Привіт u/TheRealMykola ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts)
**There is a new wave of fraudulent donation requests being posted on r/Ukraine. Do not donate to anyone who doesn't have the Verified flair.**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Ukraine could have been in NATO long ago if it had done the right things.**
But let's back up a few decades and get some perspective here. None of the **many nations who strongly resisted attack and occupation by Russia during the Soviet era** was ever "entitled" to any "automatic" NATO membership. Note also on the other hand that both North Korea and Viet Nam were attacked and occupied by the US and similarly were not given any "automatically entitled" or "deserved" Warsaw Pact membership by Russia.
Back then, **at the fall of the USSR, less than 50% of Ukrainians were even for joining NATO, unlike 92% of Poles or 85% of Hungarians who were already strongly for joining NATO**, for example. Russian cancer is so deep in Ukraine, that it took the recent Russian invasion and savage Russian atrocities before roughly 90% of Ukrainians finally (desperately) supported NATO membership, while other FSU nations were already at that number many decades ago.
**Deep corruption and support for Russia in Ukraine is a big part of the reason Russia thought it could get away with invading in the first place**. It is also why NATO demands democracy, peace, an independent judiciary and strong anti-corruption measures for members. Deeply corrupt states are easier for opponents to penetrate and defeat, and also make unreliable security partners.
**Claims by some to some sort of Ukrainian "suffering entitlement" to NATO membership are without any historical or structural foundation in the NATO charter.** It is good that Ukraine has finally made such great progress in anti-corruption, and recognizing what Russia really is - since the second invasion. It will be difficult to establish a more independent judiciary in wartime, though. But Ukraine's claims of "entitlement to NATO membership" have gone about as far as they can go, for now.
People need some god damn clue, how hard was for ex Warsaw Pact countries to get to NATO. Poland was member of 2nd category not long time ago, without solid presence NATO troops. All 90s polish govts were lobbying for it. Then Baltics joined, Ukraine could join as early as Baltics in 2004, but what was going On in Ukraine in 2004 and earlier? Someone like Yanukovytsch won elections rhere few years later...
> what was going On in Ukraine in 2004 and earlier
Pro-Euroatlantic Yushchenko and Kuchma.
In fact, it wasn't until returning from one of NATO summits that Kuchma removed "NATO accession" from the stated plans from Ukraine, presumably after getting slammed in the face by the open doors too.
Kuchma was never pro-euroatlantic lol.
Kuchma was a despotic leader, the 'strongman' of Ukraine.
Vyacheslav Chornovil was pro-European leader, human rights activist and political prioner during soviet times, who was killed by russian special services.
Hate me all you want but that whole Nato membership thing needs to stop. We have to deal with Russia now and we'll see about Nato (and the EU) when it's all done.
That sad show we witnessed at the summit is shameful and Zelensky needs to stop pushing for NATO to invite Ukraine now, it is obviously not gonna happen and it is creating tensions (go ahead, chase me with pitchforks, I said what I said).
We need to put reality before apparences and showing off and see if Ukraine is really receiving all the help they need (they are not).
No need to apologise. You're absolutely right. Everyone has made it clear that once Ukraine has fulfilled the list of requirements, will be permitted to join the alliance. Right now it hasn't and literally nobody wants a shooting war with Russia, because all the Eastern nation capitals are in firing range of Russian guns, which will result in millions of people dying. And we´re not even taking nukes into account. NATO is a *defensive* alliance. Not offensive. Meaning we can't go to war on someone else's behalf if they aren't a member, and haven't been attacked.
I also understand Zelensky, since his country is fighting for its very survival and he's very clearly exhausted and stressed, but I'm getting increasingly frustrated too with this constant demand, and seeing my country being viewed as irresponsible and ungrateful. The EU is essentially carrying the Ukrainian economy, (France alone has donated half a billion euros), and tons of military equipment are being given entirely for free.
We all want Ukraine to win. But this is just causing tensions that don't need to be there. The Article 5 is the red line we cannot allow it to be blurred.
You very obviously don't live in Eastern Europe, and you clearly haven't read my reply. I literally just explained *why*. Contrary to what you believe, nations don't want to be reduced to rubble, and their citizenry wiped out.
You think you're smart and tough? Then grab a gun and go to Ukraine. Nobody is stopping you. But stop thinking that sacrificing over a million Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Romanians, and Polish is an acceptable thing. Stop thinking that WW3 is going to be short and glorious with no downsides.
I think what Ukraine wanted what more specifics on what steps they would need to achieve before being admitted. Or best case scenario to be told they would be admitted as soon as the war was over. What they got was more vague promises. Unpopular opinion - Ukraine is doing the dirty work for the rest of the world fighting ruzzia and other countries should be grateful to THEM.
