Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

flaccidcolon t1_ixy19zp wrote

Reply to comment by cole1114 in Zelensky and the Prime Minister of Belgium sign declaration of support for Ukraine’s membership to the EU and NATO by TheRealMykola

For real? I thought that the new country couldn't be engaged in any kind of warfare or even border disputes as part of the terms of nato acceptance.

13

cole1114 t1_ixy1huj wrote

That isn't one of the policies, though it's said to be so often that people just accept it as true.

39

Kjello0 t1_ixzh89k wrote

>States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.

From the Study on NATO Enlargement document which regulate future enlargements of NATO.

17

116YearsWar t1_ixy9dn9 wrote

If that was the case Germany wouldn't have been able to join as they had rather significant border disputes with East Germany and Poland at the time.

32

Rogermcfarley t1_ixyi2cc wrote

There are rules about % of GDP allocated to military resources and corruption neither of which Ukraine can fulfill. There's no fast tracking Ukraine into NATO it will take time and there's zero chance whilst this war is going on as they can't fulfill their NATO obligations and it would bring NATO in to direct conflict with Russia.

10

116YearsWar t1_ixyilk6 wrote

I think the corruption is an EU rule, not a NATO one. Hence why Turkey is able to be a member.

23

raven_oscar t1_ixyp9sv wrote

Geography was the reason. Turkey is extremely useful for alliance.

4

legitan t1_ixyw4f9 wrote

“able to be”

2

raven_oscar t1_ixz3yw1 wrote

Was able to be.

−2

hipery2 t1_ixz69g8 wrote

Still is.

They are currently blockading Russian war ships from entering the Black Sea.

Also when Putin threatened to end the grain deal, it was Turkey's naval power that got Putin shut up.

1

raven_oscar t1_iy10cj9 wrote

We are talking about Turkey as part of NATO. Initially it seems to be accepted because of possibility to carry out plane based nuke strikes deep into russia. That's why B61 bombs were (and probably are) stationed in Incirlik Air Base. Now NATO has ICBMs so this role is less relevant. Yes thanks to Montreux Convention Turkey can limit warships transferred to Black Sea but in case of full scale russia vs nato war it is not that important as turkey would be part of NATO and there for target for nukes.

1

hipery2 t1_iy1cw0z wrote

Turkey has the second largest NATO army. Is that relevant enough for you?

2

raven_oscar t1_iy1eur6 wrote

I know that it has. Not really relevant in case ww3 with nukes and stuff. And I don't recall them as part of joint nato land operations. And it is quite hard to make land offensive to the north from their positions.

1

hipery2 t1_iy1h59o wrote

They can open a new front from the Caucasus.

1

bubalusarnee t1_iy0aqa0 wrote

If Australia wished to join NATO, few would look askance.

2

ukrokit t1_ixz4nwj wrote

>There are rules about % of GDP allocated to military resources

Ukraine spends 3-4% of GDP on millitary. NATO guideline is 2% which most nations fail anyway. And there's nothing about coruption anywhere in NATO criteria.

10

23ua t1_ixyc1rx wrote

I'm sorry, but why would you claim something like that if you haven't bothered to check?

−4

flaccidcolon t1_ixyho59 wrote

I legit thought it was true. I think it's a pretty common misconception. It's ok to be wrong sometimes, my guy.

8

23ua t1_ixyi83n wrote

Sure. I guess I was misled by the confident wording. If it said “I’ve heard this is the case” I’d consider that reasonable.

−5

flaccidcolon t1_ixzlo1w wrote

Fair point. I was for sure overly confident there, lol

1