Calling it a "myth" misses the forest for the trees.
What possible benefit to existing NATO members does Ukraine joining serve? I can't think of any, unless you define "benefit" as "intentionally antagonizing the former Cold War adversary".
From the former Ambassador to Soviet Union[1]:
>When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed.
Now, while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has. Gentlemen can disagree that this was or was not a realistic understanding of the security and geopolitical situation at that time, but it's genuinely odd that everyone acts like Russia is the sole aggressor in this.
> while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has
Between whom? Gorbachev has no memory of it, based on his public statements. The supposed agreement was made in the context of Germany's reunification, something the Soviets not only agreed to but memorialized in various written agreements, none of which mention this supposed understanding.
Also, wasn't the motivation for the 2014 invasion Ukraine's potential membership in the EU?
>Between whom? Gorbachev has no memory of it, based on his public statements.
I'm going to go ahead and take the word of the former ambassador to Soviet Union at face value. You can reject it based on your own analysis as you see fit. I'm not necessarily trying to take a particular side here, but one thing I have a problem with is that the "Status Quo" of "America runs security for Europe" isn't really a relevant or wise way to view things anymore. That perspective seems to drive the vast majority of discussion on this topic and it portends a level of competency and reach that I don't think the US military has anymore. So some realism is needed.
What possible benefit to existing NATO members does Ukraine joining serve? I can't think of any, unless you define "benefit" as "intentionally antagonizing the former Cold War adversary".
From the former Ambassador to Soviet Union[1]:
>When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed.
Now, while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has. Gentlemen can disagree that this was or was not a realistic understanding of the security and geopolitical situation at that time, but it's genuinely odd that everyone acts like Russia is the sole aggressor in this.
[1] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn...