Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Wallace
^ I think you may be looking at things the wrong way, Sky. If you have a " player " on your team with recent combat experience and understands the Russian Military as they do, they would be a huge asset and one other NATO members could learn from. It's not a competition.
You also forget that the U.S military has it's own recent combat experience although it's impossible to argue with the skill and determination that the Ukrainian forces have shown.  |
You misunderstand me. I agree with you there. But nations are not altruistic, they are egoistic. So are governments. The actors I mentioned may not like to loose own influence. Right because the Ukraine militarily would be a heavyweight. You and me say thats an asset, and yes, the yhave proven themselves. But you and me are no government polticians of nations.
German foreign minister Baerbock for example already has already commented in a suspiciously muted manner. Germany is the obvious suspect against Ukraine membership. France also is. Turkey.
You see, Finland and Sweden also would be net contributors to the alliance strength. But not to such a "threatening"
ammount as war-experienced Ukraine would be.
And then ther eis article 5. Some NATO members do nto want to get pulled into the war by that.
Finally, NATO statutes are clear. candidate can only be who has no unsolved border issues with any of his neighbours.
It will not happen like Selensky wants it. I can understand him, but it will not happen. Not before an end of at least this current round of the war has come. Europeans will not sign an agreement that could bring them straight into a nuclear war, in their perception.