Russian officials are demanding that any negotiations with NATO over the future status of Ukraine assure that the nation will never join NATO as a member.
It’s not hard to see why, as Ukraine has a long border with Russia, and particularly during tense times between NATO and Russia, the nation would just as soon not have NATO troops directly on their border.
It’s hard to imagine NATO seriously considering Ukraine for membership, despite pushes from the more bellicose nations to rush through their membership, both because of the ongoing civil war, and because Ukraine continues to claim Crimea, which Russia annexed earlier this year.
Much as with Georgia’s bid for NATO membership, having territorial claims outside of their direct control is a non-starter, as it virtually assures that NATO would be sucked immediately into a war over that territory.
Ukraine’s officials are still talking up NATO membership, with President Poroshenko saying it is “too early” to talk about a timeline, but that he is determined to make reforms to ready them for potential membership. Other Ukrainian leaders have suggested NATO membership is their primary goal, as a way to secure massive military aid.
Porky is putting Ukraine in a very dangerous situation by goading the Russians into invading the country to keep it from joining NATO. President Putin has already demanded that NATO not take any steps closer to Russia's borders; that Russia has every right to defend those borders against any further incursions. Putin has warned the West against bringing Ukraine into NATO before; that such an act is an act of aggressive war, which Russia would be forced to respond in kind. Guarantees to keep Ukraine out of NATO is what the Russians demand; and, both Ukraine and NATO had better deliver, to keep peace in the region.
Interesting to note just how scared the pro-Putin faction (which means essentially the Israel Lobby) is of Putin invading more of Ukraine. Just as Putin sees the Lobby holding Obama back, Proroshenko sees Lobby "assets" in Russia holding Putin back. What we all see is that the discrediting of NATO as Europe's defender and of the US as Israel's is a disaster for the Lobby and a war in Europe would be a further disaster inasmuch as a peaceful, stable Europe is essential to provide the US with a forward base from which to defend Israel. Inother words the presernt mess has nothing to do with Ukraine, Russia, the EU, NATO or even the US. It's a squabblebetween different factions of Israel's supporters as to how best to defend Israel, with half the planet being held to ransome.
Russia better make sure they get it in writing this time.
That was Gorbachev's big mistake.
As if any assurances by the US, the West or NATO have any value or meaning.
Agreed. Though you should add Russia to the mix, here, too.
If there's one lesson Ukraine learned from the last year, it's that they should not have given away their nukes in 1994.
They weren't "their" nukes, but Soviet nukes under Soviet control.
In what way didn't Russia keep its word?
Russia, Georgia and Ukraine will all no doubt be part of whatever future European defence arrangement succeeds NATO and I don't see why there should be any problem about giving Putin what he wantsas regards NATO. Of course, nothing will happen until Putin allows the supposed "rebellion" in Donetsk and Lugansk to be crushed. Until then, Putin's own conduct requires that both Georgia and Ukraine receive NATO levels of military equipment and training, which, as far as Ukraine is concerned, is already happening via Poland and Lithuania.
In its current form, Ukraine cannot afford to join NATO. Part of being a member of NATO is contributing to the financial requirements of membership. Ukraine can't even afford to pay its gas bills much less contribute to the current NATO adventures. Despite the calls from McCain and other "We're all Georgians today" for fast-tracking Georgia into NATO back in 2008 when Georgia foolishly attempted to backhand the Russians over some people who didn't want to be part of Georgia – well, they're still waiting.
NATO is not in the business of funding deadbeats or doing anything for free. And as long as Poroshenko insists on destroying the eastern oblasts where most of the country's energy and manufacturing assets are they will never get to the point where NATO considers them worth extending membership.
I think NATO-US will make an exception to the financial requirements for the Ukraine just so they can establish some sort of legal fiction to bring Poroshenko the poltroon and his illegitimate regime under western control like the other European sock puppets. The goal of NATO-US is all about being geographically positioned on the borders of the Russian Federation and they will "bend the rules" to accomplish their agenda.
Please tell me how Latvia and Lithuania are "contributing to the financial requirements of membership…."
Or how defending these countries makes Americans safer?