"Ukraine seeks NATO membership" Topic

"Ukraine's prime minister, Arseny Yatsenyuk, has said the government was sending a bill to MPs urging that Ukraine's non-bloc status be cancelled, and he will ask parliament to put the country on a path towards Nato membership.

link

Russia has previously declared that NATO membership would be 'a red line for Russia'. Putin asserted in April 2008: "The presence of a powerful military bloc on our borders, whose members are guided by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, will be seen as a direct threat to our national security."

Yushchenko campaigned for NATO membership back in 2008, ignoring opinion polls in his own country, which showed eastern and southeastern Ukraine oppose such membership. George W. Bush lobbied hard for Ukraine (and Georgia) to be given membership action plans at the 2008 summit in Bucharest, but Germany's Angel Merkel dug in her heels. Nevertheless, the April 2008 summit did promise to both Ukraine and Georgia that they would be in NATO one day.

Up until now the interim governments position, prior to Poroshenko's legitimate vote in as President, has been that they would not be seeking NATO membership, and Obama stated that there were no plans to include Ukraine within NATO in the foreseeable future.

That may have all changed this week with reports, seemingly backed up with evidence by way of photos, captured Russian personnel (despite Chizhov's claim that there 'are only 10 who wandered in', 2 more have since been reported captured) and of direct Russian military incursions into Ukraine.

It seems that rather than attempt woo Ukraine away from NATO membership, Russia is putting Ukraine under such fear that they are more likely to seek early admission in order to gain the benefit of mutual security.

Off the back of this, NATO would respect any Ukrainian decision on security, after its PM said he was putting the country on course for NATO membership.

NATO has accused Russia of a "blatant violation" of Ukraine's sovereignty, saying it is engaged in direct military operations to support rebels. Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that "despite hollow denials", it was now clear that Russia had illegally crossed Ukraine's border.

link

Unlikely to happen in the short to medium term in the current climate, although the process has been underway for a while. Don't forget, NATO is in many ways like your life insurance company – happy for you to join if you are healthy, but if you have any "issues" than it would rather like you to have them resolved prior to being accepted in. Once the Eastern Ukrainian situation is resolved that will be one barrier overcome. Internal issues are another matter that will require attention as well.

Agreed – I fear this may be a counterproductive move. NATO membership won't happen while hostilities are on, so knowing it's on the cards when they stop gives Putin another incentive to keep stoking the fires….

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, and prior to the latest situation I'd say it was extremely unlikely to actually happen, but somehow with the current noises being made by many western nations and NATO members, I can see this thing getting pushed through…

From NATO website:
In terms of Ukraine, while no longer pursuing NATO membership since 2010, Ukraine has maintained the existing level of cooperation with the Alliance and has fulfilled the existing agreements. Ukraine has continued to participate actively in the ANP process which plays a key role in determining Allied support for Ukraine's domestic reform process.

From the Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs (1997):
link

NATO membership is potentially open to all of Europe's emerging democracies that share the alliance's values and are ready to meet the obligations of membership. There is no checklist for membership.

We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements:

--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity. (They do have a stated policy of diversity and, contrary to Russian media assertions, there are no specific actions against ethnic Russians, who have been living within Ukraine peacefully for at least the last 20 years)

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy. (that one may be questionable, given their current financial status, but they are already making reforms in compliance with IMF borrowing)

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control. (The military has always been under their control)

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders. (Presumably good neighbours with respect to Poland. No issues with Ukraine invading Poland, Belarus, Slovkaia, Romania or Russia…)

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces. (They have been co-operating with NATO for some time)

Again, while these criteria are essential, they do not constitute a checklist leading automatically to NATO membership.

New members must be invited by a consensus of current members.

Decisions to invite new members must take into account the required ratification process in the member states. In the case of the United States, decisions are made in consultation with Congress.

The key determinant for any invitation to new members is whether their admission to NATO will strengthen the alliance and further the basic objective of NATO enlargement, which is to increase security and stability across Europe.

Mr Rasmussen indicated Nato was open to considering Ukraine's application to join if it met the conditions.

"I am not going to interfere with political discussions in Ukraine, but let me remind you of Nato's decision taken at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 according to which Ukraine will become a member of Nato, provided of course that Ukraine so wishes and provided that Ukraine fulfils the necessary criteria".

2008 would have been the Yushenko/Tymoshenko years (Orange Revolution) with a hope for greater EU links. That was the same time that visas for EU members were removed.

