Russia and Ukraine

[The Grand Nudger]

Russia has been invading ukraine since 2014. The plans were "put on hold" because there was a "border dispute"...which will be perpetually true so long as it keeps ukraine from escaping the genocidal russian thumb. They have since been "put on hold" because russia won't stop threatening to destroy the world if ukraine makes it's own security arrangements.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Perhaps more detail from the NATO page would help to clarify things.

I have added the bold letters here and there.

---

Evolution of NATO-Ukraine relations

Dialogue and cooperation started when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).

Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, and further enhanced in 2009 with the Declaration to Complement the Charter, which reaffirmed the decision by NATO Leaders at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.

The 1997 Charter established the NATO-Ukraine Commission as the main body responsible for developing the NATO-Ukraine relationship and for directing cooperative activities. In 2023, the Commission was replaced by the NATO-Ukraine Council, where Allies and Ukraine sit as equals. This change demonstrates the strengthening of political ties and Ukraine’s increasing integration with NATO.

Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial. Ukraine has a long track record of active contributions to NATO-led operations and missions.
---------
Political and practical support to Ukraine

NATO condemns Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. This aggression gravely undermines Euro-Atlantic and global security, and is a blatant violation of international law. NATO Allies, in concert with relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly, demand that Russia stop the war immediately, cease its use of force against Ukraine, and completely and unconditionally withdraw all its forces from Ukraine.

The Allies do not and will never recognise Russia's illegal and illegitimate annexations, including of Crimea. Since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the beginning of its aggression in eastern Ukraine in 2014, NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity-building in Ukraine, alongside Allied training of tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops.

Since the NATO Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, NATO's practical support for Ukraine is set out in the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine. At the 2022 Madrid Summit, Allies strengthened the CAP to provide even more support to Ukraine. At the 2023 Vilnius Summit, Allies agreed to further develop the CAP into a multi-year programme of assistance, to help rebuild the Ukrainian security and defence sector and transition Ukraine towards full interoperability with NATO.

At the 2024 Washington Summit, Allies agreed to establish NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) to coordinate the provision of military equipment and training for Ukraine by Allies and partners. They also announced a Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine, providing a minimum baseline funding of EUR 40 billion within the next year, and sustainable levels of security assistance in the future. In 2024, Allies provided EUR 50 billion to Ukraine, with nearly 60% coming from European Allies and Canada.

NATO stands in unwavering solidarity with the government and people of Ukraine in the heroic defence of their nation, their land and our shared values. The Alliance fully supports Ukraine’s inherent right to self-defence as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

------------

Ukraine’s membership aspirations

In response to Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO membership, Allies agreed at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO. They also agreed that Ukraine’s next step on its way to membership was the Membership Action Plan (MAP), NATO’s programme of political, economic, defence, resource, security and legal reforms for aspirant countries. In 2009, the Annual National Programme was introduced as Ukraine’s key instrument to advance its Euro-Atlantic integration and related reforms.

From 2010 to 2014, Ukraine pursued a non-alignment policy, which it terminated in response to Russia’s aggression. In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine's Constitution entered into force.

In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO. In September 2022, following Russia’s illegal attempted annexations of Ukrainian territory, Ukraine reiterated its request for NATO membership.

At the 2024 Washington Summit, building on decisions taken at the 2022 Madrid Summit and 2023 Vilnius Summit, Allies reaffirmed that Ukraine’s future is in NATO and that they will continue to support it on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. To that end, Allies will continue to support Ukraine’s progress on interoperability, as well as additional democratic and security sector reforms, which NATO Foreign Ministers will continue to assess through the adapted Annual National Programme. In Washington, Allied Leaders reaffirmed that they will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met.

---

To review: here are the plans for joining NATO that were formed before Russia's invasion, quoted from the text hidden above:

Allies agreed at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.

In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine's Constitution entered into force.

In September 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO.

So from 2008 there were plans for Ukraine to join NATO. This was put on hold from 2010 to 2014 as Ukraine pursued a non-aligned policy. After the change of government, with strong US influence, membership in NATO again became a "strategic foreign and security policy objective." And the Ukrainian constitution was amended to reflect this. This is before Russia invaded. In 2020 Zelensky approved a strategy which aims at membership.

Understandably, the desire for membership increased after Russia invaded. But it's clear according to NATO's web site, membership for Ukraine was a policy goal.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

Again, the Baltic states joined in 2004, putting NATO right up on Russia's border, but this is now a bridge too far?

[TheWhiteMarten]

Again, the Baltic states joined in 2004, putting NATO right up on Russia's border, but this is now a bridge too far?

There are several key factors - at the very least would be geography and logistics. That said, I doubt it helped.

tl;dr - Baltics-to-Moscow = like fighting through Louisiana; Kharkiv-to-Moscow like fighting through eastern Colorado.

