Quote (DizzyBusiness @ Jan 5 2023 09:26pm)
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
They could have not invited them? How does the addition of Ukraine to NATO advance NATOs focus on security and stability for its members when doing so could embroil them in a nuclear conflict with Russia?
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
This is why they shouldn't have invited Ukraine, and why some NATO countries were against it. Merkel said it would be considered an "act of war" by Putin, and look how that has worked out. Now NATO is funding a cold war VS Russia in a non Treaty country, as an alliance that is supposed to be focused on security, stability and defense.
I mean it is clearly a more complex issue than simply saying NATO invited Ukraine to join.
The use of the language in that quote pertains to a country who has sought to join the alliance and must be then invited by all members.
Ukraine is clearly a divided country geographically and ideologically, essentially from east to west.
There have been governments for and against joining NATO at different times.
Ukrainians fought with NATO in Iraq.
It's not a stretch to say that NATO is the framework for security in Europe and has been for 70 years, even more so since the collapse of USSR.
And with that in mind, not being part of or cooperating with the alliance is an existential threat.
In terms of a nuclear conflict with Russia, it was the US and NATO that facilitated the return of Ukraines nuclear weapons to Russia after the collapse of the USSR.
The only nuclear power threatening nuclear conflict is Russia so I don't see how that argument holds water.
With regard to Ukraines importance to european security and NATO. If Russia had unconditional control of Ukraine that is then a direct threat to Poland, Hungary, Czech, Romania to mention a few.
So yes NATO have legitimate interest in Ukraine also.
In regard to Merkel blocking Ukrainian membership, we all know that under her leadership Germsnt became over dependent and overexposed to the supply of Russian gas; so I would hardly consider her input on the matter impartial.
Probably even more complex than Ukraines relationship with NATO is Russias relationship with itself.
The Kremlin appear to have never reconciled with the USSR collapse. And it's understandable in that it was only 30 years ago.
There is a perpetual drive to compete or surpass the west while working with less resources.
It's a losing game.
The Kremlin is obsessed with its European frontier and with good reason after WW2 and operation Barbosa. But to assume that NATO would ever mobilise and attempt to invade Russia is an absurd and harmful mindset.
100% there are less conventional forms of threat to Russia from NATO, but those are mutual threats and they nothing new.
Russian interference in US elections.
Russians murdered with nerve agents in the UK by Russian agents.
This obsession with its european frontier is actually to the benefit of a rising power and truly potential threat elsewhere. China.