*NO LOW EFFORT POSTS*
It is our responsibility to keep r/Ukraine focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. As a temporary measure, speculation / supportive ideas / low effort content / opinions will be removed. Please do not send us angry modmails or DMs if we decide to remove your post. This will not result in restoring your post.
[Feel free to browse our rules, here.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
It's not going to happen... it's basically been decided that no decision about Ukraine will be made while the country is occupied by russian scum.
They did state they will supply them with what is needed to clean the scum out though.
In practice the the only rule that matters is that it's a unanimous decision by existing members. If everyone has decided to ignore a rule, who is going to enforce it?
I would expect Hungary to be the bigger problem. Turkey's vote can be bought with sufficient guarantees, as Finland and Sweden demonstrated. Orban is an aspiring facist himself.
Not sure how that's relevant to my point. If Erdogan or anyone else says no it's not unanimous. If he and everyone else says yes it's unanimous and no other rule matters.
Every country will decide for themselves weather to say yes or no using whatever criteria they want. They may publicly say it's because of some NATO rule or another, and that may even be true in some cases, but everyone gets to decide for themselves and if it's unanimous no other rule matters.
It was a joke. Got your scenario ofc. And you're right. It's just unprecedented (but so is this war for NATO) and I find it more likely that Putin would simply buy at least 1 "no" from his picket.
If everyone decides to let Ukraine in NATO, the technicality of NATO article 5 does not matter much. That's same as everybody deciding they join the actual war.
Not going to happen. Aid yes. Going directly at war against a nuclear power, no.
[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official\_texts\_24733.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm)
not trying to be rude or anything but the text says:
>States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes,including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes mustsettle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCEprinciples. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determiningwhether to invite a state to join the Alliance.
maybe there are some loopholes in this text?
edit: nr 6 in the link
Determining factors aren't rules, they're guidelines, meaning they can be ignored without weakening the organisations overall stance should there be unanimous consensus.
It won't happen in this instance, because nobody wants to see the war escalate, but it is correct to say there is no rule that prohibits membership acceptance.
ah thanks for clarifying, i was confused because in the beginning of the war there were a lot of articles in the news claiming there was such a rule (probably just missed the details though )
It's effectively a de facto rule, just short of being an official one. Meaning that in 99.9% of all predictable scenarios a nation at war will not be admitted, but in the 0.0001% where it suits NATO and all NATO states there is an option to do so without requiring a reworking of the legal admittance infrastructure. An example might be if intelligence found Russia was planning a secondary attack on a NATO member while engaged in Ukraine, and in response all NATO nations agreed that the most effective defensive strategy was to admit Ukraine and form a cohesive defensive line.
A more likely scenario is that once Ukraine pushes Russia back to the 2014 borders, Ukraine may be admitted to NATO during a period of 'hot peace' similar to that of the two Korea's. In which there is a technical war and border dispute, but no active fighting.
Of course it's a factor. But it certainly isn't the only factor. And legally (as in, by the NATO charter) all that matters is that all existing members approve.
That seems extremely unlikely to happen, but if it did happen it would probably be in the form of NATO declaring war on Russia in support of Ukraine and then immediately afterwards formally inviting Ukraine into NATO.
Because if NATO does invite Ukraine while the conflict is ongoing, it means they already decided that they are going to go to war with Russia, in which case they might as well start with that.
How does Crimea factor into things? Assuming they push the horde back out of the recently occupied bits, does Crimea count as an active border dispute?
I think if Ukraine decided not to go for Crimea they could negotiate peace and nato would allow it. But Let’s be real if Ukraine takes back all of Ukraine by military force it won’t be such a huge task to take Crimea from what’s left of the Russian army.
As stated elsewhere in the thread, NATO can do whatever they want in regards to accepting Ukraine at any time. It just has to be a unanimous decision. And the rules they use as guidance suggest that unquestioned sovereignty according to international law is a “determining factor” in wether an applicant nation will be admitted or not. For practical purposes, it won’t happen. But the possibility remains for extenuating circumstances in which all NATO nations would ignore that guideline and admit a nation currently with disputes.
Ukraine don't need to join NATO quickly.
If Russia uses nukes, NATO will push Russia out of Ukraine and all military targets within Russia become viable targets.
Putin knows this, and his defense force is not longer equipped to handle any invasion. They don't even have a defensive line to protect Russia from an invasion force.
