Could (and Should) Ukraine Join Nato?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Dive into the debate on whether NATO should admit Ukraine, weighing military advantages against the risk of antagonizing Russia. Find out the potential alternatives and their implications for Ukraine's security and peace.
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
www.youtube.co...
Love content? Check out Simon's other UA-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
14:10 I know you have time constraints, but NATO countries also consider energy independence and critical supply independence as key defensive problems. Ukraine has Norway sized energy reserves ready to be developed. Its got the most farmland next to Russia in Europe. It has other critical material resources. The argument isn't whether NATO can afford to bring Ukraine in, the Argument is whether NATO can afford NOT to have access to those critical resources.
Well seeing how selfish NATO is... I don't know if it matters.
A lot of countries were saying "oh hey we need this equipment for our own military incase we get invaded".
My question is WHO!? The armies OF NATO are for Russia basically! Both sides literally developed their armies to fight each other.
China doesn't have a way to get over and invade NATO. There are no other singular threats in or around Europe... If one country goes rogue they'd easily be dealt with.
NATO sent too little too late. I believe the US likes this stalemate - bleed Putin dry. Give enough for Ukraine to gain minor victories but not enough to win.
As for Putin. No one was going to invade Russia. He is doing it for his legacy to resurrect Mother Russia to its former glorious power! Where the Russian Bear strikes fear into the west and the Moscovian people prosper... Instead he showed Russia as a paper tiger and now has no choice but to continue going. Dude had it all but glory.
@@dianapennepacker6854 but china can attack NATO partners(japan,australia,new zealand)
All the industry is in the parts Kiev treated like shit and have decided they want out of a genocidal Nazis cesspit and to be part of Russia, which doesn't kill them with artillery for speaking their languages.
Hear hear!
@@dianapennepacker6854
Not enough to win?
West are literally training them them on F-16:/ Ukraine doesn't need weapons it has no training for.
Strategic ambiguity isn't going to work in Ukraine. Ukraine is going to have to be given both EU and NATO membership. There's no other path forward at this point.
Its either that, or Ukraine disappears forever
I bet Ukraine and Russia will come to an aggressive when Trump becomes president again and threatens to cut aid to Ukraine. Russia will annex the Donbas and Ukraine, in turn, will join NATO
I agree. It works for Taiwan largely because a) Taiwan isn't exactly easy to invade, and b) it hasn't been invaded yet. Hard to provide a deterrence against something which has already happened. It's also a weak deterrence which relies on brinkmanship and political winds. NATO/EU is the only viable option I can see securing a lasting and sustainable peace.
Putin is not Xi. He prefers the ambiguity. It gives him some cover to point at when he commits war crimes.
Or we do nothing and just let the two of them bleed each other white. There's literally no reason to bring Ukraine into NATO.
Ukraine hasn't had decades of working with NATO so closely that they are as close as you can be without being a member. What they do have, however, is a 16-month crash course that has brought them up to speed. ...
And what high marks they have gotten in their course. It's a shame it was necessary. But Ukraine has definately gotten an A in the class.
They have worked closely historically after the first invasion; US national guard had a permanent rotation of training solider
Those men fight like beasts I'd rather have them on our side.
The main reason that Ukraine didn't roll over in the first few days as Russia expected is that the US and others have been working with Ukraine since the 2014 invasion, training their military leadership on how to fight the NATO way. In the process, billions of dollars of military aid have flowed to Ukraine, without which they would very likely have failed.
@@pahtar7189no that's wrong president Obama refused to send weapons instead he sent blankets and medical equipment president trump sent a small number of javelins president biden is the only president that has sent a significant amount of weapons to help Ukraine
Was it worth wrecking Ukraine that bad to see wether to funally admit to NATO or not??
After the war I could see Ukraine becoming very close with Poland, with or without NATO membership. Poland is positioning itself to become a major producer of armour in the near future with its collaboration with the arms industry in South Korea. Ukraine is going to want to rebuild it's country and industry as well as it's military. It has a long and proud history of producing armoured vehicles so would be in a good position to work with Poland to produce Polish designs. They'll likely retain whatever survives the war then phase them out as the new armour arrives. The biggest thing will be the air force. While the Gripen would be the better aircraft, the ball is already rolling for F-16s to be adopted full scale and again a close relationship with Poland would benefit them in this. They'll likely set up long term or permanent treaties with other European countries to make the supply lines set up during the war more permanent so that in the case of another invasion they would be far better prepared even if they don't get NATO membership
If Ukraine cannot join NATO after liberating all lands, the "after the war" scenario is Ukraine who has very few people left (murdered by Russia, emigration and low birth rates, abducted by Russia civilians). Giving Putin guarantees that Ukraine won't join NATO midwar is AWFUL
Poland has pretty much said they support ukraine History shown it never helped them.
@@principleshipcoleoid8095Ukraine not joining mid-war is shorthand for 'we will not march into a global conflagration (likely nuclear) with Article 5 as an impetus'.
Would it be acceptable for a future Canada or Mexico to join a military alliance with a much more powerful future China or Sino-Russin alliance? Why no, we (the US) wouldn't accept that at all for obvious reasons. It's much less acute given NAFTA/CAFTA but what happens when we are no longer allies with our neighbors?
I'm not pro-Russia, but be realistic. The Kremlin will not allow Ukraine as a NATO member with the current borders. Part of the war is anticipating Ukraines inevitable ascension as a member, but with drastically different eastern borders more favorable to Russia.
@@JoseLopez-du4kd Why? Poland and Ukraine successfully resisted Russian invasions for a long time. In fact, it was the quarrel between Poland and Ukraine that allowed Russia to defeat both countries and strengthen its position in Europe. Also, it was the union of Poland and Ukraine (UPR) that helped them defeat the Bolsheviks in 1920. Yes, later they lost to the alliance of Stalin and Hitler, but they successfully opposed the USSR while it was alone.
