NATO on Tuesday doubled down on its pledge to eventually admit Ukraine during a meeting of the alliance’s foreign ministers in Bucharest, Romania, a position that played a major role in provoking Russia’s invasion.
The Romanian city was where NATO initially made the promise to Ukraine back in 2008, and at the time, US officials acknowledged that attempting to bring the country into the alliance could spark a war in the region.
“We made the decision in Bucharest in 2008 at the summit,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Tuesday. “I was there … representing Norway as Prime Minister. I remember very well the decisions. We stand by those decisions. NATO’s door is open.”
In a joint statement, the NATO foreign ministers, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, said that they “reaffirm” the decisions that were made at the 2008 Bucharest summit.
CIA Director William Burns wrote a cable in 2008, when he was the US ambassador to Russia, that said promising NATO memberships to Ukraine as well as Georgia touches a “raw nerve” in Russia and raises serious security concerns for Moscow.
Burns wrote: “Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.”
Burns said in the cable, which was released by WikiLeaks, that Russia was particularly concerned about Ukraine. “Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face,” he wrote.
The pledge to admit Ukraine into NATO didn’t lead to a civil war right away, but one was sparked after former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in a US-backed coup in 2014. Separatists in the eastern Donbas region rejected the more Europe and US-friendly post-coup government and declared independence.
Starting after Yanukovych was ousted, NATO began a deep partnership with Ukraine by sending troops to train the country’s military, and the US began providing Kyiv with anti-tank missiles during the Trump administration. Yahoo News revealed earlier this year that the US deployed CIA paramilitaries to the frontlines of the Donbas war in 2014 to train Ukrainian forces.
During the lead-up to Russia’s February 24 invasion, Russia presented the US with a list of security demands. Chief among them was the issue of NATO expansion, which Russia wanted to be rolled back. Moscow was also seeking a guarantee that Ukraine won’t ever join NATO, but the US refused to entertain the idea even though President Biden had acknowledged that Kyiv wouldn’t be joining the alliance anytime soon.
Shortly after Russia’s invasion, Ukrainian President Voldymr Zelensky said he was told privately that Ukraine won’t be joining NATO. “I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five, just say it directly and clearly, or just say no,” Zelensky said in March. “And the response was very clear, you’re not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open.”
While NATO doesn’t plan on admitting Ukraine as a full member anytime soon, the alliance has big plans for the country. POLITICO reported in October that NATO is developing a 10-year plan to rebuild Ukraine’s military and arms industry with a focus on shifting the country from using Soviet equipment to primarily using NATO weapons. The report said the plan would make Ukraine a “default” member of NATO, a situation that will never be acceptable to Russia.
This is the stupidest sh-t I’ve ever heard of…! Is there anyone in NATO that has a brain?… “Default” member? Seriously?
Yes, it’s the lawyers’ way of lying without lying, stealing without stealing, torturing without torturing, …very common latter day neocon practice, same pattern with “One China policy”, …having it both ways of a direct contradiction, strategic ambiguity, … double-think.
Ask me again why I despise lawyers – excepting Philadelphia Lawyer, obviously 😉
Except for Philadelphia Lawyer of course! 😉
Edited.
Absolutely! And Philadelphia is my birth place 😉
Interesting! I’ve not been to Philly, but the best trip of my lifetime was a week spent in Gettysburg ( huge Civil War buff here!)
Might also mention Israeli ambiguity on its nuclear status. If it were to admit bombs, U.S. law would cut off aid until they became signatory to IAEA.
I’m still pretty confident the Yale Law types would find a formula around that.
Agreed.
This is bad news for the citizens of the US as we just guaranteed that the US-Russian war that is being fought in Ukraine lasts a long long time, and especially bad for the citizens of West Ukraine as they live where the war is being fought.
We don’t guarantee the length of the war, only that the end of it will eliminate Ukraine.
In other news, Joe chortled over the U.S. defeating Iran in a World Cup game, as if it was a defeat on a battlefield. Joe is a super war monger, right there. Using a soccer game to score political points. So childish.
