ChatterBank0 min ago
Ukraine Joining Nato And/Or The Eu....
Clearly the Russians are concerned with Ukraine joining NATO but could they just join? What criteria would they need to be accepted?
Obviously the EU has clear acceptance criteria, does anyone know if Ukraine a) want to join and b) are, theoretically at least, able to reach acceptance?
Obviously the EU has clear acceptance criteria, does anyone know if Ukraine a) want to join and b) are, theoretically at least, able to reach acceptance?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kardashev. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
NATO membership is popular among Ukrainian people, largely because of Russia’s actions over the last 20 years during which time support has risen from roughly 20 to 60 per cent.
The criteria are pretty vague:
This from NATO’s website
“European countries that wish to join NATO are initially invited to begin an Intensified Dialogue with the Alliance about their aspirations and related reforms. Aspirants may then be invited to join the Membership Action Plan, a programme which helps nations prepare for possible future membership. Participation does not guarantee membership, but is a key preparation mechanism.
To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement. These criteria include a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions”
There was no real talk of Ukraine joining NATO until Russia Starmer threatening it, which also explains why other countries which previously been happy to stay out then started to think again
The criteria are pretty vague:
This from NATO’s website
“European countries that wish to join NATO are initially invited to begin an Intensified Dialogue with the Alliance about their aspirations and related reforms. Aspirants may then be invited to join the Membership Action Plan, a programme which helps nations prepare for possible future membership. Participation does not guarantee membership, but is a key preparation mechanism.
To join the Alliance, nations are expected to respect the values of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to meet certain political, economic and military criteria, set out in the Alliance’s 1995 Study on Enlargement. These criteria include a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; fair treatment of minority populations; a commitment to resolve conflicts peacefully; an ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutions”
There was no real talk of Ukraine joining NATO until Russia Starmer threatening it, which also explains why other countries which previously been happy to stay out then started to think again
“Starmer”
“Started” !
Russia also believes possibly correctly that NATO membership will not be granted to countries which do not control the whole it their territory ; such as Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine - all of which have areas whose status is “frozen” as they are occupied by Russian or Russia-friendly administrations
“Started” !
Russia also believes possibly correctly that NATO membership will not be granted to countries which do not control the whole it their territory ; such as Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine - all of which have areas whose status is “frozen” as they are occupied by Russian or Russia-friendly administrations
Funnily enough the suggestion was made by Gorbachev in 1990 that the Soviet Union, no less, join NATO. Admittedly this was probably made as an ironic comment, but there had been talk of Russia joining after 1991. Certainly it was claimed that Russia was open to the idea. Seems a lifetime ago now.
People who moan about NATO expansion overlook the fact that, actually, the question of Ukraine’s membership was raised by Russia. And every time they do so they accompany it with threats.
Stop making those treats, stop even mentioning it, and the chances of it happening (probably already slim) diminish even further
People who moan about NATO expansion overlook the fact that, actually, the question of Ukraine’s membership was raised by Russia. And every time they do so they accompany it with threats.
Stop making those treats, stop even mentioning it, and the chances of it happening (probably already slim) diminish even further
The problem is if they, and the others are in NATO then Russia has a border with NATO. Surely the best solution is to keep the buffer between the two powers?
//NATO membership is popular among Ukrainian people//
Popular amongst others. There is a sizeable minority (in the east) which are pro Russia. Its a bit like Yugoslavia so perhaps the solution is to split the country up as happened there?
//NATO membership is popular among Ukrainian people//
Popular amongst others. There is a sizeable minority (in the east) which are pro Russia. Its a bit like Yugoslavia so perhaps the solution is to split the country up as happened there?
Russia has a border with NATO which stretches hardly the length of London to Newcastle.
NATO forces are in those countries (Estonia and Latvia) because they feel threatened by their neighbour Russia.
There is no need for any "buffer". That would imply that there are two mutually aggressively hostile entities, and there are not
NATO forces are in those countries (Estonia and Latvia) because they feel threatened by their neighbour Russia.
There is no need for any "buffer". That would imply that there are two mutually aggressively hostile entities, and there are not
//Ukraine's ethnic diversity is actually in the west, not the east.//
Maybe I misread it but this article, in one of your fave lefty rags, would imply otherwise:
https:/
Maybe I misread it but this article, in one of your fave lefty rags, would imply otherwise:
https:/
"one of your favourite lefty rags"
There is no need for that sort of nonsense.
Why don't you stick to the issue.
Simon Jenkin, (who is an ex-editor of the Times by the way), has some odd ideas and that is one of his more outlandish ones.
I could spend some time picking that article to shreds but everyone would be bored to death.
He plainly doesn't undertand the situation.
Putin doesn't want to "split up" Ukraine.
He'd like it to be in his orbit, but I assume even he realises that isn't possible, so the next best thing is to destabilise it by marching troops up and down along its border, get everyone worked up and naturally distracting Ukraine's government from other things.
There is no need for that sort of nonsense.
Why don't you stick to the issue.
Simon Jenkin, (who is an ex-editor of the Times by the way), has some odd ideas and that is one of his more outlandish ones.
I could spend some time picking that article to shreds but everyone would be bored to death.
He plainly doesn't undertand the situation.
Putin doesn't want to "split up" Ukraine.
He'd like it to be in his orbit, but I assume even he realises that isn't possible, so the next best thing is to destabilise it by marching troops up and down along its border, get everyone worked up and naturally distracting Ukraine's government from other things.
"//That would imply that there are two mutually aggressively hostile entities, and there are not//
Eh?
Well theres no problem then, lets all pack up and go home then.
Your aggressive tone in my view undermines whatever point you are making.
I am telling you that there is one aggressor here and it is Russia.
It isn't only me who can see that :-)
Eh?
Well theres no problem then, lets all pack up and go home then.
Your aggressive tone in my view undermines whatever point you are making.
I am telling you that there is one aggressor here and it is Russia.
It isn't only me who can see that :-)
However I cannot resist this:
"Recognise the autonomy of the Donbas region, Putin says, and he will withdraw. "
On the one hand Jenkin dismissed Putin as a "thin-skinned dictator" etc etc.
But at the same time blithely accepts the above as a guarantee.
Wholly bizarre. History shows that is you shw weakness to a dictator they walk all over you.
"Recognise the autonomy of the Donbas region, Putin says, and he will withdraw. "
On the one hand Jenkin dismissed Putin as a "thin-skinned dictator" etc etc.
But at the same time blithely accepts the above as a guarantee.
Wholly bizarre. History shows that is you shw weakness to a dictator they walk all over you.
//Ukraine's ethnic diversity is actually in the west, not the east.//
What needs taking into account (which few in the recent narrative do) is the religious divide. The Ukraine has an almost complete majority of Eastern & Greek Orthodoxy, which ties it more to Russia than the western Roman Catholic & Protestant countries
To also understand the history of the entire Eastern reaches, you need to study 'The Great Schism' between Orthodoxy & Islam.
What needs taking into account (which few in the recent narrative do) is the religious divide. The Ukraine has an almost complete majority of Eastern & Greek Orthodoxy, which ties it more to Russia than the western Roman Catholic & Protestant countries
To also understand the history of the entire Eastern reaches, you need to study 'The Great Schism' between Orthodoxy & Islam.