Was it worth wrecking Ukraine that bad to see wether to funally admit to NATO or not??
Good luck getting our “friends” Turkey and Hungary to agree on that..
Don't even why Turkey's on there. Lol
@@vaestkusten6041 Did you check the world map? I thought this channel gave you some insight in geo politics
I'd drop Hungary from NATO in heartbeat if it meant Ukraine could join. Turkey sucks too but they are just too important to the alliance right now unfortunately. Realistically, the best Ukraine can hope for is to be come a major non-NATO ally (MNNA).
They will agree. As this world is changing turkey's noticing that we're not the security guarantors anymore. And once they get through this financial crisis it's turkeys time to shine again. It will grieve for the simple fact that more allies in the region will make it easier for them to maintain and expand their dominance in the region.
@@Ruutger Turkey’s position is very overrated. The black sea has no large Nato bases nor any oil fields or anything like that. Plus Bulgaria, Romania and Greece has some control as well. Exactly what use is Turkey in Nato when its run by a corrupt anti western dictator who would never go to war with his best friend Putin if it comes to it.
I am an American citizen and I say Ukraine has more than earned it's spot in NATO, The bravery and conviction of the Ukrainian people is honorable and they deserve to never have to go through this ever again.
Ukraine has, at the very least earned ally status. I mean, look at that bravery. You WISH you were that brave, we all do.
As a Chinese citizen, there will be more to say if Ukraine joins NATO.
I am not against Ukraine. In fact, I am against any war.
It is just sort of my personal understanding on the consequence, or sort of guess:
1, If Ukraine joins NATO before the war ends, the war will not end, but will be escalated.
2, If Ukraine joins NATO after war ends, the war will most probably re-start, because that Ukraine joining NATO will mean enemy-at-gate to Russia.
3, If Ukraine joins NATO and the war is escalated. it will be likely leading to another world-war.
4, All these actually depends on what NATO is going to do.
5, If NATO intends to beat Russia entirely down, China will be absolutely involved in escalated war, because USA will take actions to prevent China from supporting Russia, or stopping NATO to beat Russia down.
6, As Russia is China's big neighber , China will not stand aside, and seeing Russia falling down, because China will become NATO's next target if Russia is down.
7, The approach that China gets involved in the war, will be kind of direct conflict between China and USA.
8, USA will start the conflict or war against China firstly,. Actually this is what China has already started preparing for since years ago.
9, Even USA always wants to start the war in Taiwan, and choose it to be the battle-field, China will select another battle-field.....Korea.
10, When the war between USA and China is going to start, the war between North korea and South Korea will start firstly. USA will have to be quickly involved in the 2nd korea war, and then China will get involved too.
11, After this 2nd Korea war starts, Taiwan will be just a piece of cake.
After all, the best option to Ukraine should be that, Ukraine declares its independence, and make itself a buffer between NATO and Russia. Then it will get international support, to cease the war and get occupied land back. And it will also win opportunity for future poverity.
Western Politicians should believe that China is more powerful than they think, and more wise than they think.
America is more godlike it's the super power of super powers. It is 20 years ahead in technology than most other countries and super duper rich. Plus has more allies than everyone else. China is probably better than Russia and look at Russia struggling just in ukraine next to its borders.
@@Han-ne2ld As a Ukrainian citizen obviously I want the Ukraine to join NATO. Thus I want to argue a few points:
1. Will never happen, cause, well you know.
2. This highly depend on how the war will end. The ideal case is where Russia's forces at least beat up to the point where they cannot restart the war, thus giving Ukraine ability to join NATO.
I won't go through all the other point as they are not directly related to Ukraine and probably won't happen in case of a new status quo.
The only other thing:
Ukraine was kind of a buffer zone already with even a non attack pact and as you can see it doesn't work. In fact no deals with Russia ever work. So whatever alternative there could be to NATO it could be much stronger than some agreements. Well you know, you've seen the video.
Imagine the world where people didn't start wars for more power and or money......
That's a weird way to look at it, it might be better to consider their membership on what they contribute and at what cost. Feelings being the main decider is a recipe for disaster
There are two types of countries in Eurasia the NATO ones and the possible Russian target
I call you out for bs .
And some of the Russian puppets seem to be doing the "maskirovka" inside NATO as well.
@@richardjackman3559it also means russian target. For some reason all of those countries are broke, corrupt as fuck
@@richardjackman3559 Lets call them "previous Russian targets".
@@conlaiarla Considering the amounts of countries that fits the bill and has had some kind of military altercation with the Russian Federation, including MEMBERS OF the Russian Federation I would like you to clarify that statement. Why is it BS when the three decades since the dissolution of the USSR has seen Russia involved in either outright invasion, "protection of Russian speaking minorities" or "backing separatist movements" in about one third of the non-NATO Eurasia countries that aren't strongly tied to China?
Yes, absolutely, affirmative, agree beyond a doubt, definitely. 2014 was a similar to handing Czechoslovakia over to the Germans before WW2. The west didn't want to "make waves" so we ignored a major invasion into a sovereign country. Our debt to the Ukrainians can only be repaid by supporting them however we can.
😂
agreed.
I'm assuming when you mean "debt" you mean to Europeans? I ain't got no debt with Ukraine and can care less. I have hard financially problems over here in the US. Plus we have been protecting Europe for too long. At least give us tribute for the US basically reviving West Europe in the Marshall Plan.
@@josephstalin839 Americans should not have gotten involved in ww2 in the first place , we won't pay tribute to you as well
It was the Czechoslovak state, they were fine
They are one of the few armies in the world who actually have first-hand experience fighting the Russians, and are doing a bang up job as well...
If anything, NATO should be begging them to join...