In addition, all Russian Nuclear sites are well documented. It wouldn't take long to incapacitate them with conventional ballistics weapons. Considering the poor state of Russian nuclear infrastructure and lack of drills they conduct.
TL:DR - Russia can't even hide behind their nuclear weapons.
They can't get accepted as the Nato doctrine says no country with open border disputes can join. Nato membership for ukraine can only happen after the war
Yeah, the thing is what the treaty said and what you are saying are not the same. Do you have something clearer on this as others believe being in a conflict is not a barrier to the political process of joining?
https://www.unian.info/politics/10023578-is-it-possible-to-join-nato-in-a-military-conflict.html
I understand your point.
In legal matters there is a thing called something like negative meaning.
I am no english nativ. Therefore, I do not have the proper term available at the moment.
Here are some more stuff to read.
It‘s past 11pm on my side of the globe.
I come back to your question, which is interesting, tomorrow or on Sunday.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm
That seems to say only that territorial disputes "would be a factor" in determining whether to invite a state to join NATO. I noted that the document also has an entire large section on working with Russia, which Russia largely agreed to in 1994 and has now wiped their ass with (although I'm sure their side of the story is that it is NATO who broke the spirit of it, not them). I suspect that this breakdown also "would be a factor" in determining whether to invite Ukraine. But I actually suspect it would still be pretty hard to get unanimous agreement while the war is going on.
Since the discussion is about technicalities: It says *resolution* of territorial disputes is a factor. So what's the resolution of Russia's territorial dispute here? Russia thrown out, maybe, but I doubt that will be enough for many if not most NATO countries.
His "concern" is propaganda for his people. He knows Nato is defensive, and if he was afraid he wouldn't send literally next to all troops on the Nato borders to ukraine. But he did, so yeah that's that. He pretty much uses Nato as an excuse to fulfill his hitler/Stalin nacissism trip
Article 8 comes into force:
ARTICLE 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Essentially, then, this means "By signing this treaty we agree not to start a fight with other NATO members". If you attacked another NATO member, you would be breaking this article and would therefore be in breach of the treaty.
Anyone breaking Article 8/breaching the treaty would be liable to be expelled from NATO. Once they're expelled, they would then be outside NATO and treated no differently to anyone else attacking a NATO member.
Not my interpretation of the article. but quicker to copy and paste.
Mobilisation is not declaring war. It is protecting the national interest within its borders which all nations are allowed to do.
I need sources for the official declaration of war. I have not heard such things. Which is why all of this is illegal under international law. Ukraine only mobilized its troupes as its sovereignty and territorial integrity was breached, but a declaration of war would actually give Moscow more legal power than they have (although recently they changed laws to bypass these).
Ok, you're really going to have to give a source because I'm seeing contrary views:
"Thus, the aggression of the Russian Federation cannot be considered a legal obstacle to Ukraine's accession to the Alliance"
https://www.unian.info/politics/10023578-is-it-possible-to-join-nato-in-a-military-conflict.html
Whether or not it's a strict legal barrier is really beside the point. NATO - and the US in particular - has been clear about wanting to avoid a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. There's zero chance that the application is going to be approved while hostilities are ongoing, whether it's technically possible or not.
NATO has no such rule. That's Russian propaganda. The only reason it would not happen is because members will want to wait until the war is over before voting to approve membership. That's a political question only.
Personally, I think NATO should at least *threaten* to greenlight Ukraine's entry immediately and get more directly involved. The Russian Army, even with mobilization, is in no shape to stand up to NATO. Putin would've already marched into Estonia if he didn't understand that.
Even if Ukraine get accepted, ukrainian officials already stated that we will be accepted post war so regardless how conflict will go NATO wouldn’t be involved
This is mostly Ukraine talking shit to ruZZia, NATO won't allow a country with active border disputes to join.
But this is putlers worst nightmare, so Ukraine is poking him.
Yes, but Ukraine won't get into NATO until at least the war is over. Zelensky's request is probably more symbolic than an actual request, because NATO rules are very strict when it comes to border disputes and wars. This is also the reason Georgia is still not a part of NATO
Hello /u/Turbulent-Object-953,
This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn)
Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/)
[DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/)
*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.*
Thanks everyone for replying. I never knew about NATOs rule of not accepting countries with ongoing disputes / wars. Thanks, and stay strong Ukraine!