Ukraine pulled back from Nato consideration in 2010 under (pro-Russian President) Yanukovich.

But the bottom line is that most of Europe needs Russia more than they need Ukraine (Gas/trade) so lots of talk in public not a lot of action

Yes, but that says nothing that you wouldn't expect, its all pretty routine stuff. There are some pretty big hitters in the big house on Boulevard Leopold III who publicly will support this at the earliest opportunity but who will ensure that the earliest opportunity occurs at the point where they and their alliance chums don't get dragged into a conflict that actually they (and more importantly their electorates) want to have no part in. And of course Kosovo 1999 is still in many people's minds.

Not a chance.

We need Russia's gas. Simple as that.

Putin is also making sure he stokes fighting indefinitely and NATO won't touch Ukraine with a bargepole while that's happening.

This will go in for years, with Russia quietly biting off chunks of the Ukraine while keeping it unattractive to the west.

It will not happen--the West is too scared of Puttin (and perhaps rightly so.)

Not going to happen.

Europe is not scared of Puttin. They are scared of his nuclear arsenal. Russia is only about 140M people strong…perhaps the population size of France and Germany combined. Ukraine is about half that and has a military about par with Russia (same weapons right?).

On the flip side, Puttin won't "go nuclear" unless his existence is directly threatened. So an intervention by NATO could work if it stopped at the border of the Ukraine. It would be unlikely that Puttin would go nuclear over that because then he'd be signing his own death certificate and possibly that of the world. He would still hold on to Russia and that would probably be enough for him.

Ultimately, Europe needs to decide how much they want Russian Gas.

…and Russia needs to decide how much they need to sell it. It's a two way deal ;-)

And Bulgaria just suspended work on South Stream : link

Isn't UN membership good enough? And how far east can you go and still be associated with the "Atlantic"? …

"Isn't UN membership good enough?"

Umm, no. Everybody's in the UN, and countries still keep getting invaded…. As for the "Atlantic" bit, that long since hit obsolescence – Turkey certainly goes further east than Ukraine does anyway.

Turkey was an early member, joining in 1952.

RT is parading the story about Germany spying on Turkey sonce 1976: link presumably to keep the pro-Russian media frenzy pointing fingers at NATO.

This could be a real "can of worms to kick over" with Ukraine wanting to now join NATO … most likely won't happen … not now … at least …

The smart money is on "soon… but not just yet". Russia seems to be doinga good job of reminding the West that its record on finding excuses to ride roughshod over national sovereignty in the last couple of decades isn't exactly squeaky clean. And actually we would do well to look carefully at where we've been and what we've done since the early 1990s and learn some lessons from those various adventures and escapades. Our record of backing the right horse is not exactly wonderful. Hence some serious concerns over who is involved in running the show in the sovereign bits of the Ukraine.

some serious concerns over who is involved in running the show in the sovereign bits of the Ukraine

I raised the whole 'Right Sektor/Svoboda/nazi fascist' thing with friends while out in Ukraine.

Their general opinion was:

Right Sektor is a serious threat, if allowed to take control, but they are very much a minority faction with no real power. They cause trouble in power vacuums, such as have seen, but nobody really takes them seriously and there is no major movement in that direction.

My impression is that they are slightly more dangerous than the National Front in the UK (in that they can get access to guns) but taken somewhat less seriously (unless standing in front of you with said gun).

However Russian media has delighted in running the paranoia image of massed hordes of them running the country, shooting ethnic Russians on sight. This is simply not true. They were present in the parliament before, they are still present in the parliament now, but most of the ruling parties seem to be in place with pretty much the same percentage of seats.

The only difference has been the main parties switching from pro-Russian to pro-European – bit like government changing from republican to democrat or labour to conservative.

Poroshenko's snap elections, announced last week, seem to be aimed to getting in people who are more willing to take on board positive reforms and enable the country to move forward, as the current setup is merely seeing any desired reform blocked on the basis that 'the other side suggested it'.

I agree.

So about as representative as Mosely's Blackshirts then?

"Europe is not scared of Puttin. They are scared of his nuclear arsenal."

The same thing then.

"On the flip side, Puttin won't "go nuclear" unless his existence is directly threatened."

And even then he's not that nuts.

"Who asked this joker"

That's what started this whole mess in the first place. Russia is simply not going to allow NATO troops on the doorsteps to Moscow, and the West would be wise to stop tweaking that bear's tail. No good can come of it. Any more than the US would want to see, um, Soviet missiles in Cuba. Really, let the former Soviet states settle this themselves and let us butt out. What right have we to interfere in what was not long ago the old Russian empire?