If you believe western propaganda
Agreed those men fight like lions.
@@frankgunner8967 stop drinking tap water , ur hallucinating....
Agreed
I'm not even sure what the world is waiting for. Right now is as weak as Russia is gonna get. Natos purpose is a bulwark against Russia and China but when Russia is in a terrible position they won't even put boots on the ground in Ukraine
John Mearsheimer warned in 1994 (in Foreign Affairs) that Ukraine was making a monumental blunder by giving up its nuclear weapons. He warned, between the lines, about the same actions being perpetrated by Russia today.
Ukraine is the heart of NATO. They have proven themselves not only worthy of being NATO members but NATO leaders. As the Germans cowered in fear from Berlin, the Ukrainian resistance did not flinch once in the face of Russian artillery.
Crack pot
Most of Ukraines soldiers have died. What are you smoking?
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 if most ukraine soldiers have died, why ain't russia pushing? Ran out of soldiers too?
@@DanC-vv7clhe thinks they have been fight nato and Ukraine they defeated in 3 days 😂😂💩🇷🇺💩
I'd call Ukraine the battle-tested shield and spear NATO wants to add to its arsenal, but the heart of NATO is and will likely always be the USA.
Yes, I believe the Ukrainians would have firsthand experience and would be an asset for NATO offensive strategies to keep freedom alive against aggression.
NO, and, Fvk NO... fvk both fascist countries. But the West must stop helping Ukraine. Always stand up to a bully yourself.
And what exactly do you think will be left ? All men 16-80 have been called too fight. America will fight until the last Ukrainian man. ( and the county will be left just like Iraq / Afghanistan/ Yemen / Libya / Somalia / Syria ) Ukraine has already lost the war even if Russia left today.
@@elaishh3533 "fight until the last Ukrainian" Thats kremlin narrative right there. Bot. Dont be so obvious.
@Elaishh Does this comment earn you an extra bread ration? The whole America fighting to the Last 80 year Ukranian man is such a overly repeated Russian propaganda statement I've no clue why you bother saying it.
@@elaishh3533 America will support Ukraine down to their last man. Simple as thst
Thanks Simon. For my two cents, I see the only viable option for post-war Ukraine is full NATO membership (and EU membership to boot). I understand of course the complexity of unstable borders and obvious Russian objections, but Article 5 is critical for securing an ongoing and stable peace. I note that not once has Russia touched a square inch of NATO territory throughout this conflict, and I think that is instructive. Anything less than full NATO membership is likely to be subject to prevailing political whims (particularly in Washington), and therefore won't deliver the decisive deterrence Ukraine needs. I think NATO membership would also provide an extraordinary psychological boost to Ukraine, and as you mention, ample impetus to reform areas of corruption and encourage much needed international investment.
there will turns out that peace will never fall on Ukraine land. War between Russia and NATO will never stop.
Unless NATO entirely beat Russia down. But that will never happen.
Midwar NATO membership is the only way for the war to not last decades or centuries.
@kirsch-qj9bgCitation needed.
There was that missile that killed a few people in Poland
Switzerland is not a NATO member. Given they are surrounded by NATO members, and their geography, they are very safe.
same with Austria
Much like Sweden, they are both very cooperative with nato. They have never sought full membership, but have never outright dismissed the possibility.
Switzerland is a nation of cowards, playing both sides during WW2 and receiving wealth of others and later refusing to give it back. I'd personally wiped Switzerland doff the map.
Currently, Ukraine can't join nato as it is currently in the middle of a war, and to join nato, a country has to be at peace. After the war with Russia it depends on how fast they can get there army to western spec as a nato member has to have the requirement that there military will seamlessly integrate with other nato member military equipment. At least from what I understand.
Nato is a man made organisation, if all members agreed Ukraine could join now (obviously wont happen but still). Nato military equipment standards is no rush, Romania and Bulgaria havent achieved that yet.
@sdkfs200 guess that is true, but from what I understand most member nations won't vote for a country to join unless they are at peace
They also need money. Which they won't have for decades
Not even western armies are going to be up to western spec; all their shit got blown up last week! XD XD XD XD
@@impossibleisjustanopinion9898 yeah because after the war most of the will be going to Blackrock
If we didn’t pressure Ukraine into the Budapest memorandum I doubt Russia would invade a nuclear armed Ukraine.
Unfortunately, there is plenty of blame to go around to many countries.
What we can do now is work together to rectify the situation and push the Russians back into their borders.
Can you honestly, honestly say you trust Ukraine with nukes? Do remember who was in charge of Chernobyl people. No I don't think having a three way MAD would have been better than a two-way one.
Ukraine does, however, have extensive amounts of nuclear waste from their nuclear reactors. The reason Russia isn't considering nukes is because Ukraine could rain radioactive gamma waste all over Moscow with just a few drones. Basically a dirty bomb.
@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 While, in my opinion, it was the right choice for Ukraine to give up their nukes, we could have integrated them into NATO sooner.
A NATO membership would, in my view, be preferable over nuclear rearmament.
@@svr5423 That would have honestly been ideal. But working in America were only willing to give security assurances not guarantees and France and Germany weren't as keen to take new members.
I love that this refered to Thaiwan as a nation
Ridiculous isnt it. Its not a nation its province
Man I really love this channel and how it always offers both sides of the discussion. So many other YT creators pass off their opinion as gospel and creates a divisive environment, when they don’t know or understand the counter argument.
Yes *absolutely*
Russia in its current state will never leave Ukraine alone
Which is why putin must be ousted as well as the entire United Russia party
Ukraine can be left alone, it just has to respect the will of its minority that want OUT OF A COUNTRY THAT HAS USED NAZI DEATH SQUADS TO KILL THEM IN A GENOCIDAL CAMPAIGN SINCE 2014!