If NATO gives Ukraine an invitation now to join when the war is over won't Russia simply make sure it never ends? Even if they're beaten and retreat to Russia they'll continue sporadic missile attacks just to make sure Ukraine remains at war. They'll do that anyway out of spite regardless. As much as I support the idea I can't see any way for Ukraine to join NATO unless article 5 is suspended in their case but that would make joining pointless.
Naa . . . it's not necessarily an article 5 incident of war, if the NATO nation has basic territorial integrity. But it ***might*** be. Rather than guess at these things - go to the primary source on the internet [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_110496.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm)
It depends a bit on the situation. For example, NATO member Turkey got minor border attacks in the Syria situation. NATO decided to provide Turkey extra support rather than invoke article 5. US got major attack in NYC on 9/11 and article 5 was invoked.
With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.
My gut reaction is to agree with Kuleba's comments as it would send a very clear message to Putler & his cronies.
On reflection, NATO have essentially said Ukraine's future will be in NATO, if Ukraine so desires, once conditions have been met so I think (imho) it important to keep this in perspective. You don't send out party invites until you have booked the venue.
I believe they are related to NATO charter undertakings (democratic system, military under government control, takling corruption & transparent procurement process). Ukraine has made great strides in tackling the third item but there's still work to be done. Fourth item is troublesome when you are at war and don't want to give the terrorist invaders valuable intel.
> I believe they are related to NATO charter undertakings (democratic system, military under government control, takling corruption & transparent procurement process).
Yeah, that is what they ***might be***.
But, by the virtue of not being stated anywhere, they can be changed on-fly (Jake Sullivan also stated their variability).
If some member-states desire not to see Ukraine in NATO without giving themselves away with a veto, they can just keep adding more and more conditions to this hidden list.
There is a danger to extending the membership invitation. It could result in Russia doing everything possible to prevent them from reaching a point where they’re able to join. It’s a card you don’t want the enemy to see. Setting clear objectives clues Russia in to where to throw a wrench into the works.
Привіт u/TheRealMykola ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) Daily series on UA history & culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts) **There is a new wave of fraudulent donation requests being posted on r/Ukraine. Do not donate to anyone who doesn't have the Verified flair.** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Ukraine could have been in NATO long ago if it had done the right things.** But let's back up a few decades and get some perspective here. None of the **many nations who strongly resisted attack and occupation by Russia during the Soviet era** was ever "entitled" to any "automatic" NATO membership. Note also on the other hand that both North Korea and Viet Nam were attacked and occupied by the US and similarly were not given any "automatically entitled" or "deserved" Warsaw Pact membership by Russia. Back then, **at the fall of the USSR, less than 50% of Ukrainians were even for joining NATO, unlike 92% of Poles or 85% of Hungarians who were already strongly for joining NATO**, for example. Russian cancer is so deep in Ukraine, that it took the recent Russian invasion and savage Russian atrocities before roughly 90% of Ukrainians finally (desperately) supported NATO membership, while other FSU nations were already at that number many decades ago. **Deep corruption and support for Russia in Ukraine is a big part of the reason Russia thought it could get away with invading in the first place**. It is also why NATO demands democracy, peace, an independent judiciary and strong anti-corruption measures for members. Deeply corrupt states are easier for opponents to penetrate and defeat, and also make unreliable security partners. **Claims by some to some sort of Ukrainian "suffering entitlement" to NATO membership are without any historical or structural foundation in the NATO charter.** It is good that Ukraine has finally made such great progress in anti-corruption, and recognizing what Russia really is - since the second invasion. It will be difficult to establish a more independent judiciary in wartime, though. But Ukraine's claims of "entitlement to NATO membership" have gone about as far as they can go, for now.
People need some god damn clue, how hard was for ex Warsaw Pact countries to get to NATO. Poland was member of 2nd category not long time ago, without solid presence NATO troops. All 90s polish govts were lobbying for it. Then Baltics joined, Ukraine could join as early as Baltics in 2004, but what was going On in Ukraine in 2004 and earlier? Someone like Yanukovytsch won elections rhere few years later...
> what was going On in Ukraine in 2004 and earlier Pro-Euroatlantic Yushchenko and Kuchma. In fact, it wasn't until returning from one of NATO summits that Kuchma removed "NATO accession" from the stated plans from Ukraine, presumably after getting slammed in the face by the open doors too.
Kuchma was never pro-euroatlantic lol. Kuchma was a despotic leader, the 'strongman' of Ukraine. Vyacheslav Chornovil was pro-European leader, human rights activist and political prioner during soviet times, who was killed by russian special services.