More and more this situation reminds me of the lead-up to the Peloponnesian war, and that didn't end so well for Greece.

Interesting problem; the normal cold war protocol was to avoid direct conflict with the Soviets, and I do not see the situation here as very different, and I do not see starting a full-out war with the Russians as a very good idea if the west can avoid it.

The other side of the cold war protocol was to find some sort of proxy to do the fighting for the west. I can't see many candidates for this on except the Ukrainians themselves. How much backing would NATO countries have to give them before the Putin would fold and wait for another opportunity?

But if helping Ukraine settle the separatist problem they wouldn't be any problem with Russia because as Russia constantly states, they're not involved in the conflict.

Putin is right on this, Really REALLY bad idea!

…without Russia's input, there wouldn't have been a separatist problem to start with…

Well obviously if there were no Russians who wanted to separate there would be no separatist problem.

That's what started this whole mess in the first place. Russia is simply not going to allow NATO troops on the doorsteps to Moscow, and the West would be wise to stop tweaking that bear's tail. No good can come of it. Any more than the US would want to see, um, Soviet missiles in Cuba. Really, let the former Soviet states settle this themselves and let us butt out. What right have we to interfere in what was not long ago the old Russian empire?

The problem is this little treaty both the US and Russians signed back in 1994, that says in exchange for the Ukraine surrendering all the nuclear weapons it held left over from Soviet days, both the US and Russia would guarantee the Ukraine's territorial sovereignty.

And 'Czar Vlad' has been pushing to re-establish the old borders of the Russian Empire…

That's just it David, the problem is not the Ukrainians (and all the ethnic Russians living there are Ukrainian citizens). It was acknowledged very early on that they may be seeking more autonomy of decision making at a local level, but that they wanted to remain part of Ukraine. The issue has been the external elements taking up arms within Ukraine to bring about separation.

Once again, if it hadn't been for external Russian involvement (including the illegal annexation of Crimea) this issue would never have arisen in the first place. Ukraine would have negotiated increased autonomous control fir those regions and remained non-aligned.

its all about inside the mind of putin if you ask me
he is like a child, a very spoiled and pampered child,
who cannot get what he wants for the first time
he will act like a stubborn little brat
and start fights
until he gets what he thinks he deserves
he is a very dangerous little man
and personally, I am scared less that this whole thing
in the Ukraine
will soon spill over into a naval standoff in the arctic ocean
which could very very easily turn into a nuclear war

Feels like 1914…

No, more like 1937…

Keep this up and Putin's going to take his shirt off for pictures again.

The argument for not having NATO troops on Russia's doorstep is a bit fallacious. If they take Ukraine then that is exactly the situation that will exist. Poland does NOT want Russians across the border again.

Russia is simply not going to allow NATO troops on the doorsteps to Moscow,

I could have sworn Estonia was in NATO. Apparently not.

…Latvia. Lithuania. Estonia, Turkey, Poland, Germany…

Makes you wonder what they are all worried about

There's a difference between being worried and a likelihood that something is going to happen. As has been said before Putin isn't an idiot. He may be a lot of things but an idiot isn't one of them and he knows damn well what will happen if Russia so much as touches a NATO member. He's also smart enough to look at what the West has done in places like Kosovo, Libya and Iraq and to point out quietly to his counterparts over here that their hands are not clean (OK, we often sided with separatists ans freedom fighters and helped them through the application of overwhelming airpower rather than necessarily putting boots on the ground – but at least we had the good grace to tell the world we were doing it). What he is getting through NATO's increasing rhetoric is an ideal platform to boost his own support within Russia and to increase Russia's standing with those countries that don't see eye to eye with the US and co. Of which there are quite a few. A sensible NATO strategy would be to demonstrate sufficient resolve to make it clear that security of NATO members was assured, and to leave it at that. OK, play the Russians at their own game and make resources available to the Ukrainians to do whatever they need to do. But along the way there may well have to be an acceptance in Kiev and elsewhere that a Kosovan style solution in Eastern Ukraine might well be the only thing that will bring about a resolution, and (incidentally) help to create the conditions that the Ukraine needs to join NATO.

"The problem is this little treaty both the US and Russians signed back in 1994"

…which, as was pointed out when the whole Crimea think first kicked off, the US very cannily never ratified. Its worthless. Always has been.

