6

Ukraine was part of the USSR and made themselves independent. Vladimir Putin called the separation of the USSR a "major geopolitical disaster of the century". I am aware of the Russian annexation of Crimea (a part of Ukrainian sovereign territory) and Ukraine needed or had the will to join NATO. My question is, why hasn't the Ukrainian state joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? From a Wikipedia article, I found out that 69% of the Ukrainian people support an agreement with NATO. So what's missing?

Recently the US and NATO are doing joint military exercises near the Crimean Peninsula, where the Russian Federation, Chinese, Iranian, Belarusian, Armenian, Pakistani and Myanmar Armies are also doing joint forces in Caucasus 2020, and by which tensions are sparking. Belarus and Russia are also militarizing near the Border to Poland (EU-State, NATO-Member) since they share Pan-Slavism. These military activities pose great fears to the US, remaining of the European-Union and NATO.

My point is if Ukrainian and NATO forces do joint forces, couldn't the Both be combined (Ukraine in NATO)? I mean, if Ukraine joins NATO, it wouldn't be beneficial and will even harder for Russia to increase influence and securing Ukrainian Sovereignty as a whole with protection by the most powerful Alliance makes annexation difficult and containing Russian Influence over it's friends borders. The only thing that makes Russia Influence possible is Ukraine not being able to join NATO. Has NATO ever made open statements on Ukraine joining NATO?

Note: I appreciate every correction (edits) to this question, comments and am also happy if the question is taken down from site when seen as inappropriate.

| improve this question | |
  • Sorry if the question may look inappropriate to the cite! – Gregory Sep 24 at 5:11
  • Thanks for every help! – Gregory Sep 24 at 5:13
26

NATO won't let them in right now.

NATO is an alliance of nations who promise to defend each other's territorial integrity, among other things. There are some catches to that, so the Falklands war did not become a NATO Article 5 situation because those are South Atlantic islands, yet the 911 attack on New York did.

NATO supports the Ukrainian right to make a membership application as a free choice, without a Russian veto. It also takes official note of the application and talks about it, but that is not the same as an invitation to join now.

If NATO were to admit them, it would find itself called to restore the territorial integrity of the Treaty area, and it isn't prepared to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Generally NATO expects new members to resolve any outstanding territorial issues first -- compare the lengthy process for North Macedonia.

One might call that callous, or a sane refusal to risk WWIII.

| improve this answer | |
  • 7
    Good answer. Sorry to be blunt, but taking in Ukraine is not to to the interest of NATO's members. It increases the risk to be dragged into conflict with Russia, which is quite the opposite of its intent as alliance to deter such a conflict. Given the size of Ukraine and its border with Russia it also provides Russia with some legitimate ground for paranoia and suspicion. Just because the Ukrainians want it and would benefit from it does not change that fact. Best to support them by continued sanctions on Russia. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Sep 20 at 17:55
  • 2
    If you look at a defensive alliance as like buying insurance, letting Ukraine in while they are in the middle of suffering a prolonged attack would be like agreeing to sell fire insurance to someone whose house already on fire. – T.E.D. Sep 21 at 21:57
  • @T.E.D., to stretch the analogy further, if your next-door neighbours house is on fire, it is a really good idea to fight the fires first and debate payment later. Otherwise the flames will spread. – o.m. Sep 22 at 10:01
  • @o.m. - Perhaps. But in that analogy, say Poland would be the next-door neighbor, while NATO is more like the insurer. What would typically happen back in the olden days when fire companies were paid by insurers (instead of being public employees) would be that they'd show up to keep the fires contained to the uninsured buildings. – T.E.D. Sep 22 at 14:38
8

One of the many reasons is that as a response to Ukraine's new language and education laws, which took away basically all minority rights from the ethnic and linguistic minorities of Ukraine and banned the usage and teaching of minority languages, Hungary blocks every form of official contact between Ukraine and the NATO.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    What specific criterion of NATO membership does Ukraine's language policy violate? Can you provide a citation to a specific part of the charter, or other membership rules, or even the minutes of some deliberation among the existing members? – Psychonaut Sep 21 at 7:38
  • 4
    @Psychonaut Why is that relevant? The answer's point is that Hungary will block Ukraine's admission, not that the language laws are against NATO's membership criteria. – JBentley Sep 21 at 7:54
  • 1
    @JBentley: Quite right; I had misread that part of the answer. – Psychonaut Sep 21 at 7:57
  • 5
    @Psychonaut: Note also that such a requirement is not without precedent in the history of NATO. Denmark blocked the admission of West-Germany until in 1955 they settled the rights of the linguistic minorities of Germany including the usage of danish language in Schleswig-Holstein. – Adam Gyenge Sep 21 at 8:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .