Academics Sign Letter Calling for NATO to Admit Ukraine
On Saturday, 158 academics signed an open letter to the Guardian calling on NATO to admit Ukraine. “Inviting Ukraine to join Nato would mark a definitive step away from the politics of appeasement,” the letter states. “A decision to extend security guarantees to Ukraine would not only safeguard the Ukrainian state … but would also reassert Nato and the western democracies as effective political agents on the world stage”.
These academics are by no means the first Western commentators to call for Ukrainian membership of NATO. Before his death last year, Henry Kissinger stated that such membership “would be an appropriate outcome” because “the idea of a neutral Ukraine” is “no longer meaningful”. (He had previously opposed Ukrainian membership of NATO on the grounds that “it would start exactly the process we are seeing now”.)
Despite such illustrious company, the academics have some questions to answer. Most importantly: should Ukraine be admitted to NATO now, or only once the fighting has stopped? (They do not address this crucial point anywhere in their letter.)
If the answer is “now”, the academics need to explain how we avoid nuclear war.
Suppose we wake up tomorrow and Ukraine has been admitted to NATO. The other members of the alliance would then be under significant pressure to enter the war on Ukraine’s side. (Not doing so would completely undermine the deterrent effect of NATO’s Article 5.) If they did enter the war, Russia would suddenly find itself massively outgunned. It couldn’t possibly defeat all of NATO in a conventional war, so would have to resort to nuclear weapons to have any chance of winning. It’s possible that Russia would back down instead, but there are no guarantees. If Russia used a tactical nuke in an effort to deter NATO, the alliance would face a choice between destroying its credibility and risking nuclear war.
And the game theory doesn’t favour NATO. Russia knows that the US is reluctant to enter the war on Ukraine’s side, based on the fact that the US could have done so already but hasn’t. And the US knows that Russia knows, and Russia knows that the US knows that Russia knows, and so on. (It is common knowledge, in the technical parlance.) The Russians would therefore have a strong incentive to launch the tactical nuke.
If the answer to the question above is “only once the fighting has stopped”, the academics need to explain how we actually stop the fighting.
Suppose NATO announces that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance, but only once the war is over. Since the Russians plainly do not want Ukraine to become a member, this would give them an incentive to drag out the war for as long as possible. They might try to keep it going indefinitely at a low level of intensity. Even if they couldn’t make any further gains, they might dig in to defensive positions and then periodically launch raids or aerial strikes against Ukrainian positions. Needless to say, this would not be a good outcome for Ukraine.
Barring a total Ukrainian victory, the only way the country is likely to join NATO is via formal peace negotiations in which Russia gets significant concessions, such as recognition of the regions it has illegally annexed. And even this possibility seems remote, given how much emphasis the Russians have placed on Ukrainian neutrality.
Calling for Ukrainian membership of NATO without specifying when or how this would be achieved doesn’t seem very constructive. The same goes for Western leaders’ current policy of insisting that Ukraine will join the alliance at some unspecified time in the future. As Christopher McCallion and Benjamin Friedman note in a recent article, giving false hope is arguably worse than saying nothing.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Of course, the ‘Academics’ would doubtless be too old to take up arms in the undoubted conflict that their ludicrous letter would engender if enacted. Keep thinking chaps, but keep it to yourselves.
Quackademics.
Confused. Often corrupt. Distorted. Have never lived in reality.
My advice – when the quack offers his analysis, believe and do the opposite.
I disagree. ‘Try thinking’! You’ll smell the burning from Peking.
Clearly being an “academic” does not translate to particularly high levels of intelligence, wisdom or plain old Common Sense – a commodity dangerously lacking in our current society.
Perhaps the tactical nuke should be targeted at Oxford and / or Cambridge, Putin is sure to get a few of the letter writers by doing that.
If they did enter the war, Russia would suddenly find itself massively outgunned. It couldn’t possibly defeat all of NATO in a conventional war, so would have to resort to nuclear weapons to have any chance of winning.
Russia is not outgunned, NATO is outgunned. NATO has run out of weapons to ship to Ukraine and has no capability to get the whole of its war industry running to get anywhere close to the production numbers that Russia already has – 24/7.