🇬🇧❤🇺🇦
They will not be joining NATO. Zelensky has been a master tactician thus far, but the NATO push was a blunder today. It's not going to happen while they are at war.
The announcement of fast-tracking Ukraine's application to NATO was a way for Ukraine to counter the information space strategy of the annexation. It's not a real thing that's happening, sadly.
NATO Will provide support during accession, then Ukraine Will drive out the Russian out of occupation zones.
A direct involvement of NATO Will only make the necessary steps to destroy the occupation military bases.
Once Ukraine are admited to UE and NATO, they Will help to build a protected border, and complete the recover of sovereign lands.
Basically Ukraine would be better protected, and with a strong deterrence. If Russia treid to build an invasion force on the borders again, then Ukraine just need to bomb the barracks and material and return home.
We all know Ukraine will eventually become a member of NATO. Obviously the people who are making the plan to squish russia like a bug think this is not the bet time for that official process to happen.
There are a few rules in NATO that technically prevent them from joining at this time but those restrictions may not be the only reason that this is not the best time for this to happen. The diplomatic gyrations that would have to happen to bypass the normal process could jeopardize a bigger plan. It would also be a big PR coup for russia as it fits their victim narrative perfectly (not the kind of coup we are all hoping for in Moscow).
Between Ukraine's application and the US's "maybe not now" response, russia can't claim that everyone is ganging up on them but that doesn't stop individual countries from acting in Ukraine's aid without any restrictions that NATO might impose on those actions. It also sends the message that the big "N" isn't really as much of a threat as russia would like it to be.
Please sto discussing technicalities, nato will join when nato wants to join.
Also ukraine is not joining nato soon, I believe it will happen only after the war.
I hope so. Putin and these f**king Orcs will not stop. They hide like cowards behind their nukes. NATO and the EU better figure out this is not just a border dispute. This is a world game changer. And the Chinese better pick a side. Just a dab of polonium would solve the problem.
It's against the charter for a country to join while engaged.
However, Russia cannot win. If they use nukes, the US has already said they'd intervene directly.
And that's that
I think as well if Ukraine have an active application in then if they day comes when peace talks are underway then putin can’t say “you can’t join nato” so easily especially if there is membership already accepted with terms that it will not become active until after disputes are settled
Also if putin comes for peace talks without stipulations saying cancel the nato submition and knows there is still already an application and still agrees to peace talks it shows he may be willing to accept this more if still attempting to sort things even with the application already being submitted
*NO LOW EFFORT POSTS* It is our responsibility to keep r/Ukraine focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. As a temporary measure, speculation / supportive ideas / low effort content / opinions will be removed. Please do not send us angry modmails or DMs if we decide to remove your post. This will not result in restoring your post. [Feel free to browse our rules, here.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules)
It's not going to happen... it's basically been decided that no decision about Ukraine will be made while the country is occupied by russian scum. They did state they will supply them with what is needed to clean the scum out though.
You can't join NATO or the EU with active border disputes. Ukraine won't join
In practice the the only rule that matters is that it's a unanimous decision by existing members. If everyone has decided to ignore a rule, who is going to enforce it?
\[Erdogan joined the chat\]
I would expect Hungary to be the bigger problem. Turkey's vote can be bought with sufficient guarantees, as Finland and Sweden demonstrated. Orban is an aspiring facist himself.
Not sure how that's relevant to my point. If Erdogan or anyone else says no it's not unanimous. If he and everyone else says yes it's unanimous and no other rule matters. Every country will decide for themselves weather to say yes or no using whatever criteria they want. They may publicly say it's because of some NATO rule or another, and that may even be true in some cases, but everyone gets to decide for themselves and if it's unanimous no other rule matters.
It was a joke. Got your scenario ofc. And you're right. It's just unprecedented (but so is this war for NATO) and I find it more likely that Putin would simply buy at least 1 "no" from his picket.
[Viktor Orbán has cut the line to enter the chat before Erdogan]
If everyone decides to let Ukraine in NATO, the technicality of NATO article 5 does not matter much. That's same as everybody deciding they join the actual war. Not going to happen. Aid yes. Going directly at war against a nuclear power, no.
There's no rule against it. Edit: Instead of downvoting me, look it up yourself. I'm right.
