What about you read the rest of the same Wikipedia paragraph instead of isolating the sentence that seems to make you right?
Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, who preferred to keep the country non-aligned, was elected President. Amid the Euromaidan unrest, Yanukovych fled Ukraine in February 2014. The interim Yatseniuk Government which came to power initially said, with reference to the country’s non-aligned status, that it had no plans to join NATO.
(I stop here as the rest concerns what happens after Russian invasion)
So OK, I didn’t write it in the best possible way (as it couod be read as “Ukraine had never made any plan to join NATO ever”, which was not my intention) but my point is still correct : just before the invasion, Ukraine had no such plans.
Maybe you consider that having had a plan to join NATO 4 years before justifies annexing a part of the country?
“Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008.”
Learn your history before you talk about such things
What about you read the rest of the same Wikipedia paragraph instead of isolating the sentence that seems to make you right?
(I stop here as the rest concerns what happens after Russian invasion)
So OK, I didn’t write it in the best possible way (as it couod be read as “Ukraine had never made any plan to join NATO ever”, which was not my intention) but my point is still correct : just before the invasion, Ukraine had no such plans.
Maybe you consider that having had a plan to join NATO 4 years before justifies annexing a part of the country?
I’m just disputing a very simple claim you made. 2008 is very simply before the Crimea annexation. So you are very simply wrong.
I indeed poorly choose my words, sorry about that.
What I said :
can be understood in two ways :
I meant the second one, but I recognize that I should have stated that more clearly.