Yeah, it was a real barn-burner, too; 1-0.
God, I hate soccer.
Joe is a complete ass.
This confirms that Russia was forced to war, and that the only possible peace is for Russia to destroy Ukraine as a political entity.
That is great power politics 101. Some things you can’t do to the other great powers.
Well only if you do not believe in the nuclear deterrence – if that is the case then what Putin has just done is to show NATO that now is the time to strike.
Given that NATO is doing its very best to not actually provide weapons to the Ukrainians that would be of a very offensive capacity and has avoided to deliver both airplanes and so far tanks – NATO does not seem at all eager to get into a conflict or exploit Russia’s current apparent weakness – so perhaps NATO is as far as Russia is concerned just a defensive alliance?
Well if they can do this we can put them on ice like we did the Soviets – I’m guessing that the Russians will not fancy having their trade partners face the choice between trade with Russia or trade with the west.
NATO is a cancer and the antithesis to peace.
yes but,
blaming
an inanimate object
like a brick building
could understand the root thesis
towards peace
And Russia is not, I guess.
The goal of the leaders of NATO is the escalation of the confrontation between NATO and Russia. However, they want such an escalation, which wouldn’t terminate in a big nuclear war. So far, they are successful.
If that was/is the case why do they not send planes and ATACMS – neither of which would be likely to provoke nuclear war.
Ukraine will cease to exist very soon so it’s a moot point!
This tells all. To NATO, Ukraine was nothing but a trap for Russia. NATO doesn’t care how many Ukrainians die. In fact, they would like more Ukrainians to die to keep them from migrating to Europe. It’s not only fatal stupidity we’re witnessing on full display. It’s pure evil. The population in the west are peacefully chewing their cud like cattle on the way to the slaughter house, a terminal and all inclusive nuclear holocaust.
This is exactly right. Basically, the “West” hates both Ukrainians and Russians … both are “deplorables” and unredeamable so for the corporatocracy that rules us. So why not use them to destroy each other, all in service and extension of MICIMATT of course.
It’s the Iran Iraq war on steroids.
They hate it the Polish too. Anyone that isn’t them is hated.
NATO is developing a 10-year plan to rebuild Ukraine’s military and arms industry with a focus on shifting the country from using Soviet equipment to primarily using NATO weapons
there it is = the bomb makers in the US are looking forward to their new customer base and are actively working towards cornering the market
Even worse, the cost of this will be on the backs of taxpayers. Other expenses will be at the feet of the general public in the form of inflation.
There is no gain for us. Lots of risk. Lots of moral costs via death, destruction and mayhem. The oligarchy of Western countries reap the benefits. The rest of us don’t. So, why do we put up with it?
Back in 2008? Funny, when Russia said that joining NATO was a red line, the NATO controlled MSM called it a conspiracy theory.
Kiev wants to enter NATO so they can bomb the people in Donbass without consequences. Even now they are killing civilians in Donetsk from their fortified positions nearby. They have killed 14,000 people over eight years and driven more than 100,000 from their homes. Russia has taken care of them. Likewise, they stole the pensions of the old people living in Donbass and Crimea – that was Pereshenko’s and Zelensky’s revenge. That, and cutting off the water to Crimea, and forbidding them from importing wheat or electricity.
Zelensky admitted in March 2022 that “I made a point that the war in Ukraine has been lasting for eight years. It’s not just some special military operation.”
You mean an email, don’t you? Why should it be called a “cable” to somehow sound more magic? Besides I have cables in my house, they’re not something you write. He wrote an email.
“They, the separatists, and the separatists’ Russian allies have killed 14,000 people over eight years”
Fixed, no charge.
“They, the separatists, and the separatists’ Russian allies have killed 14,000 people over eight years”
Advance thanks for supporting an otherwise worthless claim.