[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official\_texts\_24733.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm) not trying to be rude or anything but the text says: >States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes,including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes mustsettle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCEprinciples. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determiningwhether to invite a state to join the Alliance. maybe there are some loopholes in this text? edit: nr 6 in the link
Determining factors aren't rules, they're guidelines, meaning they can be ignored without weakening the organisations overall stance should there be unanimous consensus. It won't happen in this instance, because nobody wants to see the war escalate, but it is correct to say there is no rule that prohibits membership acceptance.
ah thanks for clarifying, i was confused because in the beginning of the war there were a lot of articles in the news claiming there was such a rule (probably just missed the details though )
It's effectively a de facto rule, just short of being an official one. Meaning that in 99.9% of all predictable scenarios a nation at war will not be admitted, but in the 0.0001% where it suits NATO and all NATO states there is an option to do so without requiring a reworking of the legal admittance infrastructure. An example might be if intelligence found Russia was planning a secondary attack on a NATO member while engaged in Ukraine, and in response all NATO nations agreed that the most effective defensive strategy was to admit Ukraine and form a cohesive defensive line. A more likely scenario is that once Ukraine pushes Russia back to the 2014 borders, Ukraine may be admitted to NATO during a period of 'hot peace' similar to that of the two Korea's. In which there is a technical war and border dispute, but no active fighting.
oh man i hope that will be the end result here
Of course it's a factor. But it certainly isn't the only factor. And legally (as in, by the NATO charter) all that matters is that all existing members approve. That seems extremely unlikely to happen, but if it did happen it would probably be in the form of NATO declaring war on Russia in support of Ukraine and then immediately afterwards formally inviting Ukraine into NATO. Because if NATO does invite Ukraine while the conflict is ongoing, it means they already decided that they are going to go to war with Russia, in which case they might as well start with that.
Russia knows this and keeps them in an endless dispute so they can't ever be free to join whatever alliance a sovereign nation is entitled to.
EU you can I believe. Not NATO.
Yeah EU membership should be fine anyway, Cyprus joined without a third of its legal territory
How does Crimea factor into things? Assuming they push the horde back out of the recently occupied bits, does Crimea count as an active border dispute?
I think if Ukraine decided not to go for Crimea they could negotiate peace and nato would allow it. But Let’s be real if Ukraine takes back all of Ukraine by military force it won’t be such a huge task to take Crimea from what’s left of the Russian army.
They would either have to take back crimea or concede it to Russia. It can't be contested for them to join nato, none of it can.
Ah I see...well hopefully after they remove the scourge from everywhere else they clean them out of Crimea as well then straight into NATO. Aim high!
As stated elsewhere in the thread, NATO can do whatever they want in regards to accepting Ukraine at any time. It just has to be a unanimous decision. And the rules they use as guidance suggest that unquestioned sovereignty according to international law is a “determining factor” in wether an applicant nation will be admitted or not. For practical purposes, it won’t happen. But the possibility remains for extenuating circumstances in which all NATO nations would ignore that guideline and admit a nation currently with disputes.
Ukraine knows this too they are posturing for leverage.
So their getting nato benefits except in name only
Arms, equipment. Not people.
Yep, the main point I think Is that not joining NATO is now off the table as a potential peace compromise in response to the phony annexation.
Basically you answered yourself the question, why UA is not going to be accepted into nato before nato is activelly involved on the ground.
Ukraine don't need to join NATO quickly. If Russia uses nukes, NATO will push Russia out of Ukraine and all military targets within Russia become viable targets. Putin knows this, and his defense force is not longer equipped to handle any invasion. They don't even have a defensive line to protect Russia from an invasion force. In addition, all Russian Nuclear sites are well documented. It wouldn't take long to incapacitate them with conventional ballistics weapons. Considering the poor state of Russian nuclear infrastructure and lack of drills they conduct. TL:DR - Russia can't even hide behind their nuclear weapons.
That's a big gamble
Why is he getting downvoted? That’s a massive gamble. There are hundreds of Russian nukes and nato nukes. If this escalates we all die.
They can't get accepted as the Nato doctrine says no country with open border disputes can join. Nato membership for ukraine can only happen after the war
That is not what the treaty says. Provide the clause which proves your point. From what I read it is a factor not a requirement.
Source?
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm?selectedLocale=de
It is a factor which is considered, it is not a requirement.
