dan80 🇺🇦
kravietz 🦇Some thoughts dissecting the Rasmussen's #NATO #Ukraine proposal. The context:
> Those advocating for Ukraine’s Nato membership have been hamstrung by the near-impossibility of a country at war being offered membership, since under Nato’s article 5 clause of collective self-defence, all Nato member states are required to come to the active defence of the country in conflict. Nato membership for all of Ukraine now would in effect be a notice to Russia by Nato that it was about to go to war with Moscow.
The Rasmussen's proposal:
> By excluding from Nato territory held by Russia, the threat of a Russia-Nato conflict would be reduced, Rasmussen argues.
A reasonable question arises, what's exactly "territory held by Russia"? Remember, in 2022 Russia unilaterally declared four regions of Ukraine part of Russian Federation. This includes towns liberated by Ukraine, such as Kherson, and, most absurdly, even those where Russian soldiers never even put they foot, like Zaporizhzhia — or Avdiivka, now besieged by Russia.
I assume Rasmussen doesn't care about these declarations, because otherwise his proposal wouldn't make any sense. But in any case they must be taken into account if the purpose of the Ukraine's membership is deterrence, rather than indirect declaration of war.
So does that mean these regions would be excluded entirely? That, on the first look, that sounds like abandoning them to Russia.
But here's the next passage which clarifies Rasmussen's thinking a bit:
> Rasmussen denied the move would freeze the conflict, ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia. He said: “The absolute credibility of article 5 guarantees would deter Russia from mounting attacks inside the Ukrainian territory inside Nato and so free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontline."
And that would make a lot of sense, because NATO protection for 80% of Ukraine territory effectively expands the current Ukraine's logistics hub from behind the EU border ~1000 km further east. Not to mention economic and humanitarian factor, where NATO umbrella would make living and making business in Kyiv just as safe as in Warsaw today.
But here's a problem I can't crack: if Ukraine enters NATO, and continues fighting for its territories beyond the "protected" grounds, doesn't that make it — a NATO country — at war with Russia? Rasmussen knows way more than me about NATO and international relations, but this bit it somehow missing from the article...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/...
> Those advocating for Ukraine’s Nato membership have been hamstrung by the near-impossibility of a country at war being offered membership, since under Nato’s article 5 clause of collective self-defence, all Nato member states are required to come to the active defence of the country in conflict. Nato membership for all of Ukraine now would in effect be a notice to Russia by Nato that it was about to go to war with Moscow.
The Rasmussen's proposal:
> By excluding from Nato territory held by Russia, the threat of a Russia-Nato conflict would be reduced, Rasmussen argues.
A reasonable question arises, what's exactly "territory held by Russia"? Remember, in 2022 Russia unilaterally declared four regions of Ukraine part of Russian Federation. This includes towns liberated by Ukraine, such as Kherson, and, most absurdly, even those where Russian soldiers never even put they foot, like Zaporizhzhia — or Avdiivka, now besieged by Russia.
I assume Rasmussen doesn't care about these declarations, because otherwise his proposal wouldn't make any sense. But in any case they must be taken into account if the purpose of the Ukraine's membership is deterrence, rather than indirect declaration of war.
So does that mean these regions would be excluded entirely? That, on the first look, that sounds like abandoning them to Russia.
But here's the next passage which clarifies Rasmussen's thinking a bit:
> Rasmussen denied the move would freeze the conflict, ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia. He said: “The absolute credibility of article 5 guarantees would deter Russia from mounting attacks inside the Ukrainian territory inside Nato and so free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontline."
And that would make a lot of sense, because NATO protection for 80% of Ukraine territory effectively expands the current Ukraine's logistics hub from behind the EU border ~1000 km further east. Not to mention economic and humanitarian factor, where NATO umbrella would make living and making business in Kyiv just as safe as in Warsaw today.
But here's a problem I can't crack: if Ukraine enters NATO, and continues fighting for its territories beyond the "protected" grounds, doesn't that make it — a NATO country — at war with Russia? Rasmussen knows way more than me about NATO and international relations, but this bit it somehow missing from the article...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/...
notsoloud
Osma A 🇫🇮🇺🇦