The trouble is that those Ukrainians who want separation are a small minority. Most of those fighting for independence are foreigners and don't represent the will of those that live there.

In effect it's a foreign country imposing its will and trying to annex land.

Sudetenland anyone?

"That's what started this whole mess in the first place. Russia is simply not going to allow NATO troops on the doorsteps to Moscow, and the West would be wise to stop tweaking that bear's tail."

Er, you do know that Norway, which ACTUALLY BORDERS RUSSIA has been a member of NATO since 1949, do you…?

The situation actually sounds like a mix of both 1914 and 1937.

Basically, Putin sees this as two things: one, a way to increase popular support at home by saying he is supporting ethnic Russians next door (agree just like Sudetenland) AND getting international support from countries that oppose the west, all for very little risk. That calculation could be wrong, though, just like the calculations of many nations in the middle of 1914.

While Ukraine may overtly apply for membership into NATO, the relevant question for me is, "Would NATO allow Ukraine to join the alliance now or in the near-future, especially if such an act might reasonably be expected to trigger a war with Russia?"
Ukrainian membership in NATO would bring the West into the heart of Slavic Eurasia and within easy striking distance of Russia's industrial base and many valuable resources. While Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Turkey, Finland and Norway may all be located next to or very close to the Russian frontier, Ukraine brings NATO to the core of Russia. Mr. Putin and any prudent Russian would immediately see this as an existential threat to Russia and would act to stop such a situation from developing. Such action might be very extreme because in the eyes of most Russians the threat is so extreme. Do NATO and the West want to buy into a very possible war with Russia? I do not think this is what the West wants and I do not think the West would risk such a conflict over Ukrainian admission to NATO. The West must content itself with supporting Ukraine morally and offering economic aid but NATO membership or direct involvement in Ukraine's troubles should be off the table. Economic recessions and slowdowns often lead to war as a tonic for a moribund economy but the cost of a wider war with Russia and the threat of nuclear escalation should be foremost in the minds of Western European and North American leaders as they manage this mess. The best policy is for Ukraine to press forward with re-unification by defeating the home grown separatist movement either by military or political means. A move to construct some kind of rapprochement with non-Ukrainian populations within Ukraine must be undertaken immediately and with serious intent to settle disputes and diminish the centrifugal forces which plague Ukraine. Ukraine must also attempt to quarantine its home-grown separatists from Russian aid and influence and then to rebuild workable and constructive ties with Russia as soon as it is possible to do so. The West should learn to butt out of trying to roll back the margins of the Russian sphere of influence in Eurasia and stop trying to export Western style economic ideology and policies into countries which cannot afford to adopt them (either economically or politically). Russia must come to realize that it was just good luck and fortunate timing to have gotten away with annexing Crimea and that the risk of triggering a Ukrainian-Russian war, or worse still a wider pan-European war, is too great for the minimal benefits of absorbing southeastern Ukraine or indeed all of Ukraine. Brinkmanship is a stupid strategy which almost always spirals out of control to the detriment of all.
The leaders of Europe, America, Russia and the Ukraine must stop playing dangerous power-games which threaten the livelihood and lives of many millions. They must develop the discipline to work out their differences through diplomacy and compromise rather than covert and overt military conflict; or the whole planet shall suffer the consequences of their arrogance and folly.
Rod Robertson

Putin is still thinking like as noted, it's 1914 or 1939 …

The leaders of Europe, America, Russia and the Ukraine must stop playing dangerous power-games which threaten the livelihood and lives of many millions.

I think the only guy who is playing dangerous power-gamers is Russia … I don't know if any one in Europe has sent forces or done anything besides talk … And the US had sent 100 or so Paratroopers to Poland and IIRC, some of the Baltic states … Plus talking alot … I don't see any provocative or aggressive moves there. The US is not playing hard ball anywhere, Even in the current situations in the Middle East … So only time will tell if the West/US has played both fronts "right" …

… the whole planet shall suffer the consequences of their arrogance and folly.

The only persons that describes, IMO, is Putin and Al-Baghdadi … The US/Europe are playing it very much the opposite … so far …

The best policy is for Ukraine to press forward with re-unification by defeating the home grown separatist movement either by military or political means.

They were on the way to that, despite the appearance of external influences in both personnel and equipment. Mysteriously since a 200 truck strong convoy of aid (which hasn't been shown anywhere) there has been a strong counter strike by, it seems, more external influences.

The leaders of Europe, America, Russia and the Ukraine must stop playing dangerous power-games which threaten the livelihood and lives of many millions.

