Nato is a defensive organization. If any member is attacked, every other member has to come to their aid. You can't join if you're currently being attacked. That's a pretty fundamental assumption. Nato exists to prevent future wars by acting as a bloc, not to force their members to join existing wars.

To join nato, ukraine needs to win the war and recover all their territory, release their claims on any russian occupied territories, or get enough of nato's membership on their side to be agree to be forced into the war. None of these are possible anytime soon.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

If any member is attacked, every other member has to come to their aid.

They don't have to. It stipulates that a war on one member is viewed as a declaration of war on all members. But there's no protocol that forces members to act.

For example when the Cypriot war broke out between Greece and Turkey, both NATO members.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 60 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Basically the rules are, you can't be in a fight already if you want to join.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 43 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Which makes a lot of sense. If you could wait until you need backup to join, you'd just never join until you need it. No country wants to get sucked into someone else's war.

At least, that's the mentality. The truth is, no war is "someone else's war". We're all in this together globally, and oppression anywhere is a threat to everywhere.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Who knows, maybe NATO'll update to the modern era after this. Maybe.

[–] zeropointone@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think the NATO will exist for much longer. I expect the US withdrawing soon, causing a chain reaction.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It's a race to the salted Earth bottom, for sure.

[–] zeropointone@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

I wouldn't be surprised if this was among the topics discussed during the recent meeting between Trump and Putin. I expect there is already a plan and timeframe.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Probably not, at least not while conservatives hold power in allied countries.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 hours ago

...not while oligarchs hold power everywhere...

FTFY

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

There is no such rule. The rule is everyone else already in has to agree to you joining. Practically most people don't want to go to war and so nobody will agree, but there is no rule stating they can't agree.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

An unwritten rule, then.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 3 points 3 hours ago

Not anymore, you wrote it down

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

IIRC, there's also a sort of anti-parasite scan, naturally. If you've ever experienced bedbugs, you'll know the value in that. Deeply.

[–] Larry@lemmy.world 17 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

NATO is a group where everyone agreed if one of them gets punched, they all punch the bully back. Because of this, the bully doesn't punch anyone in the group. The bully could make the punches painful for NATO, but NATO could do the same to the bully.

Ukraine is being punched. If they join NATO, all the NATO states have to punch back, and then the bully punches NATO because they're already being punched.

The threat of being punched keeps NATO and the bully away from each other. If one side actually starts punching, the other side would too, and both would be punched. So NATO isn't willing to let Ukraine in and immediately start a fight

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 hours ago

While there is logic to this, it is inherently flawed, and everyone with eyes can see that. (idiom, no shade)

If Ukraine falls, we all lose.

When Palestine is razed & repaved into a footnote, we all lose.

When China, N. Korea, Russia, et al, act in tandem (more than they already are?), we all lose.

When NATO does fuck-all, and offers thoughts & prayers instead from behind a paper-thin technicality even they know it's horseshit cowardice...

When megacorps undermine political structures for their own gain, redefining their very basis on a global scale and with impunity...

When we the people as a fucking species, in the face of wanton cruelty and blatant greed, do nothing...

Well. We've already lost, eh?

Find a nice spot, shake out that folding chair, grab an ice cold beverage, and settle in for whatever the finale's gonna be. Could be impressive, could be a whimper, but it's gonna be something.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 3 points 5 hours ago

Today it would be about the best for me - I'm old enough that I wouldn't be drafted, my kids young enough that this would likely be over before they are old enough. However I have nieces, nephews, and cousins of military age, some currently serving - all of them are in danger of getting killed if we were to let Ukraine join and thus I cannot be for it. I have a lot of sympathy for Ukraine, but not so much that I want my close friends and family to die for them.

The above or some variation represents most of the people (not countries) who are in NATO.

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

In the end people don't want to sent their sons to the meatgrinder if not absolutely necessary. There are the obvious exceptions of the rule.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 4 hours ago

They did when they sent them to iraq and Afghanistan

French wen into Mali twice.

They are fine sending their sons die there...

[–] flandish@lemmy.world -3 points 7 hours ago

sure but where’s the profit in that?

[+] poofkaboom -30 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

It is not holding its own. And the war started more or less because Russia got spooked by Ukraine entering NATO.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 4 hours ago

Imagine still larping Russian propaganda in 2025 🤡

[–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

that is russian propaganda, and not more or less why they invaded.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 hours ago

Yes it is; no it didn’t. Get out of here with your Putin apologia. Russia getting “spooked” by stupid shit and threatening to nuke things is in the first paragraph of the first page of their geopolitical playbook.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

That's incorrect.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

That is shifting the blame away from Russia, which is the fascist aggressor. Ukraine did not enter NATO; Russia rejected Ukraine seeking more economical independence.

Yanukovych, who was pro-EU, was originally supposed to sign an association treaty between the EU and Ukraine; but last minute he didn't sign, while parliament had voted with an overwhelming majority for yes.

Yanukovych probably didn't sign due to Russian pressure, which proposed instead that Ukraine become a member of the Eurasian Economic Union. Protests grew into Euromaidan, but the anti-protest laws instated by Yanukovych's party of oligarchs, repressed it, until he was deposed.

And then Russia invaded Ukraine and took the Crimea + the Donbass, and shot down MH17. For which Putin and Girkin still haven't paid with their lives.

Since Putin was the one to pressure Yanukovych in not signing, and since Putin was the one to invade, he's to be blamed for everything.

Ukraine would've been able to remain neutral -- and negotiate favourable terms for transporting goods to Russia. All that without joining the Eurasian Economic Union. Thus the blame is solely and wholly on Putin for rejecting any such option.

The EU explicitly provides for a neutral nation to join (like Austria did), and even provides for interoperability with other common markets through the EEA. Though that is less favourable than being in the EU, as you then cannot vote in EU parliament about laws affecting you; a deal that Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland took. It also doesn't come with the advantage of the mutual defence clause.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 hours ago

Tell me you're high AF on Putin's pud squirt without saying you're high AF on Putin's chunky yogurt.