all 12 comments

[–]BerryBoy1969It's not red vs. blue - It's capital vs. you 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The wording that Biden alluded to was released later, saying vaguely, “We will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met.”

The document added: “We reaffirm the commitment we made at the 2008 Summit in Bucharest that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, and today we recognise that Ukraine’s path to full Euro-Atlantic integration has moved beyond the need for the Membership Action Plan.”

It also said: “Allies will continue to support and review Ukraine’s progress on interoperability as well as additional democratic and security sector reforms that are required.”

I can't imagine Zel's ignorant enough not to know he, and his countrymen, are just pawns on the US geostrategic chess board, but if he is, he might just be getting a clue...

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

when Allies agree and conditions are met

Isn't one of the currently official conditions "being not at war" or some such?

[–]BerryBoy1969It's not red vs. blue - It's capital vs. you 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I think so, but I'm not well versed on the details. From what I understand, under Article 5 of the mutual assistance clause in NATO's Washington Treaty, NATO is bound by treaty to assist their allies, but since Ukraine isn't a NATO member, and is presently involved in a military conflict with Russia, the risk of drawing NATO into a direct conflict with Russia is too great to admit Ukraine into the alliance.

[–]risistill me 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What was the problem when the Ukraine first applied?

[–]BerryBoy1969It's not red vs. blue - It's capital vs. you 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Being the cynic I am, I believe the problem was Ukraine couldn't be used as a future proxy battlefield for the US war against Russia if it was under the NATO protectorate.

This way, the suzerain can operate behind a thin veil of plausible deniability, while pretending to help their vassal state defend itself in the fight they picked for them.

I could be wrong too. It wouldn't be the hundredth time it's happened...

[–]risistill me 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Makes sense to me!

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

the risk of drawing NATO into a direct conflict with Russia is too great to admit Ukraine into the alliance.

And conversely, the risk of Ukraine being admitted into NATO is [may be] too great for Russia to cease hostilities.

[–]BerryBoy1969It's not red vs. blue - It's capital vs. you 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And conversely, the risk of Ukraine being admitted into NATO is too great for Russia to cease hostilities.

So it appears. Seems like Russia and NATO have some room for a discussion about what a defensive alliance is, and who's defending what from who.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He's just not that into you.

[–]Trouble1980 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Even BlackRock knows you can’t make money in a nuclear war.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Just do your sassy little dance and let him sniff you, Volodymyr.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Not to worry, they'll make up over a few lines of coke.