Close Menu
    Welt

    Stoltenberg schlägt vor, dass der Ukraine eine NATO-Mitgliedschaft auch dann gewährt werden könnte, wenn die Gebiete von Russland besetzt wären


    Stoltenberg schlägt vor, dass der Ukraine eine NATO-Mitgliedschaft auch dann gewährt werden könnte, wenn die Gebiete von Russland besetzt wären

    https://kyivindependent.com/stoltenberg-says-ukraine-can-be-granted-nato-membership-even-with-occupied-territories/

    View 18 Comments

    18 Comments

    1. Healthy_Bag4703 on

      >But speaking to the [Financial Times](https://www.ft.com/content/5b63bdc1-9e74-4464-92df-a5aa83c5b221), Stoltenberg suggested there could be ways to get around this if the Ukrainian territory considered part of NATO was “not necessarily the internationally recognized border.”

      >”West Germany regarded East Germany as part of the bigger Germany. They didn’t have an embassy in East Berlin. But NATO was, of course, only protecting West Germany,” he said.

      This appears to support [earlier reporting in the FT](https://www.ft.com/content/2bb20587-9680-40f0-ac2d-5e7312486c75).

      >“Land for [Nato] membership is the only game in town, everyone knows it,” says one senior western official. “Nobody will say it out loud . . . but it’s the only strategy on the table.”

      >“The West German model is gaining traction particularly in the White House, which has been the most sceptical about Nato membership,” says Shapiro of the ECFR.

    2. red75prime on

      I wonder what are the real reasons here. Because on the surface it’s a totally dumb idea: it will create a long-term situation conductive to continued military tension between NATO and Russia akin to East/West Berlin military tension.

    4. FrutaAndPutas on

      # Stoltenberg just talking out of his ass now. We all know that won’t happen, especially as long as Turkey and Hungary are members. And if the US are this anxious about letting them use long range missiles, I highly doubt Ukraine will be admitted with occupied territories and in the midst of war.

    5. LittleStar854 on

      Like usual when Stoltenberg explains how NATO actually works the self-proclaimed NATO “experts” are butt hurt because it contradicts their sacred truth.

      If you read the article he backs up what he says with historical examples but then again reading the article would take precious time away from drowning the comment section in raging tirades about how the former Secretary General of NATO doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      >”When there is a will, there are ways to find the solution. But you need a line which defines where Article 5 is invoked, and Ukraine has to control all the territory until that border,” he said.

      >”West Germany regarded East Germany as part of the bigger Germany. They didn’t have an embassy in East Berlin. But NATO was, of course, only protecting West Germany,” he said.

      >”Again, it is always very dangerous to compare because no parallels are 100 percent correct, but the U.S. has security guarantees to Japan. But they don’t cover the Kuril (Islands), which Japan regards as Japanese territory, controlled by Russia.”

    6. HorsesMeow on

      Maybe try helping Ukraine to shoot down missiles and drones regardless of who’s airspace they’re in, while traveling toward ukraine? That would help much more atm.

    7. southpolefiesta on

      Do it

      West Germany was in NATO with entire East Germany being under Soviets.

    8. SignifigantZebra on

      I dont see it as a preferable option. But ever since western countries and their craven governments, pissed away whatever chance there was at a decisive victory some years ago by stalling , delaying, drip feeding, and simply not sending enough equipment fast enough..

      I’ve come to believe the only scenario where there’s peace (that doesn’t escalate into something further). is a scenario where Ukraine forfeits the territory that isn’t controlled. Russia gets told to go pound sand over the rest. as whats left of Ukraine is given NATO membership and concrete security gaurantees. Everyone is unhappy. but it is collectively understood that there will be no more half measures about this, NATO and Russia have already effectively, been de-facto at war with each other since 2022. Pretending otherwise is tiresome. We can have a Korean DMZ through the Donbass. or we can actually have World War III. Those are the options.

      all other scenarios I can reasonably think of. Are not good.

