[Chagos]

Except he never points out the crimes committed by Britain to demonstrate equivalence.

Always and only actions by the US.

I'll put it down to oversight but I'm also, as already signaled, not in the tu quoque game.

Any one wanting to know what I thought and still think of Tony BLiar's role in the whole disgusting shindig can do a search.

 

[bluesmoke]

In its entire history, there have been only 11 whole yrs when the US has not been involved in armed conflict somewhere in the world, incl the Indian Wars in America itself. The US twisted Allies arms in the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq by Bush2, the first pre-emptive invasion by the US in its entire history, setting a new and rather unsettling precedent.

Neither tu quoque fallacy nor equivalency matters in the Russo-Ukraine debacle. Hypocrisy and violating the sovereign rights of others is shared by all and though more on one side or the other matters not when so easily violated, as exemplified by the US, or so greatly violated, as exemplified by Russia, takes moral standing away in future NATO and UN decisions. The UN stated the US invasion of Iraq was illegal, but never went through formal review (Uniting for Peace resolution 377), which review the US blocked, nor did the UN take any formal action. So, who is the UN to take any action against Russia? Take action against Russia because Russia's aggression was so egregious (equivalency) regardless of the hypocrisy (tu quoque) when it's all politics anyway?

UN action taken against countries committing human rights violations during aggression against neighboring countries have been nearly all against countries in Africa that are not powerful and have little economic importance. The US is the most powerful nation on earth, hence getting away with Iraq and many other situations, while Russia has oil, gas and grain. Ukraine is getting support regardless of the UN or being a member of NATO. Nothing the UN does to do with human rights will affect Putin or Russia, IMO.

 

[snakestretcher]

Except he never points out the crimes committed by Britain to demonstrate equivalence.

Always and only actions by the US.

You won't find me an apologist for Britain's past. If you want me to list Britain's misdeeds in our colonial past, you have only to ask-but getting all defensive about Holy America doesn't do you any favours.