Ukrainian neo-nazis should have left the Donbas alone.
@@d.c.8828 The ones imported from Russia to fund a minority separatist movement?
@@d.c.8828 The Donbas terrorists are sponsored by Russia. They are responsible for everything that has happened.
Ukraine should, at the very least, open a NATO office like how Japan plans to in order to solidify their military alliance even further. Russian Imperialism shouldn’t have happened and the only reason it did was because the West underestimated the Soviet mindset that still exists within Putin. if NATO genuinely wants to protect their borders, it HAS to clean out the opaqueness of their members and force them to show their hand or else you have Hungary and Turkey jockeying for Putin’s favor
Hungary has no leverage to make them an important member. Turkey though, is just way too important. They have a lot of leverage.
@@askkedladd I really meant Turkey but I figured throwing in Hungary to be fair with my criticism. All these two have to say is “no” like they have with Sweden, and NATO should probably take measures to make sure those two aren’t compromised liabilities
Putin has betrayed the legacy of the USSR.
@@merlijnbazuine5075 the whole contention is the Turkish political dissidents that Sweden has promised to not extradite, so there are fundamental issues between the two. This issues been going on for a whole year now, the only was I see Turkey caving in is if the Lira continues to plummet
Putin saw through NATOs empty threats and took a gamble to build his legacy. That is why he attacked and he was right about everything outside how corrupt his army was. I have no doubts he was told his military was in much better shape than it was. The man only gets his information from Russian news and sycophants close to him basically feeding him his own bullshit.
NATO has sent too little too late. Ukraine will be a war of attrition. Yet Europe can't get its shit together.
ukraine should be accepted into nato imo
i am from hungary, but the fact that ukraine is fighting despite knowing it stands practically alone shows the resolve of the ukrainian people
while nato weaponry is a key factor in this, you need to remember but the people do the fighting, and ukraine has shown time and time again these past few years that it is willing to defend every inch of its territory, and that it has the potential to become a rival to russia
i wish nato realized this sooner, and wish they were not cucked over by the german, or for that matter western leadership... all this pointless bloodshed would have been prevented, if the west had the balls to do that 1 step it needed to do pre 2014
no matter the outcome of the war, russia lost, even if it wins, it will face a hostile population, a hostile world, where its only outright ally will be our pet prime minister, and north korea... what an awesome prospect to have
Hungary would as putin puppet deny that acceptance and waiting all the benefits it can as opportunist get.
How is Ukraine alone when it has foreign fighters and arms?
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942 it has foreign volunteers and gifted arms and alone because no other country is fight with it. 🤡🤡
Thank you for your support🇺🇦 Slava ukraini🔱 Slava HIMARS 🔱
My stance is simple: if a country can demonstrate that it meets the criteria for membership and wants to join, they should be allowed to join. The same goes for the EU, though in that case it's obviously limited to countries in, around, and directly related to Europe.
They also need to be welcome by everyone in the group.
@@Karrde Duh. That's presumably why he said "allowed".
@@MaxRideout it's not actually though. Domestic and geopolitics unquestionably plays a role
Crack pot
But they didn't let Russia join for some reason.
Could? At the moment: no. They are st war.
Should? Yes. Ukraine has the largest army in Europe, which since 2014 has grown ever closer to it's western allies.
Assuming they eventually win the war they'd have one of the best militaries in Europe
On what planet are you living on ? They are and will be beaten soundly .
@@conlaiarla You must be suffering from the mandela effect, check the history of this reality and see how it differs from yours.
@@conlaiarla Gopnik bot!
Nato should just send putin this: "Hey Vlad, since there was no formal declaration of war Ukr will be admitted to Nato on the fiirst of July 2023, we strongly encourage you to regroup your bois outside of the 2014 territory to prevent any regrettable accidents. Best regards XOXO, Jens"
As insightful and thought-provoking as ever
They can't they are involved in a conflict and have territorial disputes
After the war! At least watch the video!
Not bad Tommy. Pretty good presentation.
European countries (and other NATO nations) need to step up and start spending more on their own defense. Instead they heavily rely on NATO (which Europe under-supports monetarily) and the US. I support strong social welfare programs like those in most European countries, but they are indirectly subsidized by relying on US defense spending. I'd like more $ at home so we can also have better social programs.
Fully agree as an European.
It's a bit "embarrassing" to see that Poland is leading the way, a former WP state, while Germany and France have been idling around for decades.
@@svr5423 I am pretty sure Germany's neighbours wanted a weak Germany after reunification, so jokes on them
Great analysis and overview. Thank you.
Allowing Ukraine to join NATO is what this entire defensive effort to save Ukraine is all about. To leave them to be continually attacked by their eastern neighbor would have been to have wasted billions providing Ukraine with NATO ready weapons. This war must end first, (Art. 5) as joining before the end would be to put NATO at war with Russia immediately.
Well. If we want to standup to tyranny on the global scale, then yes.
What an excellent, EXCELLENT discussion! Well done Simon and team. I really enjoy this type of review of all sides and then letting the viewer come to our own conclusions. Reminds me of non-partisan, old school journalism our grandparents were familiar with. Hope you do more of this type of video examining all sides of an issue.
Very good! I watch it 2 times !!!
Yes, and yes.
Could? Yes. Should? Absolutely. If that is what they want and if they meet all requirements.
I feel that Russia will only ever just tell us 'IF YOU DO THIS, WE'LL NUKE YOU' since that's been his strategy for the past year now. Himars, boom, nuke threat, storm shadow missiles, nuke threat.
18:30 Those are members of the European Union (EU) not NATO, as denoted by the EU flag at the centre of the table and the non NATO member flags surrounding it: Cyprus, Austria, Ireland and Malta. The B roll would make sense if Whistler had referenced the EU around that time code, but it is an odd visual non sequitur on its own. Whistler eventually does reference the EU, at 24:36 at that point the use of B roll makes sense.
Yes. And Yes.
But if they don’t, as soon as the war is over, they should enter into an Article V-style defense agreement with a country like Poland, America, or Finland
not as simple regarding the Article V-style defense.. russia could just go back to war again to drag us in , lots of things to do before then sadly
@@Cheiff117 They cant even take ukraine, they would be insane to "just drag us in" with another country, expeccially the usa.
Never forget, they thought the war would take 3 days at its start, they didn't actually expect to have to fight a real war. Now they know how hard of a task "just going back to war" is, and that's BEFORE ukraine has anyone else with boots on the ground directly helping them.
@@Cheiff117
Well that’s the point. Russia knows it can’t fight a war against America/NATO and do anything other than get curb stomped. It is why Putin has war-ed with Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine but not the Baltics. He knows he can’t.
And that’s why this should happen. It keeps Putin from being able to just continue trying to achieve his goal, at least in regards to using military force to do so
@@jloiben12 doesn’t stop him destroying everyone tho
@@Cheiff117
… Except it does
Could Ukraine join NATO now? No. They are currently at war with another country. At the moment they aren't able to join.
Should Ukraine join NATO after the war? 100% Yes!! They have showed a huge amount of courage and guts against the Russians that they have earned the right to become a member of NATO and would make the defensive alliance stronger.
SLAVA UKRAINI!! 🇺🇳💪🇺🇦
All Nato member states need to agree.
I just want to add for the record that Poland isn't anywhere close to Taiwan in GDP per capita. That line was very misleading. Poland sits at around 18k GDP per capita while Taiwan is roughly 33k GDP per capita.
Ukraine membership of NATO is a no-brainer; a firm protocol must be developed for this process, even considering completing that process prior to Russia being evicted from Ukraine and made to pay for ALL damages to Ukraine.
How are you planning on making Russia leave Ukraine?
Problem 1 : Getting Russia to leave Ukraine completely
Problem 2 : Getting Russia to sign any peace treaty that doesn't give them anything. They can easily just continue firing missiles into Ukraine, not much Ukraine can do about that
@@xtruemw2NATO has been on Russia’s border for nearly 20 years.
@@xtruemw2Also BRICS is a trade alliance not a defense alliance.
@@xtruemw2 Sure. Countries have the right to join whatever groups/alliances/pacts they wish.
Ended on a good and positive note 🙂
NATO is a military alliance and Ukraine has the most recent battle experience in dealing with Russian tactics. There is no question about what they would contribute.
Nato was created to for the sole purpose of being able to face off against ruZZia so Ukraine will be a big plus for nato
Extremely light on info in the first part and very skewed presentation of what happened back then, which makes me doubt other info on this channel.
The army of Ukraine might consist of a million men right now, but most of those are drafted. When war ends they will go back to their jobs. Lets not assume that they have a million soldiers to add to NATO's forces in the future.
No but you can guarantee that it will maintain what will probably be among the largest armies in NATO and its not like Russia has got the balls to take on the entire alliance.
1:20 - Chapter 1 - Spurned advances
6:10 - Chapter 2 - Friends with benefits ?
10:10 - Chapter 3 - The grand army
14:20 - Chapter 4 - The armageddon factor
19:35 - Chapter 5 - The porcupine
22:40 - Chapter 6 - Alternative methods
Chapter 1 - Germany being a Bitch
Great episode.
It would be silly to not have Ukraine as a member of NATO. Purely on the fact that, they are hands down the most battle trained on a plethora of NATO systems, tactics, and equipment. They are also capable of training other nations now on the same. If they were not granted that access it could end up being a very bad scenario for NATO because this could cause for breakaways and satellite groups that could be very disgruntled (remember corruption). NATO is exposed by a large nation of their secrets and tactics/tech so to not have them join is a potential back end issue. Also to add, they have been trying to become a part of something for many years because they are the first in line of fire from the Kremlin due to natural resources and coastal benefits.
Does Simon ever do Q&A's for any of his channels?
No, he just says what he's paid to.
Excellent presentation of the material and possible outcomes.
Next level guys! Thanks for the sterling content every time!
If Ukraine joined NATO and attacked Russia, the rest of NATO would not come to its aid, because Ukraine would be the instigator. Russia's security would benefit from this arrangement, but obviously Ukrainian beligerence and NATO expansion are just excuses. Finland somehow isn't a big deal.
But it could and probably will make belligerent actions which it couldn't do without NATO protection. Cyber warfare, develop nuclear technologies, support opposition parties and separatist movements in Russia etc
tell me something
how is ukraine the belligerent one
you type this as if russia is some sort of benevolent entity and hadn't instigated this whole mess in the first place
A country of 40,000,0000 with a massive army and military industry sitting on open ground with no natural barriers and infested with genocidal Nazis instead of a tiny country with no offensive capability and no ability to wage a major war sitting on a forested isthmus.
@@somerandomfaerie6840 In 1996, when Russians in Crimea protested against the language laws in the new constitution, Ukraine sent the army and shot them dead. Ukraine gradually marginalized Russian langauge, culture, and media. Then it began teaching active Nazi glorification and hatred of Russians in its public schools. t/heilukraine for proof When the Russian minority in Donbas had enough of the cruelty and deprivation of rights, and held a referendum, Kiev sent the army to block the polls and gunned down people when they tried to vote. They then killed tens of thousands more over the next 8 years for being Russian. No attempt at reconciliation or compromise, they just shelled and shot them. Read about things like Alley of Angels and "Mariupol Library". Ukraine has committed genocide against its Russian minority for 8 years. Russia is heroic for putting an end to it.
@@Mortablunt Does Putin pay you per word, or per lie? Either way, you probably just earned yourself a lot of roubles, botski!
yes and yes
Absolutely not!
