Forum menu
why are Ukraine’s NATO/EU ambitions singularly unrealistic when other former Soviet states
I guess because Putin wasn't as bothered about them? It might not be what we like, but ultimately what he and Russia want is important. It would be lovely to ignore Putin and just do what we/Ukraine want but that's not how the world works is it?
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any. Can you give some examples?
A quick google brings up Mike Pence and President Obama on Syria and also over Iran.
Which you could have easily found had you bothered to go look for yourself. But seems you need somebody to hold your hand and walk you through these things.
*edit: Well ok I did, but what I really meant was that Zelensky is the latest and most vocal in a number of Ukrainian leaders with unrealistic NATO ambitions.
Fair enough, that makes sense now, even if I don’t agree.
Interestingly that quote mentions Georgia, that is probably the next Crimea.
And it is still the lack of a firm and enforced defence agreement that has doomed Ukraine, not the seeking of outside help. We (especially those countries involved in supporting Ukraine’s military denuclearisation) have let the people of Ukraine down. And worse is yet to come I fear.
I'm partly agreeing with dazh.
Think this is also true. NATO dithering and incompetence has played a large part in where we are today and NATO should acknowledge this in any negotiations to bring an end to the war. They won’t though, they’ll just allow it to grind on while the younger generation of Ukrainian men are wiped out so they can save face.
I agree with what, but the motivation I think is more complex, with a healthy dose of a weakened Russia is good for us all.
a number of Ukrainian leaders with unrealistic NATO ambitions.
Why do you think it's unrealistic? Yes they had/have huge issues in society and politics to solve before they can join, but a sovereign state deciding for itself to form alliances seems perfectly reasonable, no matter how aspirational.
I'm also of the view that any appeasement of Putin would and still be completely useless. Putin has many times stated he aims to take back into Russian control many states they used to have influence over in USSR and previously in history*. The only way that they can do this is through manipulation, undermining or invasion. There's a long list of European countries (both geographically and politically) that he's got in mind. Any appeasement or weakness through capitulation would have led to an emboldened Russia, with more resources and finance, and more instability and invasions. Ukraine happened to be the one country they saw as weak, full of resources to plunder (humans included), and in the way physically from invading the next few countries.
Ukraine has no choice but to fight - because to capitulate would be easily as violent and endure due longer.
I have thought that the west needs to continue to step up. You only have to look at the countries 'next on the list' and next door to Russia and the huge efforts they are making to defend what they expect to be coming should Russia win.
I'm also aware of the huge interference Russia has in the UK at present. My staff at work happen to be married to military, civil aviation and technology folk - and all three are having significant issues around security and interference from Russia. I really want our press to pick this up, but it seems security suggests playing down some of the issues is needed.
*his history is all over the place, and ignores choice of alliance Vs oppression.
No, Ukraine Cannot join NATO, regardless.
It is Not up to America/NATO/EU etc to determine if a sovereign state has the right or not to join NATO, when another power is nearby.
It is exactly similar to the principle of Monroe Doctrine where no other power or influence is allowed near America, hence Cuba (and some other S.American states) suffers the consequences.
The notion of "peace" as determined by NATO is obsolete, if not dangerous, when another nation bordering another powerful nation wants to join NATO.
Peace can only be achieved if a buffer zone is established, and only in this context that Ukraine can achieve peace if they consider themselves as the buffer zone state between two powers, no matter how sovereign a state they can be.
It is all about Power and Power sets the rules. Look at history when half the world was part of the British empire and where Britain exerted their dominance over other nations in the name of "peace". In those days, nations that could not or had no ability to fight back got dominated. Hence, gunboat diplomacy. Fast forward to 21st century, we have rocket diplomacy.
In fact, if Ukraine remains "neutral" they can enjoy the best of both world but they think the grass is greener on the other side.
It is exactly similar to the principle of Monroe Doctrine where no other power or influence is allowed near America, hence Cuba (and some other S.American states) suffers the consequences.
Can you please explain the FOUR neighbouring countries that have been in NATO for the last 20 years?
Can you please explain the FOUR neighbouring countries that have been in NATO for the last 20 years?
Google is your friend.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52044.htm
What's your point?
edit: Those are not koala bear next door but Kamchatka bear so should naturally instil fear on those that come too close.
