Ukraine could potentially join NATO even if parts of its territory remained occupied by Russia, the alliance’s former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview on Oct. 4.
One of the main arguments against granting Ukraine membership at the current time is that NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause would immediately draw the alliance into a direct war with Russia.
But speaking to the Financial Times, Stoltenberg suggested there could be ways to get around this if the Ukrainian territory considered part of NATO was “not necessarily the internationally recognized border.”
Wouldn’t Turkey or someone sour this?
But if it’s actually possible, that’s fascinating… if Ukraine can’t push back quickly, wouldn’t it “force” an end to the war? Russia would have a red line it absolutely can’t cross, no hope of advancement, and likely just claim everything on the other side. Surely they wouldn’t continue a grinding stalemate where Ukraine has a “safe zone” to operate out of.
If Ukraine does retain its ability to push back hard by the time this happens, and doesn’t go for a truce, then that’s especially peculiar. Walling off a part of their territory as actually untouchable seems like a massive strategic advantage for Ukraine.
I don’t think there is any way Erdoğan would be on board with this idea.
Even if it doesn’t happen prior to some form of peace agreement or something…that’s an interesting thought. Like, any scenario where the conflict restarts would place Ukraine in a considerably more-favorable position militarily than is the case today. Today, simply by dint of weapons each has available, Russia has much more ability to attack Ukrainian territory than vice versa. But in the event of such a guarantee and Russia restarting conflict with Ukraine in some form, Russia wouldn’t be able to touch a lot of Ukraine’s territory without starting a conflict with NATO, but Ukraine would have a free hand to hit Russia’s territory, with whatever weapons it could obtain.
Ukraine would have a free hand to hit Russia’s territory, with whatever weapons it could obtain.
Doesn’t Russia have defensive pacts of their own, with North Korea and CSTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization#History
They would undoubtedly claim to be attacked if Ukraine uses weapons in “their” territory the next time around, and at the very least drag Belarus (and NK as an explicit supplier) in with them.
Do they still have CSTO after the Azerbaijan thing?
Probably “CSTO if convenient?”
I can’t find anything about it being officially disbanded, though now that you mention it, Kazakhstan doesn’t really want to deploy troops to take Ukraine, does it?
Just because everyone would be drawn into war doesn’t mean they can’t join. It just makes it so everyone is less likely to agree. if russa attacks a nato member (the baltic states?) Nato will bring ukraine in quickly because then they are already at war an ukrain has too many useful places to launch an attack on russia from.
There has never been a clause about territorial integrity as a prerequisite for membership in the NATO treaties, that was just something made up by the Obama administration to appease Putin and get him to stop being paranoid about Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO.
To be frank though it’s a good idea, because by inducting a country with contested borders you’re basically just pushing the article 5 button. I know they’re gonna try to work around that but it’s probably gonna be messy as hell, and maybe even set a precedent for Ukraine losing territory not NATO-fied. .
A preexisting conflict cause might make sense,
Yeah, that’s definitely true. I guess the goal with Ukraine nato membership is to prevent Russia from taking any more territory.
I’m not saying that that wouldn’t work, but that seems like an excessively-complicated bit of lawyering.
If the goal is to provide NATO guarantees for part of Ukraine’s territory, but not to provide guarantees for another part of it, to counter Russia playing the “as long as I control part of your territory, you can’t join NATO” bit, the only thing that produces the guarantee is what’s on the paper of the NATO Treaty.
That treaty text is not written in stone. As long as all the members – and this assumes that we can avoid excessive shennanigans of the sort that Hungary and Turkey did around Sweden and Finland joining – are okay with it, the treaty text can be revised to say whatever. Yeah, you need unanimity for any such revision, but you need unanimity anyway to add a member, so the bar is no different from having Ukraine join in any other way.
NATO Treaty Article 6 defines the scope of Article 5 coverage.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
In the original treaty, the bit about Turkey – much of Turkey’s territory is outside Europe – was not present. When Turkey joined, we did a small revision to extend NATO coverage – which originally did not cover territory outside of the Mediterranean, North Atlantic, Europe, and North America at all. Even today, the treaty does not guarantee against attacks on European territories like New Caledonia or American territories like Hawaii.
Honestly, I think that there may be a very legitimate argument that given that Romania and Bulgaria joined – and this becomes even more-significant with a Ukrainian membership – that the scope of Article 6 should be extended to the Black Sea, as we did with Turkey when Turkey joined. Otherwise, it’s possible for Russia to perform a blockade on NATO Black Sea powers and sink their warships without them being able to avail themselves of NATO Article 5 protection.
Honestly, I think that there may be a very legitimate argument that given that Romania and Bulgaria joined – and this becomes even more-significant with a Ukrainian membership – that the scope of Article 6 should be extended to the Black Sea, as we did with Turkey when Turkey joined. Otherwise, it’s possible for Russia to perform a blockade on NATO Black Sea powers and sink their warships without them being able to avail themselves of NATO Article 5 protection.
Broadly speaking you aren’t wrong but ATM russian navy is unable to blockade even the civilian shipping of a country that has no navy. There is probably no need to resolve this issue now, especially as the Black sea countries are bound by the previous treaties on Black Sea like the Montreux convention. Moscow might be more amenable to changes of these treaties if NATO doesn’t let them win in Ukraine.
Oooh can we do Cyprus next then? What do you mean no?
Would Ukraine becoming a NATO member grant all other members having to attack Russia? Not necessarily a bad thing, but would mean WW3.
It scares me that anyone could come to this conclusion. Are you so clueless about the unimaginable, unprecedented suffering and death that such a conflict would bring, or does your emotional attachment prevent any rational assessment? There is no reality where WW3 and “not necessarily a bad thing” belong in the same sentence.
It’s a good thing to punish territorial aggression, but there can be no doubt that WW3 is the worst outcome for everyone.
You’re right, we should just give bullies whatever they want because they have nuclear weapons.
You know very well that’s not what I said. But please educate me why nuclear armageddon is good, actually.
I didn’t say I want WW3. Just that putting back russia where it belongs would be nice. But not for the price of bigger scale war.
Financial Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Financial Times:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceKyiv Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Kyiv Independent:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Ukraine
Wikipedia about this source