Especially Europe should be very happy that Putin’s reaction to all the West’s provocations is very restrained. Putin could have nuked Ukraine in the first days and the war would have been over immediately. He did not do so because he regards Ukrainians as fellow Slavs who are not all to blame for their ridiculous and illegal government.
The Russian military is now the most effective fighting force on the planet. I am guessing they have lost 40.000 men. Their military industry is far larger than in 2020. In every single area NATO has completely cocked this up. NATO is bankrupt, the Russians are now battle hardened and ready.
They now have 500,000 soldiers and captured two villages only last month.
‘Russia faces significant limitations in the longevity and reliability of its industrial output. Of the tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles, for example, approximately 80% are not new production but are instead refurbished and modernised from Russian war stocks.
The number of systems held in storage means that while Russia can maintain a consistent output through 2024, it will begin to find that vehicles require deeper refurbishment through 2025, and by 2026 it will have exhausted most of the available stocks.
As the number of refurbished vehicles goes down, industrial capacity can go into making new platforms, but this will necessarily mean a significant decrease in vehicles delivered to the military.’
Dr J Watling
Meanwhile back on planet earth…
Well said. Putin has been a model of restraint.
Ukraine need not rely on NATO
‘A well-known Russian military blogger reports that the Mi-8 shot down near Donetsk today was quite possibly shot down by a Ukrainian drone during takeoff:
“Yesterday we wrote about the enemy’s attempts to operate drones against our army aviation.
Unfortunately, preliminary, today they succeeded.
They caught a Rosgvardia Mi-8.
Caught at the moment of takeoff.
Moreover, the range from the contact line is very significant.”
In June, the state-owned company Ukrainian Defense Industry, also known as Ukroboronprom, said it had launched the serial production of strike drones with a range of over 1,000 kilometers (620 miles).
Ukraine has the production capacity to produce more than 3 million drones a year.
Treble hard hats all round, comrades!
‘NATO has run out of weapons…..’
Ahem….
‘Just above sea level in an isolated corner of Northern California, more than 26,000 armored vehicles stand ready. They form the most noticeable part of the Sierra Army Depot, a 36,000-acre repository for the U.S. Army’s tanks, trucks, and armored personnel carriers.’
This is the same NATO that couldn’t defeat the Taliban over 20 years deployment? It costs the US $5 000 to make a 155mm shell, it costs Russia $600. Russia has adapted and is experienced in a new kind of warfare of which NATO forces have no experience. A cheap drone can destroy a multi-million £/$ piece of equipment, for example. Launching hundreds of drones can overwhelm sophisticated air defences. Armour and troops cannot be assembled for mass attack, because thanks to drones they can easily be spotted and attacked causing huge damage before they would get near a front line. Both Russia and Ukraine understand this. This is why the much vaunted modern US and British armour – which were the key input to beat the Russians – failed to have an effect and many were quickly destroyed. But any war with Russia will be fought in the fields, streets, towns, cities of Germany, France, Belgium, etc not the USA or Russia and Ukraine. Which ever side is using munition – even tactical nukes – these will be landing in Europe, just as around D-Day tons of bombs and artillery shells rained down from Allied planes and guns onto… Read more »
The prolonged war in Afghanistan was more about money laundering for US and UK elites. Julian Assange, no wonder they wanted to kill him!
Counter insurgency doctrine has made it quite clear since at least the 1950s that insurgents with safe havens across national frontiers cannot be defeated. That is, of course, why the Kurdish, Chechen, Syrian, Myanmar and other resistance movements have still not been defeated. And that is why Ukraine can never be defeated. Armoured operations, obstacle breaching operations without at least air superiority are pretty much suicidal as both the Russians and Ukrainians, using very similar soviet style tactics, have discovered. Nevertheless, the Challenger 2 rifled cannon semi indirect technique of fire support out to well beyond 5,000 metres has been extremely effective Air defence, air superiority, combined arms tactics, has been a battle winner since 1918. Neither side has adequate air defence. Drones, even massed drones, are extremely vulnerable as the Iranian attack on Israel clearly demonstrated. A plethora of cost effective anti drone weaponry is now available: Skywiper Electronic Drone Mitigation 4 System (EDM4S) and the Skywiper Omni. NT Service, MSI-DS TERRAHAWK PALADIN, a Very Short-Range Air Defense (VSHORAD) system, 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II autocannon using XM1211 High Explosive Proximity-fused (HE-P) ammunition. German SKYNEX, Slinger counter drone system, CORTEX Typhon C-UAS system, Vehicle Agnostic Modular Palletized ISR Rocket Equipment (VAMPIRE)… Read more »
This is the same NATO that couldn’t defeat the Taliban over 20 years deployment?
