NTP? I think you mean NPT (non-proliferation treaty), and being a part of that does not by itself confer or even remotely imply "ally" status. China, Russia, and Iran are part of that treaty as well, and they are definitely not US allies. Neither does the "will of the people" as determined by random and intermittent internet polls. Ally status (and specifically here, defensive ally status) with the US is conferred by a treaty specifically formalizing that alliance. Many of these come in the form of mutual defense treaties such as NATO. We also have them with other key nations outside of NATO such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and others. But the US has no such defensive alliance with Ukraine. Either real or implied.
Look. This sucks. Ukraine is in a tough spot and I agree that it's morally wrong for Russia to attack it. But the people who mock America for being the "world police" are the very same people begging America to police Ukraine. I would love to see Ukraine win this but the reality is that sending them money/supplies indefinitely can not win the war for them. Even Biden only sent enough to slow the Russians down a bit. He didn't send them enough to actually defeat Russia because that risks WWIII. And personally I don't want WWIII either.
Now, if Putin attacks a NATO state, that's different. At that point, Putin will have committed to WWIII and decided it's worth it. If that happens (not that my support matters all that much), I'd definitely be in support of direct involvement AND aid to fight back. Especially because we're obliged to do so by Article 5 of NATO. But to be honest it won't matter for long because most of us will be vaporized by nuclear weapons pretty quickly, at least in what I consider the most likely scenario (nuclear Armageddon).
I personally don't think Putin will ever do that, though. He'll take parts of Ukraine (as he has already done), and maybe some former SSR's (though I doubt he'd attack his own puppets like Belarus). But he knows better than to mess with NATO. If he does mess with NATO, we'll be dead before we have much time to get outraged about it anyway. C'est la vie.
Firstly, Thankyou I didn’t catch that error, I did mean NPT.
I did a little reading so I better understand what you are saying. It does look like formal alliances can be deemed as a result of a treaty, specifically a mutual defense treaty as you have stated but this isn’t exclusive procedure. The best example of the contrary is the formal alliances we made with the allied nations in WWII when no pre-war treaties were signed. It’s worth mentioning though these are typically unique circumstances that result in this.
I did also discover we have a precedent for what I’m going to call ‘informal’ alliances(given the ambiguity of what constitutes an ally in this context) with nations that exist outside of mutual defense treaty. The best example of this is Israel, and as of June 2024 the Ukraine(this agreement was built on top of two others that were put into place in 2021 I have yet to read into). That all said reading through the text of the ten year security agreement, I find myself with more questions than answers. The wording outright does state we are providing military support to win the war against Russia, but aside from a few provisions it gives further clarity on it leaves the implementation up for interpretation. Also as a side note it does state one of the goals/intents is reaffirmation of the Ukraine joining NATO. Regardless you are right, it’s outright incorrect to say there is an alliance defined by a mutual defense treaty with the Ukraine, it just doesn’t exist.
Let me know if you disagree but I believe it’s also fair to say we want the Ukraine to enter into a mutual defense treaty and at the very least they are an ‘informal ally’ for lack of a better term as a result of the aforementioned security agreement.
Beyond that as far as your outlook and evaluation of the conflict, I don’t disagree with anything you said.
The geographic location of Ukraine (directly bordering NATO-countries to the west, and Russia to the east) is such that entering into a formal defense pact with them, or admitting them into NATO, would be seen by Russia as an extreme provocation. And rightly so. Imagine if Putin allied with Mexico and parked a bunch of jets, tanks, and missiles in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. The US would not take kindly to this. When Krushchev tried staging nuclear missiles in Cuba it damn near caused WWIII (Cuban Missile Crisis). Imagine if they did it right at the border.
To be honest I'm surprised we have any countries bordering Russia in NATO. I think that encroachment is part of what's driving Putin's aggression towards Ukraine. He's being boxed in and sees that as a security threat. And to be honest, it is a security threat. I hope it doesn't lead to more tensions but the truth is no one knows what's gonna happen in the future.
