NATO -Tür der NATO zur Ukraine: Jahre leerer Versprechen haben Kyiv nicht geholfen oder den Frieden gefördert
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/close-natos-door-ukraine
NATO -Tür der NATO zur Ukraine: Jahre leerer Versprechen haben Kyiv nicht geholfen oder den Frieden gefördert
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/close-natos-door-ukraine
10 Kommentare
[SS from essay by Charles Kupchan, Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. His most recent book is Isolationism: A History of America’s Efforts to Shield Itself From the World.]
President Donald Trump returned to the White House promising to end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours.” Since then, his administration has badly mishandled diplomatic efforts to bring about a cease-fire. Trump underestimated Russian President Vladimir Putin’s determination to subjugate Ukraine and has consequently failed to confront the Kremlin with the coercive pressure needed to stop its ongoing aggression.
But amid its bungled Ukraine diplomacy, the [Trump administration](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/topics/trump-administration) has gotten one important strategic issue right: it is time to take NATO membership for Ukraine off the table. After years of promises to bring Ukraine into the alliance, Washington is finally changing course. In February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that “the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.”
>But failure to defend a member state would corrode the alliance’s credibility.
Problem: But failure to defend a member state would corrode the alliance’s credibility.
Solution: Only keep those members that don’t need to be defended.
NATO is not a military alliance anymore, this is not a mentality of a military alliance, this is a mentality of American health insurance company.
>On the contrary, Kyiv will know where it stands, encouraging it to focus on more attainable goals.
Yes, Ukraine needs to focus on their ballistic and nuclear program. This is the only credible deterrent against Russia.
Same really applies to all countries of Eastern flank. If they are invaded „alliance’s credibility“ will suffer, so it’s best to agree to Russia’s terms regarding them.
>Moscow has indicated that it can live with Ukraine’s integration into the EU, which it sees as a more benign economic and political bloc, not a military alliance.
Moscow has indicated that it was not going to invade Ukraine and did not seek territorial expansion.
>In return, NATO should demand that Russia agree to not only a permanent end to the war but also a renunciation of further territorial claims as well as any restrictions on Ukraine’s armed forces and its ability to defend itself.
What is a permanent end to the war? Returning to the state where Ukraine doesn’t have security guarantees and Russia can restart their aggression. „a renunciation of further territorial claims“ – Russia did not have any claims before their invasion, „a renunciation“ means nothing.
>Trump, however, should employ his trademark willingness to say out loud what others are thinking but not dare say
Others are thinking about TACO principle and that Trump is not going to fight for Eastern flank.
>Taking membership off the table will make it easier to negotiate a cease-fire with Russia, whose legitimate objections to Ukraine’s entry into [NATO](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/topics/nato) partially motivated its invasion in 2022.
What legitimate objections? Russia wanted to invade Ukraine, so it objected to NATO preventing that. The author’s premise is that Ukraine is part of Russia’s sphere of influence and should be abandoned to Russia. Furthermore, giving in to Russian demands will not make negotiations easier unless you are trying to achieve the best outcome for the Kremlin.
go away putin
— Vladimir Putin
Biden is out. Zelensky is done
Years of attempting to build bridges with russia haven’t led them to operate as anything other than an expansionist empire. That is the failure point. Pretending that they can or will be a responsible actor in a world that respects sovereignty.
Please start understanding when you are parroting their propaganda points. This is basic stuff.
There was a 0.0% chance of invasion from any NATO or European country into Russia for decades. They knew that, we knew that. It was blatantly obvious. The west simply wanted to keep making money. There is no security argument that threatens Russia from NATO expansion. There is an argument that NATO expansion blocks future Russian expansion. That is what the offense is. That Russia cant rule other countries or annex them.
Ukraine also wanted to make money. And they did. They outpaced Russia, which does make it look bad. Just like the south koreans and Taiwanese did to their sister countries.
Invading Ukraine was not out of a security need. It was an empire that sees seizing land violently as its perpetual goal. Russia will stop being an invasion machine once it either conquers the world or is subjugated under someone else.
What we should have done, is let Patton roll up into Russia. That and not done lend lease and let hitler have his way with em.
But we didn’t. So we did the cold war. Then the Berlin wall fell and we tried to make them a democracy. And here we are, right back to the classic Russian playbook.
Capitulation earns Ukraine and the west nothing. It will take years still. That’s unavoidable. Russia fights for land, NATO fights for time. In a few years, Europe and Ukraine will have built up their military industrial complexes again. War is industrial. More so now than ever. Russia wont be able to keep pace and will lose. More importantly, the west really needed to get their shit in order again.
All while Putin’s reign gets weaker and weaker. And don’t be shocked if China decides that it wants its land back from the Stalin takeover. If Russia is exhausted on the west, it’ll leave the east wide open, and its just a matter of time before china picks the low hanging fruit.
What the west needs to do, is make those two powers more interested in fighting each other than us. That will flip the dynamic overnight.
As for peace with Russians, there historically is one method: be able to kick their ass in a war. Thats it. Ukraine should have kept its nukes. Dumbest political decision the west ever made.
I wonder, when we these appeasement people finally wake up and see the writing on the wall? Do they have to wake up one day and see a T-90 rolling outside their window for them to realize? Or will they still immediately apply for Kremlin propaganda writer job?
>whose legitimate objections
Ukraine exist as a sovereignty entity not controlled by Moscow is the „legitimate objection“ here.
You know which countries Moscow have no „legitimate objections“ against? Belarus and Hungary. Hell, if Trump sticks around, soon Amerykaskaya oblast would be on the list too.
The capitalist west has precisely zero appetite of invading Russia, all they want is make money and cheaper fuel. Even when Russia is being blatantly aggressive with its hybrid war regarding GPS-spoofing, cable attacks, hacking etc etc Europe is still afraid of escalate. Europe knows it. Russia knows it. Everyone knows it.
Ukraine should create a new defence alliance with Nordics and Baltics. Nations you can actually trust to stand up for you in times of crisis.
Ukraine has the most experience fighting our common enemy and we have much to learn from them.
It’s a loss for NATO to not have Ukraine in.