Google “Donbas casualties 2014-2022” for all the “support” you want. The casualties were a mix of Ukrainian troops, separatist troops, civilians, and a few Russian troops.
Order is incorrect. The greatest loss of lives were civilians.
I didn’t state any ascending or descending order. I just named the categories.
And I only pointed that the order of casualties was incorrect. It is, however relevant to the discussion. Mostly civilians died. The vast majority were cultural and ethnic Russians. Resisting a oppressive government should not be seen as a crime.
No, the “order of casualties” wasn’t “incorrect,” because there was no implication that they were “ordered” in any particular way.
“Mostly civilians died.”
According to the United Nations, about 3,400 civilians died between 2014 and the 2022 invasion, versus about 4,400 Ukrainian forces and about 6,500 DPR/LPR forces. 3,400 is not “most of” 14,300.
The conflicting claims of the Ukrainian and separatist forces are even more lopsidedly non-civilian. The separatists claimed to have killed 10,000 Ukrainian troops as of June 2015. The Ukrainian forces claimed to have killed 14,600 separatist troops as of early 2015. And the DPR and LPR regimes claimed a total combined of 6,370 civilians killed as of 2018.
The Donask and Lugansk Republics BURIED over 9,000 CIVILIANS. You may choose to believe the UN. I don’t.
The UN didn’t bury the bodies.
The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics claimed fewer than 9,000 dead civilians. So are you saying they buried some alive?
The Lugansk and Donask via Lugansk was cited by Lugansk was over 9000 civilians several months ago.
So, no live people buried.
Perhaps you should refrain from inane comments Thomas. It’s not a productive use of anyone’s time.
Google? Really?
“Google “Donbas casualties 2014-2022″ for all the ‘support’ you want. The casualties were a mix of Ukrainian troops, separatist troops, civ-”
ie, 14,000 is total casualties on both sides vs 14,000 “kill[ings]” only by “separatists and the separatists’ Russian allies” as you claimed
“NATO Doubles Down on Pledge to Eventually Destroy Ukraine”
Fixed.
To the last Ukrainian, and now with mass formations of Polish troops in Ukraine, to the last Polish soldier.
The Armageddon Clock just ticked down to 15 seconds while the world bellowed about the World Cup, drank beer, had an org*** about nationalism and painted flags on their kids’ cheeks.
I expect this is mostly to “create” something that can be negotiated away in an eventual settlement.
Na, this is just a little something for Zelenski as other gifts are drying up. Who would have thought NATO would be running out of ammunition? US just purchased some from South Korea. It is no loger that easy to show off sucesses, even when loosing, Now, they have the “Desilience Centers”, places to come for wormh, food. But it is another show. Being unable to quickly convert schools and other public venues into gathering centers -/ they brought in tents, with generators used for heating devices. Not at all adequate for temperstures iin the twenties. Most are empty, no food provided
It does not liok like they prepared for a war at all. After all, Russia went after military targets and weapins storage,
Before destroying Nord Stream and Kerch Bridge Zelenski and his NATO partners should have prepared for consequences — loss of their own infrastructure. And what to do in an emergency.
Now all Ukrainian army can fo is to dig into Bakhmut muddy and freezing trenches, trying to hold Russian advance. And they know why it is critical.
As Western allues are at each other’s throats over US gouging energy prices to Europe, European industries are facing collapse at the same time Biden’s clumate 300 plus billion package will woo European industries to US,
Macron coming to Washington to beg US not to fleece them in thix situation.
But that is not all, Our Asian allies, the biggest gllibal providers of micro chips — are facing calamity. US series of sanctions against Chins has tge effect of destroying key market for Japan, Tsiwan and South Korea. China is by far biggest byer.
Us brags of having dominance in chips PRODUCT SPAN. Meaning that US provides most of the design, software and chip makung equipment. While Japan, South Korea and Taiwan do the manufacturing. Meaning source materials , and sustain capital and labor intensive industry.
