That's a really literal way of looking at the world. For major decisions, usually there is discussion and understanding (and possibly carrots thrown in) before an application is submitted. It's not like sending resumes into an HR black hole.

The key point, whatever incentives exist, is that it was the choice of Ukraine. Fundamentally they had to take the first official step.

And NATO could just as easily have said no. The issue isn't Ukraine's interest, but NATO's posture towards accepting Ukraine's application.

This makes some sense, thank you. I still do not know why the original commenter was flagged, it does not sound like his theory is completely ridiculous.

According to that article, Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but NATO told him "join the queue with all the other countries". Russia argued it should get special treatment (for obvious reasons) but NATO didn't agree with that.

I wonder, how would the world have turned out if NATO had made a different decision here?

(Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that NATO decisions justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.)

I don't think Russia meets all of the following NATO requirements.

--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.

> --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

NATO's founding members in 1949 included Portugal, at the time ruled by a right-wing dictatorship (1926–1974). Turkey and Greece both joined in 1952, and both have gone through periods of brutal military rule even while remaining NATO members. For the majority of NATO's existence, most of these "requirements" you cite have been mere lip service at best.

Many political scientists classify Erdogan's Turkey as an anocracy – a hybrid form of government which is part-way between dictatorship and democracy, mixing elements of both systems. Yet, Turkey remains a full member in good standing of NATO. Putin's Russia is also often classified as an anocracy. Why demand genuine democracy as a condition to join NATO when its current membership includes a state which isn't one? Indeed, according to the Polity data series [0], Putin's Russia is actually more free than Erdogan's Turkey.

Don't get me wrong, democracy is a truly wonderful thing – but if welcoming non-democratic Russia into NATO might have prevented this war, wouldn't that have been a wonderful thing too?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series

While there was talk of Russia joining NATO prior to the rise of Putin, Putin's specific comments on this matter were just empty political rhetoric done as a throw away sound bite to score a few points, not an actual genuine request to join NATO.

If NATO and its leading members (such as the US) had made a serious overture to invite Russia into NATO – laying out the welcome mat, without imposing any significant conditions, maybe even offering some inducements – would Putin have said No?

100%

What makes you so sure?