[Goose]

While tiny countries don’t offer as much in return as they are given, NATO sees itself as a peace enabling force. The more countries are members the less likely there will be conflict. 

You are correct that NATO sees itself as a "peace enabling force". THE US was a founder of NATO in part because it wanted to prevent the wars that seemed to start in Europe almost like clockwork. The fact that Greece and Türkiye haven't actually fought a war over Cyprus (and other things) is in large part because they are both NATO nations. However, the idea that more members the better is dangerously false. At some point the aims (real or perceived) of the individual members overrides their need for collective security. It is also true that the more members there are, the more probable it is that some member will install a government that is unstable and will do "something stupid". NATO has influence for peace but said influence is limited. The "trick" is to not stretch that influence too far. That is easier to do when the members have similar social and political systems. As the membership becomes more "diverse", the influence fades.

The problem NATO had pre RU invasion was not enough countries were living up to their commitments to finance their defense and NATO forces were stretched thin. I remember before Russia’s attack on Ukraine that there was great concern a NATO country could be invaded by Russia, most likely Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, and even uncertainty NATO would have the balls to act if this happened. Would Germany with Russian appeaser Merkel and weakened military have gotten involved when so reliant on Russian energy? UK? U.S.?

Indeed there were and are problems with the NATO commitments of MANY NATO nations. Even in the presence of the current war, many of these issues persist. It isn't just about the money. It is also about the social commitment to self defense and the viability of the military forces in the country. Germany is a mess there, and isn't getting better. More money won't "fix" their problems. They need to spend more, yes, but the problem is much bigger than that. The UK has serious problems too and has created an unsustainable force. It can do some things excellently for a very short time and many other things not at all.

I don’t mean to be harsh about this, but Ukraine and Georgia only have themselves to blame for not getting into NATO already. They got too close to Russia with Putin-friendly governments for a while and when war started Ukraine had Russian equipment. Nobody wants to talk about these important details when complaining about the 2008 “promise” not being kept.

The above is partially true but woefully incomplete. Some part of it is a total red herring. Ukraine doesn't have Russian equipment. Both Russia and Ukraine have lots of Soviet equipment, a lot of which was made in Ukraine. For that matter, so does Poland, Slovakia, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. So do Greece and Türkiye to a lesser degree. These are all NATO nations. Obviously, the presence of equipment made in the USSR is not a debilitating factor.

Georgia in particular made significant efforts after 2008 to meet the NATO requirements. To this day, they believe they complied.  The movement towards a more Russian friendly government in Georgia recently was caused (according to the opposition parties) by NATO cold-shouldering the Georgian attempts to join NATO and get protection from Russia! The invitation was extended to Georgia at least partially to calm Georgia's fear that Russia would take over their entire country. In 2008, Georgia and Russia were actually fighting each other. The idea they were at that time pro-Russian is demonstrably false. After that war, they really needed support and were desperate to join NATO. They and many others think they got a "raw deal".

Both Ukraine and Georgia, then and now, have "issues" that make their NATO membership problematic. These problems should not be minimized, as they are real and pretty serious. However, NATO shouldn't raise the hopes of these countries if NATO is not willing to accept them with significant "warts", as fixing these problems will take time at best and these countries have to survive in the interim. That is where Georgia was in 2008 and where Ukraine is now. Hopefully NATO and /or some of it's members can generate a security arrangement that will allow these countries to survive long enough to meet the NATO "requirements".

If Zelenskyy can’t understand the difference between now and 2008 I don’t know what to say. His country is now totally pro-democracy, has been attacked by Russia and is getting ongoing support from NATO countries to beat Russia back. It is in NATO member interest to get Ukraine in NATO now in a much bigger way than before, to say nothing of the value an experienced fighting force Ukraine will bring.  But there are qualification standards that must be met too.

First of all, have no illusions. Ukraine isn't "totally pro-democracy" and isn't a perfect society. It still has serious corruption problems, serious nepotism problems, rule-of-law issues, oligarchs, etc. Look at the number of "traitors" they have detected and jailed. Look at the number of people from the Donbas that are fighting on the other side. This isn't pretty. Just because we are supporting Ukraine, we can't put lipstick on the pig and declare it perfect. Indeed it is "better", and indeed Zelenskyy is a great leader, but there are still problems.

Zelenskyy understands just fine. His country is at war with Russia and he needs to win it. Being part of NATO makes that easier. He is concerned that NATO will not extend it's umbrella over Ukraine because it did not in the past. That is a problem. Ukraine needs a security situation that is viable. Being in NATO is one way. Surrendering to Russia is another way. In between is where both they and Georgia have been, and as events show, that is a problem.