Now here is the rub — this is calked co-dependency, and US policies have changed drastically since Trump. Co-dependency is consider nos dangerous as US allies produce chips — Us does not. What if allies make more miney from China and US cannot get enough chips to power nilitary and other industries?
Thus mega money to actually make Taiwan and Samsung build factories in US! It will take a while for US to catch up on engineers, factory management, materials supply and maintenance.
But what is in it to our Asian Alies? Nothing but a loss of Chinese market, and eventual loss of US market after our factories ramp up priduction,
In Europe we destroyed allies energy supplies, in Asis we destroyed allies’ market. With no benefits to either.
It all makes sense. US cannot tackle Russia or China while our European and Asian allies are strong economically — thus independent in making choices in alliances,
From the position of weakness they have few choices. One — the most desirable from US perspective — is to become proxies in fighting Russia and China.
The US is the true bull in a china shop.
Pretty misleading. I don’t see “NATO” doubling down on anything. According to the first link, Stoltenburg is running his war mongering mouth. But he hardly speaks for all NATO countries. The article actually says that the Kiev regime will NOT be joining NATO anytime soon, and that its borders are not even established, what with the war raging. Also, even Stoltenburg admitted that moving to admit the Kiev regime would be divisive, and added that, “We are in the midst of a war and therefore we should do nothing that can undermine the unity of allies to provide military, humanitarian, financial support to Ukraine, because we must prevent President Putin from winning.” Again, stressing that maintaining NATO “unity” means NOT pressing for the Kiev-based entity joining NATO.
And the official statement, also linked in the article, of the foreign ministers says merely that, “We reaffirm the decisions we took at the 2008 Bucharest Summit and all subsequent decisions with respect to Georgia and Ukraine.” At Bucharest in 2008, the foreign ministers said this:
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
Which is, perhaps, less than meets the eye. Sure, the mentioned regimes would, someday, “become” members. And while their “applications for MAP” (which stands for “Membership Action PLAN,” not membership itself), were “welcomed,” yet the statement itself refers to “intensive engagement” to address “questions still outstanding” pertaining to their MAP applications, never mind their actual membership.
Also, notice that the current statement also refers to “all subsequent decisions” regarding the Kiev regime. Well, it has been quite a long time since 2008, and, apparently it has never been “decided” to accept the Ukraine into NATO as a full member. Indeed, as recently as 12June2020 it was made clear that no decision had been made:
Ukraine’s status as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner does not prejudge any decisions on NATO membership.
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-grants-ukraine-enhanced-opportunities-partner-status/30667898.html
It appears that, as of quite recently, there is not even a MAP pending for the Kiev regime….
Participation in the MAP
Participation in the MAP helped prepare the seven countries that joined NATO in the second post-Cold War round of enlargement in 2004 (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) as well as Albania and Croatia, which joined in April 2009. Montenegro, which joined the MAP in December 2009, became a member of the Alliance in June 2017. The Republic of North Macedonia, which had been participating in the MAP since 1999, joined NATO in March 2020.
Currently, Bosnia and Herzegovina is participating in the MAP, having been invited to do so in 2010.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37356.htm
No mention of the Ukraine.
Also, in all of this nonsense….
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
about NATO’s wonderful “relations with Ukraine,” there is not even a mention of a MAP.
NATO is kicking the can down the road, again. That is certainly not as good a thing as simply disavowing membership would be. But I am not seeing it as “doubling down,” either.
You are correct. France and Germany did not support starting a MAP with Ukraine and Georgia back in 2008. Ukraine is not currently a democracy. It was just crazy Bush offering that. Details will appear in Part III of this series that will post next week. Here is Part II that provides background.
Yes, the Ukraine applied for MAP in 2008. It is well-known that approval was resisted by France and Germany and others NATO members, including, more recently, Hungary. In 2010, the Ukraine withdrew its application. Not sure if it ever officially renewed it. On Sept 30 this year, the Ukraine asked for an “accelerted membership procedure.”
