Neither did they have any plan to invade Ukraine… Not arguing whether or not this invasion was justified, but it is happening, and wouldn’t have happened if Ukraine was in NATO.
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?
The Maidan revolution happened because of aborted economics ties with EU, and the Maidan government wanted to strengthen economic relations with EU. There was no clear intention to integrate NATO.
That’s completely ahistorical. The maidan coup was a color revolution that was instigated by US and one of the goals was to integrate Ukraine militarily into NATO. This is undeniably a fact based on the fact that it’s precisely what’s been happening over the past 8 years.
It does change things from the Finnish side. It brings them under the Article 5 umbrella. Ukraine also cooperated with NATO, but lacked the Article 5 umbrella, now look where they are. Given that Russia (via the Soviet Union) has a history of invading Finland and shows a renewed appetite for invasions, it seems pretty prudent to get some insurance.
Having a CIA and Soros NGO orchestrated color revolution referred to as “Euromaidan” with the aim of installing a USA friendly puppet government and then waging war against the Donbass at the doorstep of Russia, and laboring plans to station short range missiles with nuclear warheads again (remember the Cold War?)… Seems like asking for an invasion. As a matter of fact, to me it all seems like the invasion was wanted by the USA to ostracise Russia from the world economy and bleed it militarily.
They already cooperate heavily with NATO. Officially joining/signing some documents now doesn’t change much from Russian perspective
It will change that Russia won’t be able to onvade them without waging war on NATO
I don’t think Russia really had a plan to “onvade” them
deleted by creator
Neither did they have any plan to invade Ukraine… Not arguing whether or not this invasion was justified, but it is happening, and wouldn’t have happened if Ukraine was in NATO.
Ambitions to join NATO was literally the reason Russia invaded Ukraine.
wow so original
Ukraine had no official ambition to join NATO before the Crimea annexation.
“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.
Crimea annexation happened as a direct response to the government in Ukraine being couped by the US.
The Maidan revolution happened because of aborted economics ties with EU, and the Maidan government wanted to strengthen economic relations with EU. There was no clear intention to integrate NATO.
That’s completely ahistorical. The maidan coup was a color revolution that was instigated by US and one of the goals was to integrate Ukraine militarily into NATO. This is undeniably a fact based on the fact that it’s precisely what’s been happening over the past 8 years.
It does change things from the Finnish side. It brings them under the Article 5 umbrella. Ukraine also cooperated with NATO, but lacked the Article 5 umbrella, now look where they are. Given that Russia (via the Soviet Union) has a history of invading Finland and shows a renewed appetite for invasions, it seems pretty prudent to get some insurance.
Having a CIA and Soros NGO orchestrated color revolution referred to as “Euromaidan” with the aim of installing a USA friendly puppet government and then waging war against the Donbass at the doorstep of Russia, and laboring plans to station short range missiles with nuclear warheads again (remember the Cold War?)… Seems like asking for an invasion. As a matter of fact, to me it all seems like the invasion was wanted by the USA to ostracise Russia from the world economy and bleed it militarily.