Yep. And it’s also the same Russians who couldn’t defeat the Afghans during their years-long occupation of the country somewhat earlier. When the NATO invasion of Afghanistan started, I remarked to myself that the only real question it posed was “Will Karzai would manage to get out of the country before hanging from Nadschibullah’s lantern?”
Additionally, it’s the same Russians who apparently cannot defeat Ukraine, something they’d need to do first before invading any part of Europe west of it.
Yeah, but Ukraine entering NATO now would mean all of NATO’s troops would also be available to be sent to the front, not just the current materiel supply.
“We don’t agree that Nato membership for Ukraine would provoke a conflict with Russia”, says the preface to the Guardian article
Unless I’m living in a time warp I believe that the mere threat of membership was enough in itself to provoke what is happening now.
And doubtless these warmongering bastards would be the first join the front line in the event that what isn’t already happening, happens.
What a brilliant idea to play Russian Roulette with er, Russia.
God save us from experts such as these.
Utter cowards beneath contempt the lot of them.
God save us from experts such as these.
Indeed. Just because they have their pretty happy dude degrees piled on high and deep does not mean they know anything. They know little to nothing.
Any of their kids in the army, not sure they would be so enthusiastic if their kids were going to the meat grinder. General Smedley Butler called for the offspring of the elites to lead the way, it didn’t go down well.
Off-T
https://www.youtube.com/live/SbOLnqoH-Ao?si=BOMGkPLL6gZOcnFN
Liverpool courts closed to the public while bail is sorted for the Southport murderer.
Can we have a referendum on this, please, for all the people who pay for NATO, and pay for all the wars, and send their sons & daughters to be maimed or slain in them?
Neither option is tenable as Russia would, rightly, not allow it to happen as it would be an existential threat against Russia’s very existence.
Off-T.
A really in-depth look at how Third World countries are being drawn in to debt and how the money men are effectively acting to control food supplies as a result of indebtedness.
The shorthand – Globocap are effectively working to reduce populations via starvation. I would never have guessed.
https://off-guardian.org/2024/07/31/stranglehold-of-imperialism-inflicting-hunger-and-hardship-in-africa/
“Debt servicing at these insane interest rates is making it even harder for countries to make sure the hungry are fed. In Kenya, a neoliberal government has met its citizens’ hunger not with food but with violence and tax increases. This is, alas, an augury of the world to come.”
“Feeding a hungry world requires resilient and robust food systems. In this comprehensive review, IPES-Food finds that a fundamental shift towards close-to-home food supply chains (‘territorial markets’) offers a more resilient, robust and equitable approach to food security.”
As the above para makes clear the last thing Globocap needs is localism. Crikey, people might live which certainly doesn’t fit the worldwide genocidal model.
It’s always the Banks innit.
Effecting everything on the planet.
Q. What have Russia, N Korea, Iran got in common?
A. The same thing that befell Iraq, Libya, Syria, Germany pre war.
https://www.freetothrive.com/problem/follow-the-money/
Neither a borrower nor lender be.
.”…negotiations in which Russia gets significant concessions, such as recognition of the regions it has illegally annexed.”
I don’t understand the use of the word “illegally” in this context. It is nonsensical as far as I see, except as some rhetorical tool to indicate the author’s bias. Why use it?
The Oblasts in the Donbas voted to become, and are, part of Russia. The Crimea was annexed in 2014. These two regions are of strategic importance to Russia with respect to control of navigation through the Sea of Azov and Black Sea and thus access to the Mediterranean and Suez Canal as well as the Atlantic, for Russian merchant and military vessels from its only warm water port of Novorossiysk.
Although the usual cast of clowns deny it, having NATO bases in Ukraine would be a serious defence risk to Russia, just like Russian and Chinese military bases on Cuba, Mexico and in the area would be to the USA which would not tolerate it.
