Nato members have pledged their support for an “irreversible path” to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.

While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance’s 32 members said they had “unwavering” support for Ukraine’s war effort.

Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine’s military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.

The bloc’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest.”

    • irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      That was something the current administration cracked down on. Plus with the war, there isn’t a lot of loose money floating around, but there’s lots being spent on military and infrastructure, so they’re making enough in legit business to not need to use corrupt means to get it. And a lot of the Russian oligarchy has left which was part of why they didn’t want them.

    • irreticent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not familiar with that so I looked it up and found this article:

      “Ukraine has long aspired to join NATO, but the alliance is not about to offer an invitation, due in part to Ukraine’s official corruption, shortcomings in its defense establishment, and its lack of control over its international borders.”

      Maybe opinions have changed amongst NATO decision makers.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Just vague memories from a random on the web. But IIRC, they were not welcome in part because of corruption of the previous leader’s administration, and one of the first things Zalensky did was crack down on that.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          and one of the first things Zalensky did was crack down on that.

          Rather replace Russia-dependent corruption with more generalized corruption.

    • NecroParagon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t think the decision was ever on the table. But corruption is present in all countries, including the NATO members, so that’d be a bit hypocritical, especially now considering they’re fighting for freedom and democracy. Supposedly what the alliance exists for.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        for freedom and democracy. Supposedly what the alliance exists for.

        What? It’s been founded by a bunch of colonial nations (not ex-colonial at that point) still from time to time fighting colonial wars with war crimes and such. It has Turkey of all genocidal bastards as an important member.

        The only reason for its existence was accumulating power. Well, as with all alliances.

        Of course, kinda motivated by USSR redesigning its ground forces for capturing large parts of the world after they’ve been nuked. I’m not joking, that’s the reason ex-Soviet militaries so terribly suck at actually fighting - they are sort of a different mechanism, more like huge mobile garrisons to deploy in wastelands. Their analog of western ground forces was, say, VDV in Russia ; which is why despite nominally having the narrow function of paradropped assault troops, they’ve been used for every kind of thing important.

        But corruption is present in all countries, including the NATO members, so that’d be a bit hypocritical,

        Yes, and also weird.

        I don’t think the decision was ever on the table.

        Yes, when after 2 years of war and hundreds of thousands dead they meet and sign something about “discussing help to Ukraine” in case fighting gets more intensive by not clear which criterion - it means Ukraine is not becoming a member.

        About “irreversible path” - they’ve said such things about Georgia too. Ivanishvili’s party is not good, but there’s been plenty of time before they started acting like now.