...but Ukraine has been trying to join NATO for a long time, and NATO have been trying to get them to join for a long time. Since 2008 in fact…
Daz, you've chosen the minutes from the two-day Bucharest summit on 3 April 2008. It doesn't give a balanced history, rather a snapshot
In fact, Ukraine agreed in 2010 not to pursue NATO membership, which was a policy of Russia-leaning then-President Yanukovych and supported by international Pew Research opinion polls https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/
The Kremlin would be very well aware of all of this and the vote in Ukraine's parliament to be a militarily non-aligned country was widely reported https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10229626
In fact, if Ukraine remains “neutral” they can enjoy the best of both world but they think the grass is greener on the other side.
They were neutral.
And yet Russia invaded in 2014 and 2021.
So I'm not sure that counts as 'enjoy'.
More ATACMS strikes in Kursk, this time an airbase.
That you’re testiculating. Again. At least it wasn’t incomprehensible babble this time.
As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case. But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there. However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it's naturally going to protect it's territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it's territory to eat all the salmons.
Well ok I did, but what I really meant was that Zelensky is the latest and most vocal in a number of Ukrainian leaders with unrealistic NATO ambitions.
Ukraine only abandoned militarily non-aligned country status in 2014 when Russia took Crimea illegally.
President Zelenskyy would rather be in NATO than become a nuclear-armed state, which are the two clubs that Russia heeds
They were neutral.
And yet Russia invaded in 2014 and 2021.
So I’m not sure that counts as ‘enjoy’.
If they were "neutral" there would be no invasion whatever. Too late now to argue that point.
Ukraine spooked the bear, the bear strikes back.
President Zelenskyy would rather be in NATO than become a nuclear-armed state, which are the two clubs that Russia heeds
So he decided to join another nuclear-armed group ...
See my last two posts ^^
They spooked the bear.
They spooked the bear.
But Russia would have invaded anyway. This is Putin's aim. A combination of annihilation and invasion of the countries he sees as "Russian".
Whether Ukraine did or did not seek to join NATO, whether it did what Russia told it too or not, Russia wanted Ukraine's territory, growing wealth, it's people, it's food, it's warm water port, it's proximity to other countries, the ability to be up against NATO and European country borders, and most of all to be seen as 'the Boss', back where Russians see themselves - leaders of the world.
So Ukraine was always going to be invaded IMO, just a matter of when and how.
The most important video on Ukraine | Prof. John Mearsheimer
I think a realist like Prof Mearsheimer can explain better than me.
You can check your facts against his.
Weird double post. Ignore.
I think a realist like Prof Mearsheimer can explain better than me.
The rationale for your last few posts has just become much clearer
His ‘facts’ have been debunked as nonsense several times on this thread do we have to go through all that again?
I wouldn't go into such extreme as to describe his views as "nonsense" by comparing his argument to those presented on this forum or other platforms.
He certainly has the logic and credibility in his arguments, but not agreeing with him does not mean he is nonsense but merely another point of views.
So far I have not seen many (any) convincing "debunked" arguments on social media against the Prof. at all.
His ‘facts’ have been debunked as nonsense several times on this thread do we have to go through all that again?
Hopefully not, but this is the internet.. it's quite interesting though, to see just how baseless some opinions are. Is Chewk the same person as Dazeh?
They seem very alligned on certain topics.
Daz, you’ve chosen the minutes from the two-day Bucharest summit on 3 April 2008. It doesn’t give a balanced history, rather a snapshot
In fact, Ukraine agreed in 2010 not to pursue NATO membership, which was a policy of Russia-leaning then-President Yanukovych
And you think that a Western backed coup to overthrow Yanukovych provided reassurance to Russia that Ukraine wouldn't join NATO?
A what now? Even if correct, Russia is in no position to get butt-hurt over election interference.
So far I have not seen many (any) convincing “debunked” arguments on social media against the Prof. at all
Well for one thing he spent a long time telling everyone that Putin definitely wouldn't invade Ukraine
As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case. But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there. However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it’s naturally going to protect it’s territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it’s territory to eat all the salmons
You are Eric Cantona and I claim my five pounds.
So, what's the 'End Game' here?
What's trying to be accomplished?
That's the big question.
Slight hijack.
You are Eric Cantona and I claim my five pound
Eric Cantona is a philosopher..
I am afraid there are no seagulls following the trawlers begging for scraps there, but a bear swipe.
