19 Aug 23
4 edits
A few weeks ago, Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the NATO secretary general, suggested Russia join NATO to end the war in Ukraine.
Putin himself also expressed openness to joining back in 2000:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
Putin Says 'Why Not?' to Russia Joining NATO
Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an unexpected gesture to the West, suggested in a television interview today that Russia would consider joining NATO if the Western alliance agreed to treat Russia as an equal partner.
"Why not? Why not?" Putin said when asked by BBC interviewer David Frost about Russian membership. "I do not rule out such a possibility . . . in the case that Russia's interests will be reckoned with, if it will be an equal partner."
"Russia is a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe"
19 Aug 23
Let's put aside all the more obvious concerns, like NATO being made specifically to counter Russia and Russia not meeting NATO requirements for membership.
If Russia joined NATO there would no need for Russia to be concerned about security or NATO expansion. Such a move could potentially end conflict Russia's conflict with the West.
@shavixmir saidThe belief that Russia is a looming threat over eastern Europe will not easily go away, justified or not. Smaller nations like the Baltic states may live in fear if NATO were disbanded.
Interesting.
It could work.
However, I’m still more inclined to think that disbanding NATO is cheaper and ethically a better choice.
With Russia as a member there is no reason for a cold war of any sort and no justification for any future Russian invasions.
But at the same time NATO would be an even more monstrous alliance.
19 Aug 23
@vivify saidyes
A few weeks ago, Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the NATO secretary general, suggested Russia join NATO to end the war in Ukraine.
Putin himself also expressed openness to joining back in 2000:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
[b]Putin Says 'Why Not? ...[text shortened]... s a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe"
19 Aug 23
@vivify saidWould make a lot of sense for the peoples of Europe including the Russians not sure how the US and China would feel about it.
A few weeks ago, Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff to the NATO secretary general, suggested Russia join NATO to end the war in Ukraine.
Putin himself also expressed openness to joining back in 2000:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/
[b]Putin Says 'Why Not? ...[text shortened]... s a part of European culture, and I do not consider my own country in isolation from Europe"
It would be at least as transformative if Russia joined the EU.
Both ambitions are pipe dreams whilst the current regime holds the reins of power in Russia.
Foreseeable problem:
Russia joins NATO. Russia then picks a fight with a neighbor who is not in NATO. Russia then demands NATO assist it in subduing the country that it's fighting with.
Avoidance of this sort of problem is why Turkey and Greece were admitted into NATO at the same time so they could not try this method against the other.
@shavixmir saidIn the UN there's no obligation to militarily assist one another and five countries have vetoes.
We’re all in the UN together. Hasn’t stopped the countries from invading each other. Why would NATO achieve that which the UN hasn’t?
20 Aug 23
@athousandyoung saidThen, I would suggest adopting the correct measures within the UN framework, rather than a secondary solution such as NATO.
In the UN there's no obligation to militarily assist one another and five countries have vetoes.
20 Aug 23
@shavixmir saidGood luck getting Russia to give up the veto
Then, I would suggest adopting the correct measures within the UN framework, rather than a secondary solution such as NATO.
20 Aug 23
@athousandyoung saidGood luck getting China and the US to give up the veto too. Good luck getting Russia into NATO.
Good luck getting Russia to give up the veto
My point being, that if one was to opt for the “we’re all in this together” (which is a good idea) solution to war, then the UN would be the larger and better framework.
Which I would obviously say, because I want NATO disbanded.
I certainly don’t want to be pumping 2% of the country’s finances into it.
20 Aug 23
@shavixmir saidI could see Russia reasonably joining NATO for the purposes I described above i.e. getting NATO to help it subdue non-NATO countries for Russian gain. This is FAR more plausible than changing the way the UN works.
Good luck getting China and the US to give up the veto too. Good luck getting Russia into NATO.
My point being, that if one was to opt for the “we’re all in this together” (which is a good idea) solution to war, then the UN would be the larger and better framework.
Which I would obviously say, because I want NATO disbanded.
I certainly don’t want to be pumping 2% of the country’s finances into it.
20 Aug 23
@athousandyoung saidNATO’s existance is based on opposing The Warsaw Pact and Russia (USSR).
I could see Russia reasonably joining NATO for the purposes I described above i.e. getting NATO to help it subdue non-NATO countries for Russian gain. This is FAR more plausible than changing the way the UN works.
It would be far more realistic to get the satellite States into the EU, meaning that any invasion would be an invasion of the EU and a direct trigger to a far larger scale war; which Russia would not pursue.
However, that’s not the doctrine being discussed.
It would be more realistic to get Russia to join the EU to stop these wars.
But… the realism in that is thwarted by NATO, which has far outlived its sell-by date.
The US doesn’t want Russia in the EU, because that would directly damage them economically.
If Russia joined NATO, there would be no reason left for them not joining the EU.
So, that and history explains why the NATO option and the UN option are just as realistic.
20 Aug 23
@shavixmir saidI thought the EU had no military role - that they were only an economic union.
NATO’s existance is based on opposing The Warsaw Pact and Russia (USSR).
It would be far more realistic to get the satellite States into the EU, meaning that any invasion would be an invasion of the EU and a direct trigger to a far larger scale war; which Russia would not pursue.
However, that’s not the doctrine being discussed.
It would be more realistic to get Ru ...[text shortened]... the EU.
So, that and history explains why the NATO option and the UN option are just as realistic.