Absolutely!
In short
YES
These days, I think Poland would absolutely slap a russian advance on the Baltic states.
Dream on
Excellent video. One nitpick: At 0:45, the word you want is "irredentist," rather than "revanchist."
As someone from the EU I'm more bothered by the massive effort trying to bring Ukraine into the EU. Attacked or not, they're not ready for that one at all. I remember all those headlines from before the war talking about the massive level of corruption in Ukraine. They had a TON of stuff to sort out even before the war.
Yeah, too many people are getting too emotional about this. Ukraine's EU membership is a very far off thing. Many country will be pissed off if they get to join EU in their current state. Which is bad considering a lot of EU members are not exactly happy about the EU now too.
Martial law give a lot of power and political cover that can be used to stem corruption. It does seem like this is a primery concern of the govenement. It makes sence as much of that corruption benfits russia.
Tbf, Hungary is in the EU
if Ukraine joins the EU then it needs proper management and meticulous preparations to make sure the economy adapts and the currency change is successful or else it will be another Greece situation. Rushing it is worse than simply not joining.
@@TheAstrobiologistOW have you been to hungary? its rich, peaceful and pretty ideal
Only time will say if they are gonna join or not.
Yes and yes. Absolutely. Ukraine will be a great NATO country.
Covering Ukraine with Article 5 protection now may give Russia pretext for withdrawal. Putin could claim that it was inevitable, that he tried his best to prevent Ukraine from becoming a puppet state, but Russia alone could not stand against Nato. But that's a best case scenario, and would be tremendously risky to attempt without first coming to a settlement with Putin. This settlement would most likely indemnify him for war crimes, among other concessions.
that would only work if Russia actually wants to get out of the war
You are smoking crack if you honestly think that gamble is worth it. Risk Nuclear war in order to give Ukraine its Eastern half. They look at this war as an existential crisis which they must have some sort of win to keep their country from imploding. Gambling with 100’s of millions to billions of lives is absolutely wreck-less.
@@delfinenteddyson9865 They eventually do want to, but it all comes down to the terms. Unless they're striving for total defeat, because total victory for them isn't possible.
@@enkephalin07 I think you are underselling the Russians. They have a good shot at just holding the conquered territories
@@delfinenteddyson9865 Yeah, that might be part of the settlement, but there will have to be a settlement eventually. But realistically, it's too soon to consider those 'conquered territories' Russian.
I don't need to undersell Russians when they're so good at overselling themselves.
I think you have missed the most likely outcome for ukraines security, it’s not joining the EU which is a long way off, but is most likely to be joining the JEF, the joint expeditionary force, it’s the logical halfway house between where they are now and ambitions for nato membership, gets them into a pact with nato subset while they build the resources necessary to be a self sustained army which is necessary for nato membership, can’t be a basket case member
The best option is left everything east of Dneipr go. If they weren't pro Russian before, being subject to 8 years of genocide and brutalization by Nazis on orders from Kiev definitely changed that. And also let Lvov and Carpathia go, since they're full of Romanian and Hungarian untermensch, and when Russia wins, thsoe two are going to come to the rescue of their people from the genocide against them.
As for EU, fuck no, Ukraine is more of an African country than a European country. Extremely corrupt, western interets want to exploit and keep it poor, frequent coups, and now it's in IMF debt.
I'd feel bad for them if they were genocide committing Nazis.
Good video. You talk at length about Europe letting their military readiness fade, about not meeting their NATO commitments to 2% of GDP, about not keeping their eye on the east ... of course, leading to the current disaster.
Of course, only one leader publicly sounded the alarm on this, for which he was attacked as being anti-Europe, a poor leader, and having no military policy skill. Except ... he was absolutely spot on, as we all now know.
So Simon (and writers), you can say it ... we know you know it ... Trump was right.
No and yes in my opinion. Active war over boarders with another nation means they cannot join, and this war will drag on for years even if Ukraine reclaims all its territory. Ukraine obviously wants and deserves NATO protection, but the best they can hope for is to become a major non-NATO ally (MNNA).
Active war indeed, there’s also the fact that even if Ukraine goes back to all of their borders before 2014, there’s the fact that Russia can still keep firing missiles into Ukraine, to keep Ukraine, technically in a state of war against them, which would scare away NATO membership. Still though by then, they would need to make Russia’s missile firing more expensive by the day, week, month, and year until eventually, they do give up.
@@muthias4582 In such a scenario, Crimea would have fallen already, which would probably suffice to have the russians wake up (especially their military) and decide to cut their losses by negotiating and end to Putin's war.
If Russia isn't in their borders, then it's a simple matter of deploying NATO troops into the territory and guaranteeing it's territory while they complete the application. Russia can be notified that as of this date any attack will trigger a chapter five... the end. Stop pandering to Russia. They are just going to stomp their feet and act like a child while Ukraine becomes a NATO stronghold.
@@lepetitroquet9410 Hmm very very true. I just factored in the Kremlin stubbornness to the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing again and again expecting different results.
But yeah losing Crimea and the money it provides would sink so much out of Russia that firing missiles would just be even more wasteful than it already is.
@@muthias4582 I can't completely rule ou the Kremlin's stubborness either tbh. We will see ^^.
Yes and Yes!
I'm waiting patiently for WW3
18:54 I still can't shake the feeling that the Special Activities Center is heavily involved in this. Russian gas going into Europe that easily has always been frowned upon by the US, and this was as good a time as any to at least back any group even remotely interested in carrying out such an operation. And to be honest, as a European myself, I wouldn't even blame them. Our politicians and corporations apparently needed to be forced into action.
I just can’t believe they would risk the integrity of their relationship with Europe, or the entire alliance, over doing something like that. Especially with one of the most pro-Europe presidents ever.
