• ProcurementCat@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “It’s unprecedented and absurd when a timeframe is not set, neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership,” he wrote.

    Well, maybe that’s because there doesn’t exist a clear timeline for when the war will be over. Or, as Stoltenberg put it:

    Because if Ukraine doesn’t prevail, then there’s no membership issue to discuss.

    Sorry but it was simply incredibly naive to expect an invitation at this summit. Literally nobody but Ukrainian politicians have said something about that, and of course, they were just speculating. It also would’ve been way too surprising given the positions of Turkey and Hungary…

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Turkey is actually hands and feet up for accepting Ukraine, since Ukraine basically uncritically supports them on every issue important for them.

      It’s just that nobody is voluntarily signing up for a war if they don’t have to. Not sure if we’ll see NATO sink to ignoring a real attack on a member followed by article 5 or maybe pressuring such a member not to invoke article 5, seems unlikely, but frankly humans are the same everywhere.

      Ah, I’m not impartial, but it’s actually good news for NATO that Ukraine is not getting accepted. It would get a member in which high-ranking officials can be sold and bought almost openly, with mass media culture similar to that of Russia, with still quite chauvinistic and uneducated population, similar to that of Russia.

      And to a lesser extent it’s good news for Ukraine that it’s not getting accepted into an alliance which doesn’t seem sufficiently agile to accommodate modern threats. In terms of technical cooperation with NATO countries they don’t really need it, and in terms of actual military participation - ah, there’s a long way from an obligation to an action.