[Goose]

While tiny countries don’t offer as much in return as they are given, NATO sees itself as a peace enabling force. The more countries are members the less likely there will be conflict. 

You are correct that NATO sees itself as a "peace enabling force". THE US was a founder of NATO in part because it wanted to prevent the wars that seemed to start in Europe almost like clockwork. The fact that Greece and Türkiye haven't actually fought a war over Cyprus (and other things) is in large part because they are both NATO nations. However, the idea that more members the better is dangerously false. At some point the aims (real or perceived) of the individual members overrides their need for collective security. It is also true that the more members there are, the more probable it is that some member will install a government that is unstable and will do "something stupid". NATO has influence for peace but said influence is limited. The "trick" is to not stretch that influence too far. That is easier to do when the members have similar social and political systems. As the membership becomes more "diverse", the influence fades.

The problem NATO had pre RU invasion was not enough countries were living up to their commitments to finance their defense and NATO forces were stretched thin. I remember before Russia’s attack on Ukraine that there was great concern a NATO country could be invaded by Russia, most likely Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, and even uncertainty NATO would have the balls to act if this happened. Would Germany with Russian appeaser Merkel and weakened military have gotten involved when so reliant on Russian energy? UK? U.S.?

Indeed there were and are problems with the NATO commitments of MANY NATO nations. Even in the presence of the current war, many of these issues persist. It isn't just about the money. It is also about the social commitment to self defense and the viability of the military forces in the country. Germany is a mess there, and isn't getting better. More money won't "fix" their problems. They need to spend more, yes, but the problem is much bigger than that. The UK has serious problems too and has created an unsustainable force. It can do some things excellently for a very short time and many other things not at all.

I don’t mean to be harsh about this, but Ukraine and Georgia only have themselves to blame for not getting into NATO already. They got too close to Russia with Putin-friendly governments for a while and when war started Ukraine had Russian equipment. Nobody wants to talk about these important details when complaining about the 2008 “promise” not being kept.

The above is partially true but woefully incomplete. Some part of it is a total red herring. Ukraine doesn't have Russian equipment. Both Russia and Ukraine have lots of Soviet equipment, a lot of which was made in Ukraine. For that matter, so does Poland, Slovakia, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. So do Greece and Türkiye to a lesser degree. These are all NATO nations. Obviously, the presence of equipment made in the USSR is not a debilitating factor.

Georgia in particular made significant efforts after 2008 to meet the NATO requirements. To this day, they believe they complied.  The movement towards a more Russian friendly government in Georgia recently was caused (according to the opposition parties) by NATO cold-shouldering the Georgian attempts to join NATO and get protection from Russia! The invitation was extended to Georgia at least partially to calm Georgia's fear that Russia would take over their entire country. In 2008, Georgia and Russia were actually fighting each other. The idea they were at that time pro-Russian is demonstrably false. After that war, they really needed support and were desperate to join NATO. They and many others think they got a "raw deal".

Both Ukraine and Georgia, then and now, have "issues" that make their NATO membership problematic. These problems should not be minimized, as they are real and pretty serious. However, NATO shouldn't raise the hopes of these countries if NATO is not willing to accept them with significant "warts", as fixing these problems will take time at best and these countries have to survive in the interim. That is where Georgia was in 2008 and where Ukraine is now. Hopefully NATO and /or some of it's members can generate a security arrangement that will allow these countries to survive long enough to meet the NATO "requirements".

If Zelenskyy can’t understand the difference between now and 2008 I don’t know what to say. His country is now totally pro-democracy, has been attacked by Russia and is getting ongoing support from NATO countries to beat Russia back. It is in NATO member interest to get Ukraine in NATO now in a much bigger way than before, to say nothing of the value an experienced fighting force Ukraine will bring.  But there are qualification standards that must be met too.

First of all, have no illusions. Ukraine isn't "totally pro-democracy" and isn't a perfect society. It still has serious corruption problems, serious nepotism problems, rule-of-law issues, oligarchs, etc. Look at the number of "traitors" they have detected and jailed. Look at the number of people from the Donbas that are fighting on the other side. This isn't pretty. Just because we are supporting Ukraine, we can't put lipstick on the pig and declare it perfect. Indeed it is "better", and indeed Zelenskyy is a great leader, but there are still problems.

Zelenskyy understands just fine. His country is at war with Russia and he needs to win it. Being part of NATO makes that easier. He is concerned that NATO will not extend it's umbrella over Ukraine because it did not in the past. That is a problem. Ukraine needs a security situation that is viable. Being in NATO is one way. Surrendering to Russia is another way. In between is where both they and Georgia have been, and as events show, that is a problem.