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/mi-robimo-svij-viznachalnij-krok-pidpisuyuchi-zayavku-ukrayi-78173
Even Stoltenburg was less than enthusiastic, as you can see.
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-09-30-22/h_2127c3e731deebfdc354906a0210d0d1
As far as I know, NATO hasn’t officially said anything about the application.
And here is a question posed to Stoltenburg, in the press conference yesterday, and his answer:
Lili Bayer (Politico):
“…During the political discussion regarding the future of Ukraine and Ukraine’s membership aspirations, did Allies discuss at all any potential steps that the Alliance or Ukraine could take to come closer together and to help Ukraine prepare their membership application? Or is any such framework or concrete steps, are those off the table? Thank you.”
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
“We are discussing how to further strengthen our partnership with Ukraine and also help them move towards NATO membership. NATO Allies have reiterated their decision taken here in Bucharest about NATO membership in 2008. And we have also demonstrated that NATO’s door is open. We have demonstrated that over the last years by inviting North Macedonia and Montenegro to join, they already joined, and also by inviting Finland and Sweden. Already 28 out of 30 Allies have ratified their accession protocols.
“On Ukraine, of course, the main focus now is on providing urgent needed support, both to help them defend themselves, but also to repair the destroyed energy infrastructure and many other types of support. But on Ukraine, we are discussing how can we strengthen further the political partnership, short of membership, and there are different ways of doing that just by meeting more frequently, having more substantive discussions, and looking into different ways of expanding, deepening our political partnership.
“Second, we are now stepping up the practical support. And of course the practical support is important because we provide them with fuel generators, winter clothing, drones, jammers, and many other things, but the political support and the practical support goes hand-in-hand because by expanding the practical support, we also are engaging more closely with Ukraine. And we’re also looking into how we can further strengthen that when it comes to, for instance, capacity building, helping Ukraine to transition from Soviet-era equipment, to standards and doctrines, to NATO standards and doctrines, and become more interoperable with NATO forces. So the practical cooperation and the political cooperation goes hand-in-hand and it’s helping to move Ukraine towards NATO.”
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_209381.htm?selectedLocale=en
In other words, nothing at all is actually being done in terms of “helping Ukraine with its application,” much less approving it. Nothing, in the reporter’s words, of a “concrete step.”
NATO is nowhere near ready to accept the Ukraine as a member. For that matter, neither is the EU….
“Meeting at a summit in Brussels, leaders of the EU’s 27 nations mustered the required unanimous approval to grant Ukraine candidate status. That sets in motion a membership process that could take years or even decades…To gain EU membership, countries must meet a detailed host of economic and political conditions, including a commitment to the rule of law and other democratic principles. Ukraine will have to curb entrenched government corruption and adopt other reforms…EU candidate status doesn’t give an automatic right to join the bloc and doesn’t provide any immediate security guarantees…”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/european-union-to-grant-ukraine-candidate-status-war-russia/
Actions, or, the lack of action, speaks louder than words. Europe is hedging its bets with respect to the Ukraine.
And then there’s the fact that a number of current members look askance at a country governed in part by neo nazis.
“NATO is kicking the can down the road, again. That is certainly not as good a thing as simply disavowing membership would be. But I am not seeing it as ‘doubling down,’ either.”
Yes…as I noted elsewhere in this thread, NATO countries clearly were (in 2008) and remain opposed to Ukraine membership period. But the US and dominant, belligerent members in NATO evidently had the power to make the ‘future membship statement’ part of its official pronouncements.
Less belligerent members have long capitulated that way.
The best I can take out of it is:
a/ Stoltenberg’s sidelong admission elsewhere that countries remain opposed to membership at all;
b/ Bulgaria’s stepping back over NATO membership (both a and b footnoted in my other comments), and
c/ the fact that – as noted in this article – Ukraine was directly told that it would not be admitted ever, but that “officially the door would remain open”…
…making this statement a case of ‘officially the door remaining open,’ though nonpublic veto evidently remains in place.
