Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Yeah, it would make no sense to allow them in and put all of NATO at risk. Supplying them with intelligence, arms, training, opening our doors to immigration, etc. is the best way to help without escalating and without putting NATO troops at risk. Super sucks for Ukraine, but not sure if we want to commit ourselves to perpetual involvement in the instability of that region with really no upside to us. Strategically, Ukraine is a good buffer between NATO countries (Poland, specifically, and then everything else west of that) and Russia, anyway. Cold way to look at it, but that has to be thinking.
|
I can't imagine Ukraine being turned down membership after all the aid they have received, being invited to all the conferences and pretty much as close as a member as you can without officially being in. They are doing the very thing that NATO was specifically designed for back in the day; counter russian aggression. Simply put, Ukraine has far more legitimate combat experience in a conventional war against russia than all other NATO members combined. Not even the US has faced off against russia like this. To turn that kind of experience, knowledge and straight up know-how away would be such a foolish move. Otherwise NATO is simply a book club that talks big and puts on cool airshows with all the best "toys" that will never get used. The upside to Ukraine joining is the opposite of what you are implying in terms of stability. Russia surrounded by NATO countries is best for literally everyone in that region. NATO = safety, plain and simple. There is no world where Ukraine joining NATO makes Western Europe more unstable. Ask any European if they hope Ukraine is a member in the future and you'll get a pretty unanimous response. Only russian supporters in europe think it's a bad thing.
As well, buffer zones be damned. Ask Belarussians how awesome it is being a buffer country. Russia is already the largest land mass on earth. If it wants a buffer zone, they can make their own damn >50km wide buffer zone on their own border and proclaim it as the ultimate buffer.
When I lived in Poland I met an interesting group of poli-sci majors and they kind of laughed how Poland was accepted into the alliance with a lot of baggage at the time, because they threatened to nuke-up if they weren't accepted. Not sure how accurate that is, but pretty smart move. I fully support Ukraine becoming a nuclear state if they are rejected. They simply don't have time to wait around for russia to build up again without having a deterrent. There isn't a better example of a country in the nuclear era that gave away their nuke program and suffered like this. I simply don't see a world where Ukraine gives up being accepted into NATO. Not after living through this war, no way. They kind of "gave up" a few days into the war when Zelensky said they fully understand NATO membership is now out of the question, and hoped it would quell the invasion and make russia negotiate in good faith. Instead, we all saw how those negotiations went the firsts few weeks. A few months later, they submit their formal application for membership. Ukraine will force their way in kicking and screaming, mark my words. Otherwise the only other option is to nuke up, and I am certain they will attempt to follow that path if their application is rejected.