The idea that Russia was responsible has never made sense to me. Destroying the pipeline just ensured that Russia couldn't offer to turn the gas back on. It damaged Russia's bargaining power. Honestly, I mostly suspect my own government, the UK; the US and Ukraine are the next on the list, Ukraine is only at third place because I'm not sure they'd have the ability to do it.
@@Werrf1 Russia has threatened to lower and/or stop the gas supply in the hopes to make Europeans freeze in winter. They've also throttled it down before the explosion and let the european supplies deplete. But they are obliged to deliver, blowing up their pipeline can easily count as "force majure".
In truth, many actors have a motive and an opportunity.
Does it matter? Not really. The pipelines are worthless, there will be no gas purchases from Russia in the forseeable future, and later on, we will get rid of fossil fuels. No real damage was done. No people were injured or even killed.
Yes, green people are furious about gas flowing into the atmosphere. They are free to impotently shake their fist towards whoever they want.
The picture with all the flags depicts the flags of the EU, not NATO
I have a question. One that I’m genuinely interested to know the answer to. In what sense is Ukraine defending Europe? That would only be true if Russia intends to defeat Ukraine and then attack NATO. Is there any evidence of that being the case?
It isn't, it's just Nazi propaganda built on even older anti Russian propaganda. Russia just wants an end to the Donbas Genocide and not to have a hostile army of 5,000,000 ( NATO) on the doorstep to its heartland on a prime invasion route that offers no strategic depth or defensible lines. It's only had the biggest army in the world camp next door 4 times before, and it's always ended with them invading and killing millions of Russians. If an army of millions that exists explicitly to fight you and was founded by Nazis who did try to exterminate you wanted to be on your border, you would be right to refuse it.
Have you paid attention to Ruzzia’s behavior for the last 500 years? Terrorizing its neighbors is Ruzzia’s national identity.
Yes, but they’ve a never attacked NATO. Even at the height of tensions they never moved against any NATO state. If attacking NATO was their plan, then does it make sense to fight a state that’s not in the alliance first, or would it make more sense to avoid Ukraine and gamble that they won’t get involved because they have no obligation to? I feel like that’s similar to doing a beep test just before the marathon starts (I hope that analogy isn’t too abstract).
Considering they're in debt to NATO up to their eyeballs I'd say admission should be based on their efforts to rebuild their economy and what they do with the freedom we bought them after this wars over
It's actually Russia who is in debt. They have to pay the reparations and refinance all of the used up equipment provided by the west.
They are not in debt with NATO and we didn't buy them anything! I don't see you fighting against Russia, but commenting on UA-cam sitting on your ass.
Ukraine definitely deserves to join NATO, but I do think it may be more sensible and pragmatic to have them in the EU. An EU which can, very realistically, create a coalition army from all its members. A small, but extremely lethal, and effective force. Essentially NATO without being NATO, who can always call on NATO, which would most likely give Russia one less excuse.
But the most important aspect here that isn't considered is who's in the Kremlin. If Putin were removed, anything could happen, including Russia becoming a friendly state, overtime, to Europe and Ukraine. Remaining a pariah state just won't work long term, even Putin knows he's on the clock before his country collapses. Unlike Ukraine, nobody is really helping Russia. They may be mortal enemies right now, but look at US and Vietnam relations post-war. Things can change for the better for both countries in the future. But Russia needs radical change, starting at the very top.
Many if not most European armies are frankly unprepared for war. As Sanna Marin stated, the only country capable of guaranteeing the security of Europe is the United States.
Ukriane joining the EU should happen, but jointly with joining NATO.
Since Russia really never cared about any treaties, because it only follows its own rules and only listening to the language of strentgh and power, Ukraine needs to be in Nato so anything like this wont ever Happen again.
If Ukraine joins NATO, tomorrow, then WW3 will happen. Which means means most of the world would be dragged into Europes wars, yet again.
As a US Veteran who's seen war, Ukraine earned the spot in NATO.
Given Turkey, Hungary, and France are becoming more headaches than they're worth, I wonder if the US and UK should just skip them and form a new alliance with like-minded eastern bloc countries; Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and of course Ukraine. Give it a nice, catchy name that leaves no doubt in the minds of the Russians that we're serious about them never regaining their former western satellites... I'm thinking something like the New Warsaw Pact...
Been a long time since I checked one of your videos out. This was really good. Glad your many channels are doing well!
Yes.
You are q legend!
After the war, we'll need to keep an eye on what's happening in Moscow. Losing this war will be the end of Putin. His successor may dictate tge true necessity of Ukraine committing to NATO and /or EU.
Nor really... They may lose a war but they always will find a way to have great success e.g. annexing Belarus
Success is a point of view.
The thousands of Russian lives, military equipment, and economic damages do not seem commensurate to losing Ukraine, but gaining Belarus.
Yes. Shoigu and Progoshin fighting for control with their armies as the government collapses like in 91. Fun times! Nuclear civil war? That would be new.
Yes!
I'm not 100% sure that Ukraine truly brings anything to the table. Russia is already essentially surrounded. Turkey has them cut from the Mediterranean. I think they are too Russia-light for the NATO. They had their chance already and wanted to play games instead.
They bring the most battle hardened army currently in Europe.
Yes and yes.
I’m almost certain Ukraine will join NATO almost immediately after Russia’s invasion is stopped. The bigger question should be “Should NATO allow Non-European nations to join NATO?”. To clarify, I’m not even talking about the prospect of Japan, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand, The Philippines, India, Indonesia, or even Taiwan (yeah, I said the “T word”, get over it), joining NATO. No no, I’m talking about places like Mexico, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Colombia, or Morocco, because despite the fact they have access to the North Atlantic Ocean (even if just barely in Colombia’s case, but whatever) they are ineligible from joining if they wanted to, strictly due to not being European countries.
