| | | Taking steps towards joining NATO isn't actually joining NATO. Ukraine could in theory do the former without doing the later. It wasn't doing the former, but not just because it wasn't doing the latter.
Russia had reason to be concerned (although not nearly as much as its often portrayed at by the Russians or by others). But "reason to be concerned" != "reasonably justification for an invasion".
Russia increased their reason to be concerned by their aggressive actions. Russia could have been peaceful, and Russia would be in a better situation both economically and militarily. It would be more secure and there would be less death and destruction for Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, and Moldova.
If the requirement is reversed, i.e., if the Ukrainian Constitution called for it to never become a NATO member, would you say that there was a step towards not becoming a NATO member? Of course not. But "not the reverse of X" doesn't imply X. Nothing in the Ukrainian constitution is step towards or away from NATO membership, nothing that could theoretically be in the constitution could be. To take a step towards NATO membership requires NATO members to accept that step, Ukraine by itself can do nothing there.
And Ukraine was against trying to get NATO to allow them to take that step until 2014. (They were moving towards EU membership which also pissed Putin off but the EU isn't NATO, and a majority of Ukrainians opposed NATO membership. Even after 2014 it was only a modest majority of Ukrainians that wanted membership (before Feb 2022), and few countries in NATO would have supported the idea (maybe the Baltics and Poland, but you wouldn't have gotten anywhere close to a majority let alone a unanimous vote).
Russian aggression created the whole effort of Ukraine to get in to NATO in the first place. Russia created an enemy on their borders where there was not one. Its actually problems (as opposed to vague reasons for concerns) from Ukraine were near zero before Russian action.
And, by the way, NATO considers that the door to Ukraine's membership is "open." A nice sounding statement to try to be supportive of Ukraine, but almost meaningless in practice.
it is a horrible policy to have Ukraine as a NATO member.
As a purely practical issue it could be debated. If Ukraine had become a NATO member before 2014 then the war wouldn't have happened and Ukraine would have been protected. That's the good of Ukrainian membership. The bad is that Ukraine wasn't remotely ready for membership back then. Also that there would have been some increase in tension from the membership (although less than from the active war that Russia started). And that back then Ukrainians didn't want membership. So yes it would have been a bad policy overall back then. There could have in theory been a situation where it was a good policy but such a situation never occurred in the real world.
Since then Ukraine has been in an ongoing conflict so yes it shouldn't be accepted as a member. Even beyond all that a case can be made that extending the security commitment wouldn't be a good idea. But good idea or not, it isn't a violation of an treaty or even formal non-treaty agreement with Russia and isn't an aggressive act against Russia. Not does the possibility of Ukrainian membership (whether that possibility was what it is now, minuscule, or it was being put to a vote with a strong chance of Ukraine being accepted), justify any act of Russian aggression against Ukraine.
And how much freedom of action in its foreign policy does Ukraine really have? It is utterly and completely dependent on the West for its military supplies, financing, etc., just about everything. Being invaded by a large powerful country can do that to you. Of course that leaves it with much more freedom of action than if it just surrendered to the Russians.
But the more important consideration for us, in my view, is that America's strategic national interests are not involved in the dispute. Avoiding wars of conquest in Europe, or failing that making them less rewarding to the would be conqueror is in the US national interest.
Sure Ukraine isn't a NATO member or a country the US has a bilateral alliance with. Its not an official "Major non-NATO ally", or one of the US's largest trading partners. Its not a core interest of the US the way it would be if a NATO member or Japan or South Korea were attacked. But an independent Ukraine is still in the US interest.
As for screwing up military interventions that has little to do with this situation. The US isn't military intervening in this case its helping the Ukrainians defend themselves without Americans (except a small number of individuals who went there and volunteered) doing the fighting. The problems with the other interventions was failed (and in many cases misguided from the beginning) efforts at nation building. The US isn't occupying Ukraine and trying to make it a different type of country. The only occupiers in Ukraine are Russia's forces. |
|