The closest major population center of the Baltics is roughly 535 miles away from Moscow and 1000 miles away from the industrial heartland of Russia; inbetween is one of Europe's largest chain of wetlands, marshes and swamps with direct access to only 1 major highway to the capital - outside of that it's almost entirely mud roads not fit for heavy machinery. Additionally there is a low amount of commercial traffic in the region and few population centers, making it ideal for supremacy of sea and sky - not for staging a full expeditionary force on Moscow.

Adding Ukraine to NATO only reduces the distance to Moscow by about 100 miles; major industrial targets are now within 670 miles, with Tula - a major arms production center - within 300 miles of Kharkiv. In comparison to the border with the Baltics being a natural deterrent mixed with Belarus, the border between Russia and Ukraine is a well developed region - and one suited for military travel, as thousands of years of roving warbands in the region have bloodily proven.  

This not only opens the way for arial supremacy for NATO within Russia's own airspace, but also adds 3 more direct highways to the Russian capital and several more to the industrial regions; this surrounds Moscow on 2 fronts and allows the possibility of an easy encirclement to the east - stripped of any access to the oceans, deprived of it's productive and oil reserves, and backed against a frozen tundra.

This is not a "Cuba is close to America" issue - this is a, "Russian bases in Ontario" level of provocation from their perspective, agree with it or not.

[Fake Messiah]

Adding Ukraine to NATO only reduces the distance to Moscow by about 100 miles;

Again, Putin invaded Ukraine because he's a dictator who wants to fulfill his commitment to restoring the Russian and Soviet empires. That's why he devastated Chechnya, then in 2008 he invaded Georgia. This was followed by the massacre of over 500,000 people in Syria in 2012.

Ukraine was not only never a NATO member, but Putin even rejected a deal that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO and then invaded Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, opens new tab, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the Russian leadership.

The Ukrainian-born envoy, Dmitry Kozak, told Putin , opens new tabthat he believed the deal he had hammered out removed the need for Russia to pursue a large-scale occupation of Ukraine, opens new tab, according to these sources. Kozak's recommendation to Putin to adopt the deal is being reported by Reuters for the first time.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacif...022-09-14/

[Deesse23]

Again, the Baltic states joined in 2004, putting NATO right up on Russia's border, but this is now a bridge too far?

There are several key factors - at the very least would be geography and logistics. That said, I doubt it helped.

tl;dr - Baltics-to-Moscow = like fighting through Louisiana; Kharkiv-to-Moscow like fighting through eastern Colorado.

The closest major population center of the Baltics is roughly 535 miles away from Moscow and 1000 miles away from the industrial heartland of Russia; inbetween is one of Europe's largest chain of wetlands, marshes and swamps with direct access to only 1 major highway to the capital - outside of that it's almost entirely mud roads not fit for heavy machinery. Additionally there is a low amount of commercial traffic in the region and few population centers, making it ideal for supremacy of sea and sky - not for staging a full expeditionary force on Moscow.

Adding Ukraine to NATO only reduces the distance to Moscow by about 100 miles; major industrial targets are now within 670 miles, with Tula - a major arms production center - within 300 miles of Kharkiv. In comparison to the border with the Baltics being a natural deterrent mixed with Belarus, the border between Russia and Ukraine is a well developed region - and one suited for military travel, as thousands of years of roving warbands in the region have bloodily proven.  

This not only opens the way for arial supremacy for NATO within Russia's own airspace, but also adds 3 more direct highways to the Russian capital and several more to the industrial regions; this surrounds Moscow on 2 fronts and allows the possibility of an easy encirclement to the east - stripped of any access to the oceans, deprived of it's productive and oil reserves, and backed against a frozen tundra.

This is not a "Cuba is close to America" issue - this is a, "Russian bases in Ontario" level of provocation from their perspective, agree with it or not.

How often has NATO invaded other countries?
How often has (Soviet) Russia invaded other countries?

If you answer does not consist of exactly two numbers, it's an evasion. I put a paycheck on the latter? Any takers?

[Fake Messiah]

There it is. Russians are now expecting the United States to join them and conquer the world. Russians want to conquer Europe whom they consider evil and decadent.

Mr. Lavrov listed the ills that Europe — not America — had brought upon the world. The United States, in his telling, had gone from evil mastermind to innocent bystander.

“Colonization, wars, crusaders, the Crimean War, Napoleon, World War I, Hitler,” Mr. Lavrov said. “If we look at history in retrospect, the Americans did not play any instigating, let alone incendiary, role.”

Almost overnight, it’s Europe — not the United States — that has become the source of instability in the Russian narrative. On his marquee weekly show on the Rossiya-1 channel Sunday night, the anchor Dmitri Kiselyov described the “party of war” in Europe as outmatched by the “great troika” of the United States, Russia and China that will form “the new structure of the world.”

For more than a decade, the United States was the Kremlin propaganda machine’s main boogeyman — the “hegemon,” the “puppeteer” and the “master across the ocean.” It was seeking Russia’s destruction by pushing Europeans, Ukrainians and terrorists into conflict with Moscow.

Aleksei Zhuravlyov, a firebrand lawmaker known for threatening the United States with nuclear annihilation, said on “60 Minutes” last week that Russia could “make friends with America and rule the world.”

“Trump needs us,” Mr. Zhuravlyov said. “Do we need Trump? We do. Do our interests coincide? They do. Against whom? Against the European Union.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/world...putin.html

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Again, the Baltic states joined in 2004, putting NATO right up on Russia's border, but this is now a bridge too far?

There are several key factors - at the very least would be geography and logistics. That said, I doubt it helped.

tl;dr - Baltics-to-Moscow = like fighting through Louisiana; Kharkiv-to-Moscow like fighting through eastern Colorado.

The closest major population center of the Baltics is roughly 535 miles away from Moscow and 1000 miles away from the industrial heartland of Russia; inbetween is one of Europe's largest chain of wetlands, marshes and swamps with direct access to only 1 major highway to the capital - outside of that it's almost entirely mud roads not fit for heavy machinery. Additionally there is a low amount of commercial traffic in the region and few population centers, making it ideal for supremacy of sea and sky  - not for staging a full expeditionary force on Moscow.

Adding Ukraine to NATO only reduces the distance to Moscow by about 100 miles; major industrial targets are now within 670 miles, with Tula - a major arms production center - within 300 miles of Kharkiv. In comparison to the border with the Baltics being a natural deterrent mixed with Belarus, the border between Russia and Ukraine is a well developed region - and one suited for military travel, as thousands of years of roving warbands in the region have bloodily proven.  

This not only opens the way for arial supremacy for NATO within Russia's own airspace, but also adds 3 more direct highways to the Russian capital and several more to the industrial regions; this surrounds Moscow on 2 fronts and allows the possibility of an easy encirclement to the east - stripped of any access to the oceans, deprived of it's productive and oil reserves, and backed against a frozen tundra.

This is not a "Cuba is close to America" issue - this is a, "Russian bases in Ontario" level of provocation from their perspective, agree with it or not.

Try really hard to understand this: preventing illegal Russian expansion is not the same as attacking Russia.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Provocation, minerals, nazis, people try to come up with some rationalization for the war that makes sense, for some novel value of the term...but it's all useless, because vlad has told everyone they're wrong about all of it. Ukraine doesn't exist - all of that shit is russia. That's it. That's all. The whole enchilada. There is no further reason.

That's why shit had to go down in bucha. That's why 1k russians have to die every day.

[Sheldon]

This is not a "Cuba is close to America" issue - this is a, "Russian bases in Ontario" level of provocation from their perspective, agree with it or not.

Except the missiles the Soviets wanted to place in Cuba were a massive strategic leap on the technology of that era, you could turn Moscow into a radioactive car park from anywhere in the world now. So that's a false equivalence if ever there was one. Also a free Ukraine, even it joined NATO, would be no threat to Russia, unless they attacked a member state of that treaty, so this would make it impossible for Putin to bully sovereign nations out of their resources, with aggressive wars of conquest, as he is doing now, with a large thumbs up from Pinkie and Perky in the Whitehouse. 

It's pretty simple, some people put a value on freedom and democracy, Putin, Trump, and Vance do not.

[arewethereyet]

Again, the Baltic states joined in 2004, putting NATO right up on Russia's border, but this is now a bridge too far?

There are several key factors - at the very least would be geography and logistics. That said, I doubt it helped.

tl;dr - Baltics-to-Moscow = like fighting through Louisiana; Kharkiv-to-Moscow like fighting through eastern Colorado.

The closest major population center of the Baltics is roughly 535 miles away from Moscow and 1000 miles away from the industrial heartland of Russia; inbetween is one of Europe's largest chain of wetlands, marshes and swamps with direct access to only 1 major highway to the capital - outside of that it's almost entirely mud roads not fit for heavy machinery. Additionally there is a low amount of commercial traffic in the region and few population centers, making it ideal for supremacy of sea and sky  - not for staging a full expeditionary force on Moscow.

Adding Ukraine to NATO only reduces the distance to Moscow by about 100 miles; major industrial targets are now within 670 miles, with Tula - a major arms production center - within 300 miles of Kharkiv. In comparison to the border with the Baltics being a natural deterrent mixed with Belarus, the border between Russia and Ukraine is a well developed region - and one suited for military travel, as thousands of years of roving warbands in the region have bloodily proven.  

This not only opens the way for arial supremacy for NATO within Russia's own airspace, but also adds 3 more direct highways to the Russian capital and several more to the industrial regions; this surrounds Moscow on 2 fronts and allows the possibility of an easy encirclement to the east - stripped of any access to the oceans, deprived of it's productive and oil reserves, and backed against a frozen tundra.

This is not a "Cuba is close to America" issue - this is a, "Russian bases in Ontario" level of provocation from their perspective, agree with it or not.

I prefer Comic Sans MS supremacy.  More flair there.