Ukraine could potentially join NATO even if parts of its territory remained occupied by Russia, the alliance’s former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview on Oct. 4.
One of the main arguments against granting Ukraine membership at the current time is that NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause would immediately draw the alliance into a direct war with Russia.
But speaking to the Financial Times, Stoltenberg suggested there could be ways to get around this if the Ukrainian territory considered part of NATO was “not necessarily the internationally recognized border.”
There has never been a clause about territorial integrity as a prerequisite for membership in the NATO treaties, that was just something made up by the Obama administration to appease Putin and get him to stop being paranoid about Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO.
To be frank though it’s a good idea, because by inducting a country with contested borders you’re basically just pushing the article 5 button. I know they’re gonna try to work around that but it’s probably gonna be messy as hell, and maybe even set a precedent for Ukraine losing territory not NATO-fied. .
Would Ukraine becoming a NATO member grant all other members having to attack Russia? Not necessarily a bad thing, but would mean WW3.
It scares me that anyone could come to this conclusion. Are you so clueless about the unimaginable, unprecedented suffering and death that such a conflict would bring, or does your emotional attachment prevent any rational assessment? There is no reality where WW3 and “not necessarily a bad thing” belong in the same sentence.
It’s a good thing to punish territorial aggression, but there can be no doubt that WW3 is the worst outcome for everyone.
You’re right, we should just give bullies whatever they want because they have nuclear weapons.
Just because everyone would be drawn into war doesn’t mean they can’t join. It just makes it so everyone is less likely to agree. if russa attacks a nato member (the baltic states?) Nato will bring ukraine in quickly because then they are already at war an ukrain has too many useful places to launch an attack on russia from.
Oooh can we do Cyprus next then? What do you mean no?
Wouldn’t Turkey or someone sour this?
But if it’s actually possible, that’s fascinating… if Ukraine can’t push back quickly, wouldn’t it “force” an end to the war? Russia would have a red line it absolutely can’t cross, no hope of advancement, and likely just claim everything on the other side. Surely they wouldn’t continue a grinding stalemate where Ukraine has a “safe zone” to operate out of.
If Ukraine does retain its ability to push back hard by the time this happens, and doesn’t go for a truce, then that’s especially peculiar. Walling off a part of their territory as actually untouchable seems like a massive strategic advantage for Ukraine.
Even if it doesn’t happen prior to some form of peace agreement or something…that’s an interesting thought. Like, any scenario where the conflict restarts would place Ukraine in a considerably more-favorable position militarily than is the case today. Today, simply by dint of weapons each has available, Russia has much more ability to attack Ukrainian territory than vice versa. But in the event of such a guarantee and Russia restarting conflict with Ukraine in some form, Russia wouldn’t be able to touch a lot of Ukraine’s territory without starting a conflict with NATO, but Ukraine would have a free hand to hit Russia’s territory, with whatever weapons it could obtain.
Ukraine would have a free hand to hit Russia’s territory, with whatever weapons it could obtain.
Doesn’t Russia have defensive pacts of their own, with North Korea and CSTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization#History
They would undoubtedly claim to be attacked if Ukraine uses weapons in “their” territory the next time around, and at the very least drag Belarus (and NK as an explicit supplier) in with them.