In case your wondering, Canada and The United States are in NATO only because they were founding members of the alliance and thus technically didn’t actually join it. Yes seriously.
In my opinion, if Hungry and North Macedonia can join NATO despite being landlocked, I see no reason why any country that’s in the North Atlantic cannot at least be potentially able to join NATO.
Well I think Turkey can hardly be considered european country :P
Well.. the United States is the military and economic guarantor. The US military power exceeds all the rest of NATO combined.. so the obviously the US would be in. Canada is essentially a brother nation to the US And UK, and they are located on the North Atlantic.. so obviously they had the open invite.
Nato was/is built to take of the Soviet Union, and now the Russian federation. The Warsaw Pact, and now the CSTO. That’s why it’s pretty much exclusively European nations. Australia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc shouldn’t join NATO. Instead a similar or almost identical Military alliance should be set up to take on China, and even Russia in the east.
Also, the North African nations shouldn’t be given membership. The region is made up of either unstable, authoritarian, very religious nations who do not share European/North American values, either hostile or even, at best half hearted western allies
Joint Earth Defense Initiate
Wrong, the biggest question will be how to get Ukraine out of state of war, because NATO doesn't admit new members in active war. If no treaty are signed, Russia can easily keep firing missiles into Ukraine to keep them in a state of war.
@@askkedladd Agree 100%
Top class
at this point the question should be not whether Nato wants Ukraine to join them but if Ukraine would even want to. By the end of this war Ukraine will have the most powerful army in Europe and 2nd in the world displacing Russian army that turned out to be a paper tiger designed exclusively for parades. since at this point entire world realised that the only possible ways Russian army is 2nd anything is 1-In Ukraine only or 2-If you count from the end
Also to add - ive been following this entire thing for a few years now (i am fluent in Russian and Ukrainian which allows me to follow their feeds directly) and i would put the chance of Putin staying in power past Ukraine reclaming all of their territories at single digits. Most likely outcome (naturally would love to see him in Hague(sp?) but not a realistic outcome since of how much he knows and being a coward - he will sing like a bird)will be that Kremlin will soon report that Putin had (insert here any made up medical reason or ilness - most likely heart attack) and a civil war for the throne will start. All russian elites are well aware of this and currently there are close to 40 private armies(and growing) that have sprung up in preparation, loyal to each of the highest russian elites. Either way leader of Russia that the world will have to deal with will not be Putin
If Russia was so weak, why has Ukraine been massacred despite NATO arms?
@CEO At Crystalsoft Ukraine, despite what russian propaganda says, hasnt been massacred while Russian military losses have topped 250k. Regular citizens however is a different story since there were a lot more Ukrainians killed
@@ceoatcrystalsoft4942its a war dude
Theres going to be causlties on both sides
If a defensive alliance makes you feel threatened. You are the threat!
NATO isn't a defensive alliance
No!
I think thats a really bad idea. Like adding fuel to the fire
With all due respect, Ukraine has already lost more soldiers and killed more Russians than the rest of NATO combined ever will (hopefully.)
If they want to, yes, they should. They have a right to choose they're country destiny's, it's not for Russia to decide. You know what? They earned the right to join who ever they want plus some, they have payed with blood an the destruction brought to they're country, a thousands of dead. So yeah, they have a right to choose. Anyone else who think differently is just flat out wrong. The ukrianian have proven themselves more then anyone else. As Americans we should respect that 1000x over, since its the exact same way we got ours(well pretty close).
EU
So you'll get them on the Chinese peace plan?
@@Mortablunt They are a sovereign country. "We" can give advise, but it is their decision
@@Maria-pk7mr So you really are to the last Ukrainian.
@@Mortablunt How did you get that from my response? You're manipulating it to read what you want to read. I said it is not my job - both literally and figuratively - to decide for the Ukrainians
I don’t think there is a country that has fought a war which by proxy defends NATO countries. They more than any other country deserve to be included into NATO. It’s not impossible that Japan and S Korea will join. It will need to be called NAPTO.
I shall join NATO!
@@Valknow Once I have all the training and supplies. I will start my war against Simon and his Simon Clones. Then take over all his channels. And allow Raid Shadow Legends to be the permanent sponsor and not pay any money!
@@onlywisehermit6624 I'll help fund this war. In return I would like my username and profile picture displayed for 5 consecutive seconds before every video with no context or explanation.
@@DEATH-flare only if they're tastefully done.
@onlywisehermit6624 yall are goofy i love it 😂😂
I want to join the CSTO! 😂😂😂😂😂 BEST alliance ever. /s
Short answer: NO and NO
to both questions
Yes
NATO should be honoured to join Ukraine.
lol fr
NATO has been so weak and pathetic making every excuse when there has been plenty of reasons and cause to intervene. If anything there also needs to be new alliances built from nations who are actually not weak and pathetic and ready and willing to actually do something. No doubt Poland and UA would be in this.
@@SM-nz9ff Do you even know the NATO charter?
@@corneliusantonius3108
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 1
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 2, 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.
Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Article 9
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)
Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Article 14
This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.
The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.
Like Poland and the Grossdeutschesreich.
@@Mortablunt The EU is proud to be part of Poland.
I don't need a 25 plus minute video to know the answer is a resounding NO
Why is every post regarding reluctant NATO members being deleted?
Yes, for Ukraine joining NATO after the war = closest thing to a guarantee that Russia will never come back.
We'll have to wait till at least the summer of 2026.
Most people don't understand what the year 2026 means.
At this point it would irresponsible to not let Ukraine in NATO. Now putler might have a different outlook I don't think he will ever end this war as long he is in office unless he gets written agreements that Ukraine won't join NATO. Which is why Ukraine needs all the hate we can muster and deliver so they can force the end of this.
Yes and yes