I agree, but what do you do when one of them (Russia) I'd trying to directly influence the outcome?

I know that the likes of Iraq, Syria, Libya are brought out as examples of western interference, but I'm not sure that provides Russia with a licence to do the same without criticism, and if you can find examples of Yanukovitch, Yushenko or Poroshenko gassing their own population or committing direct atrocities based purely on ethnicity I will be very surprised.

The People of Ukraine showed their objection to the route the current leader was taking and he abandoned the position (before he could be impeached, taking something like 2 years GDP with him – anyone seen him lately?). It's not the people of Ukraine who are on both sides of this war…

Lithuania now saying that Europe should support Ukraine (with military supplies)

The point is that NATO membership was touted as the big 'no-no', but the current action seems to leave them with no alternative but to seek membership.

And with Poroshenko announcing they are now close to full out war with Rissia…

Legion4:
I agree that Putin is the most visible aggressor in this conflict and he is certainly the aggressor who has used military force both openly and covertly. However the West has a great deal of responsibility for pushing Ukraine down the road which led to this crisis and so bares some of the responsibility too. Western political and economic support for the Ukrainian opposition to the corrupt Yanukovych government (and the police-state crackdown it tried to impose) certainly helped Ukraine start down this rode and made Moscow more sensitive to the Ukrainian realignment than if the revolution had been a wholly Ukrainian revolution against oppressive leadership. More than 5 Billion US$ have been funneled to the opposition from the West in the last five years. Thus the West has been politically and economically aggressive in this matter.
link
link
link
Geoff:
"They were on the way to that", and now they must double or triple their efforts to finish the opposition both militarily and politically using both carrots and sticks. The Ukrainian armed forces must retake all of Ukraine (except for Crimea) despite growing Russian support and involvement and do so in short order. The Ukrainian armed forces must seal the border to stop Russian support and troops/mercenaries from further destabilizing Ukraine. This must be Poroshenko's top priority and then when he has got his own house in better order he must start talking with Putin's Russia and try to find a path which allows both states to tolerate each other. Repudiating NATO membership at least for a generation might go a long way to diffusing the present escalation of the crisis and could create a window of opportunity to start diffusing the whole crisis.
Poroshenko must not succumb to fear of Russian involvement but must move to limit its efficacy with determination and speed. He cannot be concerned with triggering a Russian invasion of Ukraine by his own actions, because all that Putin respects is force and resolve. Russia is already partially invading Ukraine and only an iron will and national resolve can cause Putin to pause and reevaluate his policy towards Ukraine. What Poroshenko cannot do is run to the West for aid or support. That will appear as both weakness and anti-Russian provocation to Putin and Russians. Ukraine must reestablish its borders on its own and alas must give up hope of regaining Crimea for the foreseeable future.
Rod Robertson

Donald Tusk (The Polish government has been one of the toughest in the EU in demanding sanctions against Russia over Moscow's support for the uprising in eastern Ukraine) has just been appointed European Council president, so expect to see a stronger move towards more sanctions.

Then the UKs Baroness Ashton has stated:
"We need to support Ukraine, and send military materials to help Ukraine defend itself. Today Ukraine is fighting a war on behalf of all Europe"…

Then Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko stating:
"I think that we are very close to the point of no return. Point of no return is full-scale war… Any offensive action which would be undertaken [by Russia]… would be a point of no return. And that's why we undertake enormous efforts to stop that."

Worrying times.

It's clearly, Europe's "Neville Chamberlain Moment".

An alternative strategy would be to use unmarked, armed drones over Eastern Ukraine, to take out any suspicious armored vehicles, since afterall, Putin and Lavrov have said no Russian units are in Ukraine, and the recon photos being shown are only from a video game.

Clearly, they can't complain if the USA, and/or EU/NATO/Ukraine play a few video games, right???

Mako11:
Do you mean Ukrainian drones or American/European drones because in the latter case Putin would claim the West was targeting people of Russian origin and use that as a pretext to actually and overtly invade part or all of Ukraine. Or Putin might send drones to destroy Kiev's infrastructure and target Ukrainian leaders for liquidation.
No, the way to go is on the ground with Ukrainian forces against armed separatists – its costly and brutal (and thank heaven that I do not have to do it) but it is undeniably a defense of Ukrainian sovereignty and not an attack by outsiders on a Russian minority.
Rod Robertson

It's a video game……….., so it really doesn't matter does it.

But what happens when the TV or Monitor shoots back?