Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BigBeerBellyMan t1_ja8xng4 wrote

>Yes. First; you're quoting a study regarding enlargement guidelines. These aren't hard rules. They don't show up in the Treaty text.

Yea but weren't the proposals in the 1995 Study of NATO Enlargement eventually adopted as official policy during the 1999 Washington Summit?

−1

nybbleth t1_ja98054 wrote

Yes. That's when NATO adopted the Membership Action Plan(MAP).

Note that the preamble ends with the following line: "The programme cannot be considered as a list of criteria for membership."

These are guidelines, not hard criteria.

And again, it's about showing the commitment to resolving these types of conflicts according to international law. Ukraine has shown this to be the case. The fact that a hostile power has illegally invaded them doesn't change that.

The idea that NATO can not accept prospective members if they have a territorial dispute is a propaganda tool that primarily serves Russian interests.

The first benefits by sowing the seeds of doubt in both its own and western audiences. It lets Russia paint NATO as a warmongering alliance that's either trying to provoke Russia or inadvertently about to get dragged into WW3 by considering an application from countries like Ukraine. At the same time, NATO governments concerned about exactly that sort of thing can also use this misconception about the rules by shrugging and saying 'well everyone knows we can't accept someone with ongoing disputes'; even though this is a lie (or misrepresentation at best).

1