      Status quo – Forever war until some kind of development breaks the stalemate, and we get one of the below scenarios occurs

      1If Russia gets a signifigant turning point, bad enough that the Ukrainian government falls. then Europe has to both deal with Hostile Russian troops in western Ukraine* as well as Ukraine itself turning into a european afghanistan, and the world gets to bare witness to both a genocide as the russians kill everyone who attempts to resist or identify with the ukrainian state, as well as possibly the bloodiest insurgency in history, as the ukrainian resistance would be better armed and equipped than most standing armies on earth.

      Im not convinced that in this scenario, NATO doesn’t intervene anyway. in which case. WWIII

      2 theres also the other extreme, that the fighting goes on for so long that predictions about Russia’s collapse come true, Putin loses control, or perhaps even his life. Russia disintegrates into a civil war, Ukraine fights a bloody campaign to take back its territory from a beheaded and confused RF Resistance, but elsewhere in Russia, Other countries have to basically invade russia to secure the Nukes as various factions in Russia fight each other either for the keys to the kremlin, or for regional independence from the federation.

      Im not convinced that there isn’t a nuclear incident in this scenario.

      And also to end, I will say that any event that “leads to WWIII” has a predictable outcome. NATO and Russian conventional militaries clash, Depending on whether America is involved directley may determine how quickly it ends, but the conventional fighting will be over fairly quickly, 3 months at most. Russian military is obliterated. Depending on what happens in the baltics, there may have been Bucha style massacres in NATO weak points, but the result is the same, The Russian military is eviscerated and defeated. and the Kremlin will most likely panic and launch.

    9. NA_0_10_never_forget on

      Mr. Stoltenberg, can you try not to sideline Mr. Rutte too much XD

    10. Trayeth on

      People are so pigeonholed into their present-biased ways of thinking it’s hilarious. How many people are going to repeat “but Ukraine is one country” and “West and East Germany were two different countries”. Perhaps from a retrospective, historical perspective that turned out to be the case, but back when West Germany and East Germany coexisted, neither recognized each other and both claimed to be the true Germany by right claiming the entirety of both. Yet, the territory controlled by West Germany joined Nato. Stoltenberg mentioned Japan and the Kuril Islands, but an even better example is South Korea. Neither North Korea nor South Korea recognize the other, they both claim the entire peninsula, they are both hostile with a large DMZ between them, and are technically still at war with only a ceasefire in place. Yet, South Korea is under a Nato-style mutual defense pact with the US covering everything south of the DMZ. The only difference is Ukraine is in an active war zone, but as Stoltenberg said policies can be changed and bent to the situation. It is very plausible that Nato draws a line in Ukraine like 100km from the front and says everything behind this line is now protected by Nato. It is absolutely possible.

    11. StanDaMan1 on

      “NATO is an agreement. We can make exceptions to our rules if we agree.”

      That said, I can see this as being a poor precedent. NATO is a defensive treaty, not one built around claiming land. A nation with a territorial dispute (hello Ukraine) could leverage that dispute to draw the allies into an offensive war. The strength of the alliance is the ability for all parties to recognize it and join in the defense of signatories. This could cause some reluctance in the alliance.

      But I’m not a geopolitics experts. If the alliance agrees to it, then they agree to it, and to admit new members, all of NATO must agree.

    12. Sea-Storm375 on

      Why on earth would a nation like the US agree to this? Stop trying to drag the US into more foreign wars that have nothing to do with us. I am tired of spending hundreds of billions a year and sending our kids to police the world.

    13. v-gator on

      How convenient of him to say that as soon as he is no longer NATO chief

    14. glorious_reptile on

      Sure I mean there is no natural law that says you can’t make a chapter 5 exemption for a specific scenario.

    15. kujasgoldmine on

      That would end the war quickly. Give Russia one week to fully retreat from all occupied and non occupied Ukrainian regions or NATO will respond.

    18. StuckieLromigon on

      I’m tired of these talks.
      They’re the same we had for last 2.5 years.
      Everybody knows NATO won’t let us join.
      Please stop giving unfulfillable hopes.

    Leave A Reply