As I mentioned above, a Kamchatka bear is next to you so it naturally to fear it by seeking protection, just in case. But the bear is not interested because there is no salmon there. However, the salmon is swimming happily in another location and as a big Kamchatka bear it’s naturally going to protect it’s territory and to ensure it dominates the location, in case another bear encroaches on it’s territory to eat all the salmons
I reckon Chewy nails it. It's about markets and competition over these markets. The United States and its allies were perfectly happy when Russia was ruled by a corrupt and chronic alcoholic who rigged elections and allowed gangsters to run amok murdering their business rivals.
No one became a billionaire in Boris Yeltsin's Russia without being deeply involved in criminal activity. And yet the United States loved him because the chaos, criminality, and the damage that he did to Russia, served their interests. The relative stability that Vladimir Putin brought to Russia after Yeltsin did not.
The problem for the United States and its allies is that Putin is the wrong sort of crook for them, and one over which they have no control. He's basically Victor Orban on steroids and with nuclear weapons.
The United States government couldn't give a toss about the Ukraine people, since when have they cared about a people living under a brutal regime? And they certainly don't care whether Ukraine is independent or not beyond how it might affect their interests.
Yeltsin never invaded his neighbour and killed 10s of thousands for no good reason. Putins not like Orban he’s more like Hitler.
Well for one thing he spent a long time telling everyone that Putin definitely wouldn’t invade Ukraine
President Zelensky said the same thing only two days prior to Russia crossing the border.
So far I have not seen many (any) convincing “debunked” arguments on social media against the Prof. at all.
Look a bit wider. Four authors for you to read...
Stephen Kotkin, the preeminent historian of the Soviet Union, and Michael McFaul, the US ambassador to Russia between 2012 and 2014, acknowledged that Mearsheimer was “a giant of a scholar” and “one [of] the clearest, most logical realist theorists out there”, but he was wrong to blame the US for Putin’s invasion.
In a more excoriating key, the journalist Anne Applebaum accused Mearsheimer of being Putin’s useful idiot, tweeting that his article had given the Kremlin its talking points for the war.
Lawrence Freedman, the New Statesman contributor and a world authority on theories of war, has known Mearsheimer since the 1980s, but he spoke for many of his detractors when he described his position on Ukraine as “unforgivable”.
“John simply can’t explain Russian behaviour because he is too focused on the international system and ignores the domestic forces at play. He suggests that Ukraine was about to join Nato, but it wasn’t, and he seems to find it reasonable to deny Ukraine the right to chart its own course. He also can’t detect Russia’s colonial attitudes towards Ukraine. I would consider myself a realist, but it is a realism based on assessing the situation as you find it rather than how you wish it to be based on some dogmatic theory.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/09/tragedy-john-mearsheimer
i prefered this thread when it was focusing on news and events and you know real tangible stuff thats actually happening in ukraine, since musk twitter is no longer as easy to use to find breaking information
its been hijacked again just scrolled through pages of frankly mostly nonsense
i might make projections / have an opinion about what putin or trump will do but i dont try and ram it down others throats nor argue with some other non expert person on the internets view if its different, because it doesnt matter what you or I think about it. unless someone on here is in putins inner council and is leaking his thinking?
i prefered this thread when it was focusing on news and events and you know real tangible stuff thats actually happening in ukraine, since musk twitter is no longer as easy to use to find breaking information
Yup. I found that useful as well
And you think that a Western backed coup to overthrow Yanukovych provided reassurance to Russia that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO?
The two issues are totally separate. The "Western backed coup" was about ordinary Ukrainians wanting to join the EU, as had been agreed by a majority in Ukraine's parliament and promised by Russia-leaning Yanukovych, who changed his mind at the eleventh hour in November 2013. He then decided to align with Russian economic bodies
Timeline:
21st November 2013 Ukraine civil unrest (Euromaidan)
21st February 2014 Yanukovych fled, eventually to Russia
22nd Feb Ukraine's parliament scheduled Presidential Elections
26th Feb 2014 NATO head Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Ukraine that membership was an option if that was what the country wanted
??Feb (the start date is difficult to pin down because Russia already had a military lease) Russia took Crimea during Feb and March, declaring it "annexed" on 18th March 2014
??March 2014 Russia invaded the Donbas region of Ukraine, using Russian military veterans under the guise of local separatists (again, difficult to specify a date)
Ukraine's parliament hadn't removed its militarily non-aligned status before Russia invaded, they hadn't had time for another poll on NATO alliance as referred to earlier ^^.