Can see the glass as half full or empty – empty? wimpy NATO opposition and a longer war/cold war conflict since it will never be acceptable to Russia; full? clearly the opposition is still there, and a vague ‘future membership’ can be seen as a maximalist position, already admitted as a false hope by Z once, officially dropped as a hope by Z once, so the US can save face in negotiations by representing it as U’s decision.
It’s all reading tea leaves! But I think the various diplomatic posturings do show a small retreat, rather than a doubling down, on the hawks’ part. Incorporating by reference the endorsement in principle of the 2008 conference is not exactly a clarion call!
Me thinks that NATO/US speak with forked tongue.
Stoltenburg is a complete horse’s ass. He’s the very embodiment of the Peter Principle.
Georgia and Ukraine have elevated corruption to a planetary art form.
I understand your sentiment, Bear, but horses everywhere object to their butts being compared to Doltenburg!
LOL! Good one!
This article says it all. NATO was arming Ukraine and was not going to grant membership until it was “ready”. Meantime NATO continued to make it ready. Putin had no choice but to attack Ukraine. The ignorance of the American public is sickening, especially since it was all known within the government, specifically by William Burns, whose warnings had been uncovered by Wikileaks. Today’s revelation by Ursula v d L of the real Ukraine casualties is the result of Ukraine “not being ready” to join NATO. This all shows how degenerate US “leadership” has become and how feckless the European Community is for allowing itself to be led by such degenerates.
“Putin had no choice but to attack Ukraine.”
“Vladimir Putin is a meat puppet with no will or decision-making ability of his own” is an oldie but not really a goodie.
Bigoted propaganda. So your argument is that Putin makes all the decisions and parliament does nothing?
I agree: The idea that Putin is just a helpless, crawling robot under the complete control of the west is bigoted propaganda.
As for the Duma, here is the English translation of Putin’s claim in his February 24 announcement:
“I have decided to conduct a special military operation.”
Was he lying? Were there secret orders from the Duma or somewhere else which he was powerless to countermand?
Putin is the President, the buck stops there. It finally is his decision, he could of course veto the Duma.
Why do you hate Russian’s so much (Putin of course is a metaphor for Russians) and why the constant war propaganda? Nothing you have said about Russia (Putin) is true. And what you say is laced with prejudice and hatred.
The Obama coup in 2014 is well documented, the ethnic cleansing campaign by the Nazi’s is well documented.
Is your bigotry and hatred of Russia not a conflict of interest in a site called Antiwar? Why is your support for Nazism not a conflict of interest?
This SMO has so far bleed 100,000 Ukrainian officers dead. Probably twice that seriously injured. This constant war propaganda is leading to a lot of people getting killed.
I opposed the 2014 coup, and the ethnic cleansing. And I still do. My position since 2014 has CONSISTENTLY been that the Ukrainian regime should let the seceded Donbas republics go peaceably. And that NATO should be disbanded. And that the US should not be involved in the current war in any way, shape, manner, or form.
How is directly quoting Vladimir Putin, and asserting that he’s not a moron, meat puppet, or hostage “hating Russians?”
The next time I support Nazism will be the first time I support Nazism. And there won’t be a first time.
Apparently your definition of “hating Russians” is mentioning facts that you don’t like.
Being antiwar means opposing war, not supporting your preferred regime’s wars.
“… your preferred regime’s wars”
Oh, brother. Thought you could do a little better than this.
Before Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky quit negotiations with Russia to settle the war in Ukraine, he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on 20 March 2022, “I made a point that the war in Ukraine has been lasting for eight years. It’s not just some special military operation.”
Zakaria had asked him “You have said recently that Ukraine perhaps will not be a member of NATO. You have admitted that. Could that — there are people who ask, could that concession, had you made it clearly and loudly earlier, could that have prevented this war?”
Zelensky’s reply said that for Ukraine to make such a “concession” — would be unacceptable to Ukrainians, because this war had started “eight years” earlier, and they wouldn’t accept now — after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 — a “concession” of an indispensable part of what their military has been fighting for ever since long before that, going all the way back to 2014. — virtual if not official membership in NATO, so that American missiles can then become posted on Ukraine’s border only 300 miles away from Russia’s command center in The Kremlin. That has always been Ukraine’s goal throughout this eight-year war. And for Ukraine to “concede” it to Russia now would be for Ukraine to lose what they have been waging war for eight years in order to attain.
He also told Zakaria that Ukrainians would never accept any concession to Russia on what was, before 2014, Ukrainian land: Crimea and Donbass: “Any compromises related to our territorial integrity and our sovereignty … We cannot concede to it.” The NATO issue is part of that:
So: the Big Lie about Ukraine’s war is that it started on 24 February 2022, instead of during 20-26 February 2014. Even Ukraine’s President acknowledges that it is false. Ukraine’s President acknowledges that they have been at war with Russia since 2014.
But Putin is a monster and Putin heads a regime, while the Ukraine is a Nazi infested abomination. How about you loose the war rhetoric and start talking facts and truths.
Putin and Zelenskyy are both monsters, Putin and Zelenskyy both head regimes, and both of those regimes (and others) are responsible for the ongoing war.
Facts and truths are what I deal in. That you find some facts and truths inconvenient to your Kool Aid preferences doesn’t magically make them stop being facts and truths.
It’s not an argument. Just one hundred per cent brazenly bold, not to mention jaw-droppingly shameless fiction. Thomas has strong views of sorts on the subject of Russia and Putin. All and without exception, of them are quintessentially hallucinatory.
NATO should have been disbanded as needless when the Warsaw Pact finished with the Cold War ending. The power-hungry USA could not bear peace and cooperation, so of course an enemy was easy to find and fight ie Russia.
It will never happen. Pure phantasy. Russia won’t allow it.
In response I bet Russia annexes all of Ukraine.
Dear Dave DeCamp,
Your article omits a key point of NATO’s 2008 summit statement re Ukraine’s future membership: opposition within NATO, about which Stoltenberg’s ‘memory’ of the 2008 ‘agreement’ is dishonest:
a/ Bush declared without warning that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members;
b/ a number of NATO members – France and Germany especially – flatly opposed NATO membership for Ukraine – opposed it period (doubtless for the reasons given in Burns’ nonpublic cable) (NYT, 4/3/08, “NATO Allies Oppose Bush on Georgia and Ukraine”);
c/ the 2o08 statement re ‘future membership’ was compromise language that apparently never changed NATO opposition: a “compromise reached by…Bush when other NATO members, like Germany and France, rejected his proposal to offer the two countries a concrete and immediate road map – [i.e., the conventional ‘offer’] – to membership.” (NYT, 12/21 “Ally, Member or Partner? NATO’s Long Dilemma Over Ukraine”)
d/ Even after the compromise, the US lobbied hard to abandon the normal membership process and requirements, and to make them members post haste – again angering other members. (NYT, 11/25/08, “U.S. Presses NATO on Georgia and Ukraine”)
e/ Stoltenberg elsewhere lets slip that NATO members still oppose Ukraine membership: “30 allies have to agree, and we don’t have consensus agreement in NATO now on inviting Ukraine into becoming a full member.” (Axios, 2/27/22, “Flashback: Why NATO stiffed Ukraine”)
Note: even in the above interview, Stoltenberg is weasel-word-y – but its clear that the “now” covers up simple membership opposition to letting in Ukraine – just as in 08.
f/ Stoltenberg’s ‘I remember’ garbage is totally dishonest – he ‘remembers’ 2008, except for any of the above. Stoltenberg is, as they say, an unreliable narrator.
Yes, all true.
“Stoltenberg is, as they say, an unreliable narrator.” … Stoltenberg is a mouthpiece of a dangerous and despicable ideology: neoconservative. Lying is second nature to this bunch.
NATO Doubles Down on its Own Destruction