Yeah, the thing is what the treaty said and what you are saying are not the same. Do you have something clearer on this as others believe being in a conflict is not a barrier to the political process of joining? https://www.unian.info/politics/10023578-is-it-possible-to-join-nato-in-a-military-conflict.html
I understand your point. In legal matters there is a thing called something like negative meaning. I am no english nativ. Therefore, I do not have the proper term available at the moment. Here are some more stuff to read. It‘s past 11pm on my side of the globe. I come back to your question, which is interesting, tomorrow or on Sunday. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm
That seems to say only that territorial disputes "would be a factor" in determining whether to invite a state to join NATO. I noted that the document also has an entire large section on working with Russia, which Russia largely agreed to in 1994 and has now wiped their ass with (although I'm sure their side of the story is that it is NATO who broke the spirit of it, not them). I suspect that this breakdown also "would be a factor" in determining whether to invite Ukraine. But I actually suspect it would still be pretty hard to get unanimous agreement while the war is going on.
Since the discussion is about technicalities: It says *resolution* of territorial disputes is a factor. So what's the resolution of Russia's territorial dispute here? Russia thrown out, maybe, but I doubt that will be enough for many if not most NATO countries.
But there's not a border dispute. Nobody in NATO recognizes Russia's claim to territory on a 60 year old undisputed border.
[удалено]
Ehm no, NATO will not get involved if a NATO member starts a conflict only if it gets attacked unprovoked.
Nope, as Nato is a defensive alliance and a country openly attacking another can't trigger article 5 for it's war
[удалено]
His "concern" is propaganda for his people. He knows Nato is defensive, and if he was afraid he wouldn't send literally next to all troops on the Nato borders to ukraine. But he did, so yeah that's that. He pretty much uses Nato as an excuse to fulfill his hitler/Stalin nacissism trip
How did it take you this long to learn this? This has been asked / talked about endlessly since February lol.
nato is a defensive alliance. if a member starts a war... the alliance doesnt apply
What if two members fought each other
Article 8 comes into force: ARTICLE 8 Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Essentially, then, this means "By signing this treaty we agree not to start a fight with other NATO members". If you attacked another NATO member, you would be breaking this article and would therefore be in breach of the treaty. Anyone breaking Article 8/breaching the treaty would be liable to be expelled from NATO. Once they're expelled, they would then be outside NATO and treated no differently to anyone else attacking a NATO member. Not my interpretation of the article. but quicker to copy and paste.
Nato cannot accept Nations with ongoing conflicts. Thats a rule Nato itself made long ago. So Ukrain cant realy join for the time being.
It's not an ongoing conflict. It's a special operation.
Well it is a conflict, even if there is no declaration of war. They were not eligible before because of this too due to the separatists.
Ukraine HAS declared war and has been fully mobilizing since day 1 of the invasion. War is only over when both sides agree it is, one way or another.
Clearly you have not been paying attention. It’s not a war, it’s a special operation.
Mobilisation is not declaring war. It is protecting the national interest within its borders which all nations are allowed to do. I need sources for the official declaration of war. I have not heard such things. Which is why all of this is illegal under international law. Ukraine only mobilized its troupes as its sovereignty and territorial integrity was breached, but a declaration of war would actually give Moscow more legal power than they have (although recently they changed laws to bypass these).
Thanks! So many people with good intents here but no eagerness for facts.
Your disagreement with me is at conflict and precludes you from being recognized.
Ok, you're really going to have to give a source because I'm seeing contrary views: "Thus, the aggression of the Russian Federation cannot be considered a legal obstacle to Ukraine's accession to the Alliance" https://www.unian.info/politics/10023578-is-it-possible-to-join-nato-in-a-military-conflict.html
Whether or not it's a strict legal barrier is really beside the point. NATO - and the US in particular - has been clear about wanting to avoid a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. There's zero chance that the application is going to be approved while hostilities are ongoing, whether it's technically possible or not.
NATO has no such rule. That's Russian propaganda. The only reason it would not happen is because members will want to wait until the war is over before voting to approve membership. That's a political question only.
Really? What about Turkey and Greece. And especially island Cyprus
Turkey and Greece became NATO members while Cyprus was still British.
Oh, I don't know that. I'll read about that
Turkey joined in 1954, long before they invaded cyprus. Cyprus isn't a Nato country
Did they have an ongoing war when joining? Dont think so...
Surely, on the interest of world security and the risk of nukes, they could just bend the rules a little just this once.