It was an invasion because Yanukovych failed to align Ukraine with Russian interests
its been hijacked again just scrolled through pages of frankly mostly nonsense
I agree. I'm out until it settles down again.
The same old nuclear world war and Ukraine wanting membership of NATO since 2008 leading to war points have been raised by the same protagonists on at least three occasions this year. Those points have been answered several times now
Had NATO ruled out the prospect of Ukraine joining from the outset we would probably be in a very different place today
Why? You really think the main motivation for Putin's invasion of Ukraine was the threat of NATO encroachment? That was just his excuse. Putin's been very vocal on how he thinks the break up of the Soviet Union was disastrous and should never have been allowed to happen and is clearly bent on reforming some version of it. Or if you mean Ukraine wouldn't have been so prepared for invasion and would already have been overrun and annexed - you're probably right.
As for the future, I think Trump might be able to get a ceasefire agreed, followed by years of protracted negotiations that don't go anywhere, before it all kicks off again. The key will be whether sanctions remain in place during that time, if they don't Russia will be able to rebuild it's military much faster than Ukraine. I'm not really sure how NATO counters that, especially without US backing. Putin will no doubt throw his toys out of the pram anytime any military (or even just economic aid) is mooted for Ukraine and they'll probably back down vs risk re-igniting the war.
So I think, despite Putin's recent nuclear rhetoric, he's ready to play the long game and rely on Trump screwing over Ukraine. That said maybe he'll also seek to split NATO and use a tactical nuke close to Trump's inauguration - most of NATO would likely support a non-nuclear military response but it's doubtful Trump would and I'm sure he'd be using funding threats etc. behind the scenes. I'm not sure EU+UK would risk a military response without US backing so it would create a lot of bad blood, maybe enough to fragment NATO with a bit of Russian covert interference.
So, what’s the ‘End Game’ here?
What’s trying to be accomplished?
Russia / Putin - want all of Ukraine to do with what they please, and then to continue to invade more countries.
Ukraine - their sovereign land back.
How, not a clue.
I too used to drop into ****ter to get some updates of progress and issues. Has anyone found such information from other socials such as Bluesky, Mastadon or even Reddit? While not fully accurate, the few 'on the ground' in Ukraine did bring rapid and focussed news.
So far I have not seen many (any) convincing “debunked” arguments on social media against the Prof. at all.
Translation: I haven't looked for any. There's loads BTW if you do an even casual search for articles critical of Mearsheimer's analysis, but anyway, summary below;
1. He ignores the fact that Ukraine, like many other former soviet states had been actively seeking political and military alliances with the EU and western states since the fall of the Soviet Empire and the end of the cold war.
2. His timing is wonky, his account cannot satisfactorily account for the timing of the invasion, in that Ukraine at the time had had its NATO membership put on hold - and was extremely unlikely to go ahead and can't explain why former Warsaw pact states have avoided a similar fate. A more likely cause of the invasion is Russian domestic political expediency.
3. Offensive realism is not a credible guide to the behaviour of modern states, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Germanys relative weakness militarily post reunification, peace amongst traditional warring European states, all really demonstrate the lack of coherence of such a theory. Even if you accept that a Ukraine in NATO is an existential threat to Russia (which not even Russian propaganda and rhetoric was saying at the time) the timing of Russian invasion still took some of its own satellite states and political allies by surprise, and ultimately it still doesn't abdicate Russia from its responsibility and culpability in starting a war for which there was no pressing urgency -Wars are started by states pulling the trigger, not by those seeking treaties and alliances
4.For such a theory you'd hope that Mearsheimer would have some bang to rights evidence. In fact he relies totally on selective and uncritical reading of official Russian documents, and relies in part at least of believing that Putin is sincere in his beliefs and statements, and said that he believes Russia had no Imperial motivations - Facts on the ground since as proved the Prof 100% wrong on that.
I don't think he's an apologist, but most if not all of what Mearsheimer was saying pre-invasion has turned out to be baloney. I'm not surprised though, that you're still clinging to it.
I’m confused by bears, seagulls and eric cantina. Never mind what someone said in 2008 and Boris Yeltsin.
Another point scoring thread.
Don't worry, I predict a long period of normality returning in which everyone on this thread agrees and echoes each other's opinions.
Until the next annoying interruption.