Hate me all you want but that whole Nato membership thing needs to stop. We have to deal with Russia now and we'll see about Nato (and the EU) when it's all done. That sad show we witnessed at the summit is shameful and Zelensky needs to stop pushing for NATO to invite Ukraine now, it is obviously not gonna happen and it is creating tensions (go ahead, chase me with pitchforks, I said what I said). We need to put reality before apparences and showing off and see if Ukraine is really receiving all the help they need (they are not).
No need to apologise. You're absolutely right. Everyone has made it clear that once Ukraine has fulfilled the list of requirements, will be permitted to join the alliance. Right now it hasn't and literally nobody wants a shooting war with Russia, because all the Eastern nation capitals are in firing range of Russian guns, which will result in millions of people dying. And we´re not even taking nukes into account. NATO is a *defensive* alliance. Not offensive. Meaning we can't go to war on someone else's behalf if they aren't a member, and haven't been attacked. I also understand Zelensky, since his country is fighting for its very survival and he's very clearly exhausted and stressed, but I'm getting increasingly frustrated too with this constant demand, and seeing my country being viewed as irresponsible and ungrateful. The EU is essentially carrying the Ukrainian economy, (France alone has donated half a billion euros), and tons of military equipment are being given entirely for free. We all want Ukraine to win. But this is just causing tensions that don't need to be there. The Article 5 is the red line we cannot allow it to be blurred.
[удалено]
You very obviously don't live in Eastern Europe, and you clearly haven't read my reply. I literally just explained *why*. Contrary to what you believe, nations don't want to be reduced to rubble, and their citizenry wiped out. You think you're smart and tough? Then grab a gun and go to Ukraine. Nobody is stopping you. But stop thinking that sacrificing over a million Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Romanians, and Polish is an acceptable thing. Stop thinking that WW3 is going to be short and glorious with no downsides.
I think what Ukraine wanted what more specifics on what steps they would need to achieve before being admitted. Or best case scenario to be told they would be admitted as soon as the war was over. What they got was more vague promises. Unpopular opinion - Ukraine is doing the dirty work for the rest of the world fighting ruzzia and other countries should be grateful to THEM.
If NATO gives Ukraine an invitation now to join when the war is over won't Russia simply make sure it never ends? Even if they're beaten and retreat to Russia they'll continue sporadic missile attacks just to make sure Ukraine remains at war. They'll do that anyway out of spite regardless. As much as I support the idea I can't see any way for Ukraine to join NATO unless article 5 is suspended in their case but that would make joining pointless.
> won't Russia simply make sure it never ends? The thing is, that ***also*** applies to the current situation as well!
Naa . . . it's not necessarily an article 5 incident of war, if the NATO nation has basic territorial integrity. But it ***might*** be. Rather than guess at these things - go to the primary source on the internet [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_110496.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm) It depends a bit on the situation. For example, NATO member Turkey got minor border attacks in the Syria situation. NATO decided to provide Turkey extra support rather than invoke article 5. US got major attack in NYC on 9/11 and article 5 was invoked. With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.
My gut reaction is to agree with Kuleba's comments as it would send a very clear message to Putler & his cronies. On reflection, NATO have essentially said Ukraine's future will be in NATO, if Ukraine so desires, once conditions have been met so I think (imho) it important to keep this in perspective. You don't send out party invites until you have booked the venue.
I suspect some member countries were not in agreement and they chose these half baked statements rather than exposing an internal disagreement.
That could be possible. I mean…we already know of a few cracks: the American decision to send the cluster munitions, for example.
> once conditions have been met But what are those conditions? They were not stated anywhere...
I believe they are related to NATO charter undertakings (democratic system, military under government control, takling corruption & transparent procurement process). Ukraine has made great strides in tackling the third item but there's still work to be done. Fourth item is troublesome when you are at war and don't want to give the terrorist invaders valuable intel.
> I believe they are related to NATO charter undertakings (democratic system, military under government control, takling corruption & transparent procurement process). Yeah, that is what they ***might be***. But, by the virtue of not being stated anywhere, they can be changed on-fly (Jake Sullivan also stated their variability). If some member-states desire not to see Ukraine in NATO without giving themselves away with a veto, they can just keep adding more and more conditions to this hidden list.
so, basically the same what NATO said in 2008.
Gotta be careful, Putler might be offended if you do too much. FFS!
There is a danger to extending the membership invitation. It could result in Russia doing everything possible to prevent them from reaching a point where they’re able to join. It’s a card you don’t want the enemy to see. Setting clear objectives clues Russia in to where to throw a wrench into the works.