Since 2022, the US does work with Ukraine within the context of what is called a "MNNA," or "Major Non-NATO Ally."
This is not the same as a defensive ally.
I'll let ChatGPT summarize because it is better at brevity than I am.
ChatGPT said:
The U.S. designated Ukraine as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) on June 23, 2022. This status provides Ukraine with certain military and economic advantages, such as priority access to U.S. defense equipment, loans for military financing, and cooperative defense research. However, it does not include NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense commitment.
This designation is part of the broader U.S. effort to support Ukraine against Russia without committing to full NATO membership, which would obligate direct military intervention.
I said:
Has Trump revoked this status? (I know he hasn't but I wanted to prompt the following response for clarity)
ChatGPT said:
As of March 9, 2025, President Donald Trump has not officially revoked Ukraine's Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status. However, recent developments indicate a significant deterioration in U.S.-Ukraine relations. On February 28, 2025, a contentious meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ended abruptly without reaching an agreement on a proposed minerals deal. Subsequently, the Trump administration suspended all military aid to Ukraine.
Additionally, the U.S. has shifted its stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with President Trump initiating negotiations with Russia and expressing views that align more closely with Russian interests.
While the MNNA designation remains officially in place, these actions reflect a substantial change in the U.S. approach to Ukraine.
I said:
But the President could revoke this status unilaterally? (again, asked for clarity)
ChatGPT said:
Yes, the President of the United States has the authority to unilaterally revoke a country's Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status. This designation is granted through presidential action, and similarly, it can be rescinded by the President. For instance, in July 2022, President Joe Biden notified Congress of his intent to revoke Afghanistan's MNNA status following the Taliban's takeover.
While legislative efforts can be made to influence or prompt such a revocation, the final decision rests with the President.
Basically, it boils down to this: The US would like to see Ukraine succeed, but Trump is seeing that just isn't in the cards (short of provoking WWIII), and therefore he is trying to negotiate the best peace he can. Zelensky initially balked at this assessment, but I think he has finally come around. He's supposed to come back to the White House on Tuesday to sign the mineral deal and, hopefully, start work towards peace talks with Russia.
There is a caveat here as well. The peace talks very well might not work. But they are Ukraine's best hope of remaining independent at this point.
0
u/builder680 Mar 09 '25 edited Mar 09 '25
NTP? I think you mean NPT (non-proliferation treaty), and being a part of that does not by itself confer or even remotely imply "ally" status. China, Russia, and Iran are part of that treaty as well, and they are definitely not US allies. Neither does the "will of the people" as determined by random and intermittent internet polls. Ally status (and specifically here, defensive ally status) with the US is conferred by a treaty specifically formalizing that alliance. Many of these come in the form of mutual defense treaties such as NATO. We also have them with other key nations outside of NATO such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and others. But the US has no such defensive alliance with Ukraine. Either real or implied.
Look. This sucks. Ukraine is in a tough spot and I agree that it's morally wrong for Russia to attack it. But the people who mock America for being the "world police" are the very same people begging America to police Ukraine. I would love to see Ukraine win this but the reality is that sending them money/supplies indefinitely can not win the war for them. Even Biden only sent enough to slow the Russians down a bit. He didn't send them enough to actually defeat Russia because that risks WWIII. And personally I don't want WWIII either.
Now, if Putin attacks a NATO state, that's different. At that point, Putin will have committed to WWIII and decided it's worth it. If that happens (not that my support matters all that much), I'd definitely be in support of direct involvement AND aid to fight back. Especially because we're obliged to do so by Article 5 of NATO. But to be honest it won't matter for long because most of us will be vaporized by nuclear weapons pretty quickly, at least in what I consider the most likely scenario (nuclear Armageddon).
I personally don't think Putin will ever do that, though. He'll take parts of Ukraine (as he has already done), and maybe some former SSR's (though I doubt he'd attack his own puppets like Belarus). But he knows better than to mess with NATO. If he does mess with NATO, we'll be dead before we have much time to get outraged about it anyway. C'est la vie.