“Mr. Ze­len­sky looked for sup­port in the West, but was dis­ap­pointed by the re­sponse, al­lies said. He was par­tic­u­larly ir­ri­tated by what he saw as the West’s du­plic­i­tous po­si­tion of say­ing Ukraine would be a mem­ber of NATO one day, but not of­fer­ing a clear path to ac­ces­sion.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/once-a-comic-ukrainian-president-transforms-into-wartime-leader-11645794378

The reason Ukraine is not a member is because the group is not convinced they want Ukraine to become a member.

20th century European history is important. Following WWII, France wanted to avoid the reconstitution of Germany as a danger to mainland Europe. Having learned from the mistakes made with the Treaty of Versailles, they urged the West to help Germany to rebuild, which became the Marshall Plan.

There was pretty broad agreement tzar Germany would not be forever relegated to second class status, so instead of trying to keep Germany down, France argued that an economic and political union would help create ties among the countries that would make war especially costly to Germany (and Italy, I guess). This created the European union, whose biggest step toward cross border integration was their decision to adopt the Deutsche mark as a single currency, renamed the Euro.

The EU and its related arms are internal to Europe: how do we prevent western powers from warring with each other?

NATO's predecessors were established to prevent the further spread, into Western Europe, of Soviet communism and the authoritarian regimes that ran Russia's puppet countries. While it is a military alliance of willing nations, it is a de facto union of developed, democratic, Western countries.

The value that NATO adds is twofold. First, it creates a formidable force against threats - at the time, the Soviet Union. Second, it creates that force without any one European country's standing military getting so powerful that it creates a threat from within.

The alliance has been remarkably successful: I don't know of a time since the Middle Ages that Europe has gone 75 years without war, and the only time the commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all was applied was post 9/11 - never against a major power.

So why hasn't NATO defended Ukraine? One is that Ukraine isn't in NATO. You don't get formal protection by being NATO adjacent. And why hasn't NATO been admitted despite the country's stated objective of doing so? For one, it would increase the likelihood of world war: though Ukraine is a sovereign nation with its own national identity, culture, and history, it has also been run over by multiple foreign powers in the past, and it's likely to happen again; you don't want to admit a new NATO member if you think it will increase your chances of going to war. And for two, Russia has dreams of reestablishing the Soviet Union, and even if they didn't invade, Ukrainian membership in NATO would've been very economically damaging to European countries that have gone too hard toward renewable energy without being ready, thus making reliance on Russia increasingly significant.

Tldr, it's complicated.

Ukraine wanting to join NATO is largely an excuse. The primary reason is that Putin has always had desires to re-create the USSR, with a particular focus on Ukraine.

He/Russia was willing to let Ukraine exist as an “independent” entity if the government was essentially a puppet state a la Belarus. The popular pro-west uprising that cast out the pro-Russia government in 2014 was the start of all of this. The reasons he’s escalating it now aren’t 100% clear but probably have something to do with him being 70 and wanting the re-establishment of the USSR to be a part of his legacy.

And an actual intervention could trigger a nuclear attack which obviously is the key deterrent here. Can’t risk it even if it’s a .05% chance.

This app never fails to amaze... the commies started an actual war in Eastern Europe because they can't stand the sight of democracy taking hold in a former territory, and almost immediately the commie apologist, entitled, elitist management consultants making 6 figure salaries and crying poor come out of the wood work to make this an anti-US / CIA / war in Iraq debate.

Absolutely amazing.

It’s not in their charter. They protect each other but invoking force together to protect a non member I think requires a unanimous decision from each member country. the EU also depends on Russian gas so they won’t risk freezing their populace either

Because it would start a world war

This level of naiveness is shocking from a consulting group. It’s like believing companies are there to make the world a better place rather than make shareholders money. Countries never have and never will act on justice. The whole idea is just an excuse. Countries have to sugarcoat their real thoughts just like we sugarcoat what we think about clients. We make decisions based on variable factors and not purely based on what is right or wrong, why would you believe countries are any different?

Imagine if Russia started bankrolling insurgents in Mexico or Canada in order to gain influence and eventually place their people in leadership. How do you think this would go down with US? Actually, you don't have to imagine, you can go and read up on the events that took place in Cuba in late 50s, early 60s. Spoiler, US opposed and Russia backed off. So, why then, do you think US has any justification to bankroll corrupt Ukrainian politicians that pocket every dollar of aid sent? Do you think the people have ever seen a single dollar of this aid? Do you think US is sending millions to Ukraine just because they're nice guys? Why does UK and US constantly test Russia's patience by parking their bombers in the black sea? Some things for you to think about, hopefully instead of ignorantly spreading propaganda (for one side or the other) you will do a little bit more research and realize who the real actors are.

Because it’s more beneficial to NATO not having Ukraine as a member

Ukraine had a high hope that their western friends would protect them. Sad to see how all these powerful countries are acting now. It’s a wake up call for rest of the world. Every one is your friends until you’re in trouble. Then you see the real face

Was Kuwait part of NATO in 1990?

Welcome to reality. Everyone is on their own. At the end of the day it is all about business/money (and power).

The message is: if you’re in a military alliance, then you have military allies. If you’re not in a military alliance, then you don’t have military allies.

Had NATO admitted Ukraine there won’t be war - Putin won’t risk going to war with NATO and US

I’ve been perplexed by the core definition of NATO meaning: “North Atlantic Treaty Organization”, I know there’s other countries in nato that aren’t on the Atlantic oceans border, and it just seems odd for countries to be a part of a treaty implying geographical restrictions and yet not really following them.

NATO just feels like the new age buzzword for the “allied powers”, and to me the new age axis powers feel like they’re around again except in a “it’s complicated” relationship (https://www.news9live.com/amp/world/beijing-tells-citizens-in-ukraine-to-stay-put-display-chinese-flag-on-cars-155558) and not with a new fresh title yet to make their relationship official

I don’t think you understand how alliances work…

SMH at a lot of these opinions. NATO should have taken Ukraine. NATO should intervene anyway, because after Russia annexes Ukraine...do think they'll stop there? NATO countries are all at risk. Putin is a Hitler in terms of global ambitions.

Ukraine actually cares more about joining the EU. Either way both ideas do no please the petty dictator next door