Should NATO offer Russia membership in exchange for them ending the war?

[TheReckoning]

What do you think? I personally think NATO should.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Very interesting proposal.

[Santander]

Very interesting proposal.

lol...

"Should NATO effectively disband and surrender to Russia?"
"Very interesting proposal."

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Very interesting proposal.

lol...

"Should NATO effectively disband and surrender to Russia?"
"Very interesting proposal."

Hey, I wasn't passing judgement on it. It was just something I don't think anyone else has seriously floated *after* the war has really begun. My remark was basically intended to be a remark about that fact anyway.

[Torrain]

That’s what the UN Security Council is for - an international body where the West can sit at the same table as Russia and China, and try and make international security considerations that benefit all parties. It’s often stymied and ineffectual, but that’s to be expected. No one actually thinks the Security Council will make significant changes or to sanction much in the way of actual warfare, because of the veto system.

NATO has a military hierarchy, shares confidential intelligence and runs a tight defensive alliance. Given Russia’s history with intelligence, and their frequent attempts to kill Western assets (see the Salisbury poisonings, Litvinenko etc), subvert our elections, and drive wedges between NATO members, there’s no chance of NATO in it’s current form allowing Russia to join.

Admitting Russia turns the North Atlantic Treaty into a symbolic charter, rather than a highly effective tool to prevent Russian incursion into Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

While I respect the UN, Putin doesn’t believe they holds any power over him, and doesn’t rail against them as a result. In contrast, he’s incensed by NATO, and makes a retreat to the alliance’s position in 1991 a frequent part of his rants.

Let’s not defang the only international alliance actually bankrolling Ukraine’s military and keeping Russian tanks out of further Eastern European states.

[TheReckoning]

Very interesting proposal.

lol...

"Should NATO effectively disband and surrender to Russia?"
"Very interesting proposal."

NATO has added plenty of countries without disbanding and “surrendering” to them. Russia’s weight is also far outmatched by the USA + Allies and therefore wouldn’t have any influence if the opposing side decides it won’t.

[It’s so Joever]

13 year olds after spending a couple days playing Civ and watching Alternate History videos be like:

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Last I checked, NATO's raison d'être is Russia.

[Blue3]

Putin considered joining NATO in the early 2000s, when he also encouraged Ukraine and other countries to do so too if they wanted.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Only if US gets CSTO membership in exchange.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No NATO is a defense treaty against Russia not a treaty where every European nation imaginable gets welfare from the US

[President Johnson]

Lmao, no of course not. There might have been an opening in the early 2000s when Putin, right after taking office, was moderate in tone. That ship has long sailed.

[CumbrianLefty]

Wouldn't rule it out forever, but certainly not any time soon.

[MABA 2020]

Wasn't the Soviet Union offered NATO membership back in the 1950's as a ploy to try and make them look bad or something like that? That wasn't a realistic proposal and neither is this.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Lmao, no of course not. There might have been an opening in the early 2000s when Putin, right after taking office, was moderate in tone. That ship has long sailed.

In that case what would be even the point of NATO then . Say Russia actually did moderate it’s tone and joined NATO then what would be the purpose of it .


In that case wouldn’t it be just better to disband NATO

[Frodo]

No, it isn't enough.  If Russia wants membership in NATO or the European Union, we should demand a full regime change, that it become a (truly) liberal parliamentary democracy on par with any in western or northern Europe, and that starts with getting rid of Vladimir Putin.  No less will suffice.    

[PSOL]

I hope not, the way I see it is that there is more opportunity now for maximum concession extraction then any other time in almost four decades.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I hope not, the way I see it is that there is more opportunity now for maximum concession extraction then any other time in almost four decades.

That is probably the way the US and most of Eastern Europe see things in the (unlikely, IMO) event of a total Russian defeat. However, when your former rival is on the floor, you can also offer him a hand up and make amends.

In this scenario, and assuming Putin goes, there will be the biggest window of opportunity since the early 2000s to bring Russia into the European fold. That will still be a small window, but it’s going to tempt some EU leaders - and perhaps it should. That wouldn’t look like an immediate offer of EU membership, but they could offer more economic support/do less pillaging than they did in the 90s.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes, in those circumstances it would be nice to think we could learn from three decades ago.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s asked to join NATO. There also was talks with Yeltsin in the 1990s about joining NATO as well.

[TheReckoning]

Here’s a parallel to draw: what if the Allied forces offered Nazi Germany a role in their alliance, agreeing to not see them as an adversary if they joined? If Germany had agreed, WW2 and the Nazi Regime wouldn’t have been anywhere near destructive as it was.

So what if NATO offered Russia a role in their alliance, agreeing to not see them and treat them as an enemy if they joined?

[Yoda]

A very silly question. NATO is for peaceful countries. A mutual defense pact meant to protect democracies from autocratic aggressor states like Russia. Giving Russia membership would turn the body into a joke, similar to what Russia' presence at the UN (specifically it's presence on the Security Council) has done to that body.

[Santander]

A very silly question. NATO is for peaceful countries. A mutual defense pact meant to protect democracies from autocratic aggressor states like Russia. Giving Russia membership would turn the body into a joke, similar to what Russia' presence at the UN (specifically it's presence on the Security Council) has done to that body.

The US is in NATO. And a Security Council without Russia would be a joke. Russia is a nuclear power, major arms exporter, is the largest country in Europe, and spans multiple geopolitical regions. They must have a seat at the table and there must be dialogue.

[Mr. Illini]

Lmao, no of course not. There might have been an opening in the early 2000s when Putin, right after taking office, was moderate in tone. That ship has long sailed.

In that case what would be even the point of NATO then . Say Russia actually did moderate it’s tone and joined NATO then what would be the purpose of it .


In that case wouldn’t it be just better to disband NATO

It would have re-positioned NATO effectively as an anti-China alliance. It was an interesting proposal at the time, but Russia has regressed from the peaceful and democratic aims that they seemed to be pursuing in the 90s and early 00s. It's somewhat unthinkable at the moment and probably better in hindsight that it didn't happen as Putin's motives probably were not pure.

[John Dule]

Here’s a parallel to draw: what if the Allied forces offered Nazi Germany a role in their alliance, agreeing to not see them as an adversary if they joined?

To what end?