The outcome will not be a ‘frozen war’, it will be Russia keeping the territory it wants and hax, firm written commitment no NATO, and Russian money and help reconstructing Ukraine.
No-one credible accepts the coerced (on camera) votes in the Donbas and elsewhere.
Those regions, an integral part of Ukraine, voted for independence in 1991 as part of an independent Ukraine.
Wiki: In March 2014, following the Euromaidanprotest movement and the resulting Revolution of Dignity, large swaths of the Donbas became gripped by pro-Russian and anti-government unrest. This unrest later grew into a war between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists affiliated with the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk “People’s Republics”, who were supported by Russia as part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War. The conflict split the Donbas into Ukrainian-held territory, constituting about two-thirds of the region, and separatist-held territory, constituting about one-third.
Those pro-Russian separatist oblasts were ‘coerced’ to vote to become part of Russia.
Really?
Please don’t use ‘Wiki’ as a reference. No-one takes it seriously. ‘Ethnic cleansing’ has been taking place. ‘Professing Ukrainian identity in Russian-controlled areas has been dangerous since 2014, and many residents who identified as Ukrainian left thereafter: during the census of 2019, separatist-controlled media stressed that nearly all respondents claimed Russian ethnicity. The DNR and LNR abolished official-language status for Ukrainian and replaced the local educational curriculum with those used in the Russian Federation. Ukrainian officials have accused the Russian government of conducting population exchanges in occupied areas since the launch of the full-scale Russian military invasion in February 2022. Thousands of Ukrainians have been killed in the occupied eastern regions since then, and thousands more have fled or been forcibly transferred to other occupied Ukrainian territories or to Russia. In a sign of broader Russian government plans to alter the population of the Donbas, Mariupol mayor Pyotr Andryushchenko told journalists in July 2023 that more than 40,000 settlers had arrived in the city from the Russian Federation.’ ‘Both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian bloggers and journalists who aired criticism of local authorities have been silenced with long prison sentences. In October 2023, freelance Ukrainian journalist Victoria Roshchyna was reported missing while… Read more »
The mistake is to believe academics are clever.
They aren’t.
They know a lot about a tiny sliver of knowledge. They lack wisdom (being successful at life) and common sense.
Who cares how many letters they write.
OK – send them to Catterick for basic training, then off to the front in Ukraine. They are desperate for new recruits and not fussy about whom they recruit.
They can’t be very good academics:
‘States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.’
1995 NATO Official Text: Study on NATO Enlargement
The war will eventually cease and become a ‘frozen conflict’, a buffer zone barrier between the two protagonists.
That makes it (and for the foreseeable future), in practice, impossible for Ukraine to join NATO.
As the author implies, membership of Nato is held out as a carrot in front of the Ukrainians and as a red rag to a bull to the Kremlin. It is the incentive to keep the war going. As long as there is such a possibility of Nato membership it negates any necessity on the part of the Ukrainian government to negotiate a peace settlement. Just as Lord Halifax’s guarantee to Poland in 1939 made it unnecessary for the Polish government to attempt to solve the question of the disputed territories by negotiation. As for appeasement, the name of the RAF squadron, The Crusaders, is dropped in case it upsets the faithful. It would be appropriate for this squadron to be renamed The Appeasers. The war in Ukraine is frozen behind the vast minefields both sides have laid. Patrolled by drones, specialist clearance vehicles are easy targets. At the current rates of clearance it would take over 700 years to remove all these devices. If Ukraine’s immediate Nato membership is meant to overcome that stalemate, it is evident from the conduct of this war to date that 21st century weapons cannot be mass produced, unlike in the Second World War… Read more »
Dangerous.
why do academics deserve special influence. I though University seats in HoC were stopped years ago.
However, how about admitting all provinces where Russia has no troops; or those where they have less than (say) 10% of territory and give Russia 14 days to clear off.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you need to keep Carl away from the subject of Ukraine. It’s like asking somebody with Trump Derangement Syndrome to comment on US politics.
I do hope these 158 Academics have kept themselves fit and ready to fight ….. plus have several sons and daughters each ….. and they will be volunteering them to be first into the meat-grinder.
America would not meekly accept a Russian “defence pact” operating in Mexico. Russia will not accept a “defence pact” in Ukraine.