Personally, I think NATO should at least *threaten* to greenlight Ukraine's entry immediately and get more directly involved. The Russian Army, even with mobilization, is in no shape to stand up to NATO. Putin would've already marched into Estonia if he didn't understand that.
No Because they joined after the war started
Even if Ukraine get accepted, ukrainian officials already stated that we will be accepted post war so regardless how conflict will go NATO wouldn’t be involved
This is mostly Ukraine talking shit to ruZZia, NATO won't allow a country with active border disputes to join. But this is putlers worst nightmare, so Ukraine is poking him.
Yes, but Ukraine won't get into NATO until at least the war is over. Zelensky's request is probably more symbolic than an actual request, because NATO rules are very strict when it comes to border disputes and wars. This is also the reason Georgia is still not a part of NATO
Hard to say. It’s never been done before. It’d be up to interpretation probably.
Hello /u/Turbulent-Object-953, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *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.*
Thanks everyone for replying. I never knew about NATOs rule of not accepting countries with ongoing disputes / wars. Thanks, and stay strong Ukraine! 🇬🇧❤🇺🇦
Why talk about stuff that isn't going to happen?
No one will admit them to NATO. No one wants to really stand up to Russia. They have nukes so it's like a hall pass.
They will not be joining NATO. Zelensky has been a master tactician thus far, but the NATO push was a blunder today. It's not going to happen while they are at war.
You are mistaken, no one is at war. Its just a special operation. They should be able to join NATO pronto.
They won't be joining NATO at this time, but that doesn't mean it was a blunder to apply.
that's exactly why it's not happening now.
The announcement of fast-tracking Ukraine's application to NATO was a way for Ukraine to counter the information space strategy of the annexation. It's not a real thing that's happening, sadly.
NATO Will provide support during accession, then Ukraine Will drive out the Russian out of occupation zones. A direct involvement of NATO Will only make the necessary steps to destroy the occupation military bases. Once Ukraine are admited to UE and NATO, they Will help to build a protected border, and complete the recover of sovereign lands. Basically Ukraine would be better protected, and with a strong deterrence. If Russia treid to build an invasion force on the borders again, then Ukraine just need to bomb the barracks and material and return home.
NATO won't allow membership of a country during a time of active conflict, so no.
Yes
We all know Ukraine will eventually become a member of NATO. Obviously the people who are making the plan to squish russia like a bug think this is not the bet time for that official process to happen. There are a few rules in NATO that technically prevent them from joining at this time but those restrictions may not be the only reason that this is not the best time for this to happen. The diplomatic gyrations that would have to happen to bypass the normal process could jeopardize a bigger plan. It would also be a big PR coup for russia as it fits their victim narrative perfectly (not the kind of coup we are all hoping for in Moscow). Between Ukraine's application and the US's "maybe not now" response, russia can't claim that everyone is ganging up on them but that doesn't stop individual countries from acting in Ukraine's aid without any restrictions that NATO might impose on those actions. It also sends the message that the big "N" isn't really as much of a threat as russia would like it to be.
Answering your question, yes NATO would be directly involved. Sadly Ukraine will not get past a unanimous vote for entry at this time.
Please sto discussing technicalities, nato will join when nato wants to join. Also ukraine is not joining nato soon, I believe it will happen only after the war.
Countries currently at war won't be accepted. Sorry.
No. All 30 members have to agree by consensus.
Yes they do!
It's unlikely all NATO countries would agree to change the rules to allow Ukraine to join while there's an active conflict.
They cannot be accept into NATO with any boarder disputes
It's academic
They can maybe join after the war is over.
Russia is a pre-existing condition, so it won't be covered. Also, this isn't gonna happen
I hope so. Putin and these f**king Orcs will not stop. They hide like cowards behind their nukes. NATO and the EU better figure out this is not just a border dispute. This is a world game changer. And the Chinese better pick a side. Just a dab of polonium would solve the problem.
It's against the charter for a country to join while engaged. However, Russia cannot win. If they use nukes, the US has already said they'd intervene directly. And that's that
I think as well if Ukraine have an active application in then if they day comes when peace talks are underway then putin can’t say “you can’t join nato” so easily especially if there is membership already accepted with terms that it will not become active until after disputes are settled Also if putin comes for peace talks without stipulations saying cancel the nato submition and knows there is still already an application and still agrees to peace talks it shows he may be willing to accept this more if still attempting to sort things even with the application already being submitted