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

[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?

To what end?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

Germany would’ve refused, of course. But would Russia?

[DaleCooper]

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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

Germany would’ve refused, of course. But would Russia?

You fundamentally misunderstand history and people. Some countries, like Nazi Germany, really are just sh-thole abominations that want to conquer the world and kill as many people as possible. No amount of friendliness from the free world will have changed that. Oddly enough, you remind me of bleeding heart liberal Karens, the types who think the best way to deal with a schoolyard bully is to "kill him with kindness". It's a joke, and it's weak, and it's SAD!

[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?

To what end?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

Germany would’ve refused, of course. But would Russia?

You fundamentally misunderstand history and people. Some countries, like Nazi Germany, really are just sh-thole abominations that want to conquer the world and kill as many people as possible. No amount of friendliness from the free world will have changed that. Oddly enough, you remind me of bleeding heart liberal Karens, the types who think the best way to deal with a schoolyard bully is to "kill him with kindness". It's a joke, and it's weak, and it's SAD!

So you believe Russia would refuse. But if they accepted, would having Russia in NATO be a net positive for the USA and the world?

[DaleCooper]

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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

Germany would’ve refused, of course. But would Russia?

You fundamentally misunderstand history and people. Some countries, like Nazi Germany, really are just sh-thole abominations that want to conquer the world and kill as many people as possible. No amount of friendliness from the free world will have changed that. Oddly enough, you remind me of bleeding heart liberal Karens, the types who think the best way to deal with a schoolyard bully is to "kill him with kindness". It's a joke, and it's weak, and it's SAD!

So you believe Russia would refuse. But if they accepted, would having Russia in NATO be a net positive for the USA and the world?

Russia today would be a net negative in NATO, for sure. There's definitely a place at the table for a properly reformed and forward-thinking Russia, but even then I think NATO would have to be reformed too for that to make sense. Maybe I'm just old school but Russia in NATO seems like an oxymoron to me.

[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?

To what end?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

Germany would’ve refused, of course. But would Russia?

You fundamentally misunderstand history and people. Some countries, like Nazi Germany, really are just sh-thole abominations that want to conquer the world and kill as many people as possible. No amount of friendliness from the free world will have changed that. Oddly enough, you remind me of bleeding heart liberal Karens, the types who think the best way to deal with a schoolyard bully is to "kill him with kindness". It's a joke, and it's weak, and it's SAD!

So you believe Russia would refuse. But if they accepted, would having Russia in NATO be a net positive for the USA and the world?

Russia today would be a net negative in NATO, for sure. There's definitely a place at the table for a properly reformed and forward-thinking Russia, but even then I think NATO would have to be reformed too for that to make sense. Maybe I'm just old school but Russia in NATO seems like an oxymoron to me.

What would be wrong with having Russia in NATO?

[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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

[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?

To what end?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

By this logic, we should go to war with North Korea right now, which is all those things except genocidal. I would note that if the Holocaust was limited to German Jews, while it would still be incredibly tragic, would have only killed ~250,000 Jews- far less than how many were actually killed, and far, far less than how many would’ve been killed in WW2 in Europe.

[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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

By this logic, we should go to war with North Korea right now, which is all those things except genocidal. I would note that if the Holocaust was limited to German Jews, while it would still be incredibly tragic, would have only killed ~250,000 Jews- far less than how many were actually killed, and far, far less than how many would’ve been killed in WW2 in Europe.

Tell me, what level of Jew death is acceptable to you?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

A democratic, peaceful Russia with a track record of being a responsible member of the international community should be in NATO, sadly it will take decades if not centuries for that to be established.

[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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

By this logic, we should go to war with North Korea right now, which is all those things except genocidal. I would note that if the Holocaust was limited to German Jews, while it would still be incredibly tragic, would have only killed ~250,000 Jews- far less than how many were actually killed, and far, far less than how many would’ve been killed in WW2 in Europe.

Tell me, what level of Jew death is acceptable to you?

0. Which is why it would’ve been preferable to allow Nazi Germany to exist in peace vs letting it be destroyed in war. The latter was done, and it led to millions of Jews being killed.

What does it even mean to let Nazi Germany "exist in peace?" The Nazis had an insatiable appetite for war; that regime literally could not have existed in peace. The idea that we could have allowed Germany to increasingly strengthen itself unchecked (in the process either swallowing up its neighbors or bringing them under its sphere of influence), and that this would've resulted in fewer deaths in the long term, is asinine.

[DaleCooper]

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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

A lot of people don't understand that these days.

[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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

A lot of people don't understand that these days.

TheReckoning does understand that. It's just that he's a fascist who plays the part of a pacifist when it suits him.

[TheReckoning]

What does it even mean to let Nazi Germany "exist in peace?" The Nazis had an insatiable appetite for war; that regime literally could not have existed in peace. The idea that we could have allowed Germany to increasingly strengthen itself unchecked (in the process either swallowing up its neighbors or bringing them under its sphere of influence), and that this would've resulted in fewer deaths in the long term, is asinine.

Nazi Germany did want war strongly, obviously. But if it didn’t as a matter of necessity, it would be preferable to allow it to exist and not have a war.

Similarly, if peace can be brought by bringing Russia into the NATO fold, it would be absolutely worth it.

[John Dule]

What does it even mean to let Nazi Germany "exist in peace?" The Nazis had an insatiable appetite for war; that regime literally could not have existed in peace. The idea that we could have allowed Germany to increasingly strengthen itself unchecked (in the process either swallowing up its neighbors or bringing them under its sphere of influence), and that this would've resulted in fewer deaths in the long term, is asinine.

Nazi Germany did want war strongly, obviously. But if it didn’t as a matter of necessity, it would be preferable to allow it to exist and not have a war.

Similarly, if peace can be brought by bringing Russia into the NATO fold, it would be absolutely worth it.

But why would either of these authoritarian states enter into alliances with nations with which they have mutually exclusive territorial claims?

[TheReckoning]

What does it even mean to let Nazi Germany "exist in peace?" The Nazis had an insatiable appetite for war; that regime literally could not have existed in peace. The idea that we could have allowed Germany to increasingly strengthen itself unchecked (in the process either swallowing up its neighbors or bringing them under its sphere of influence), and that this would've resulted in fewer deaths in the long term, is asinine.

Nazi Germany did want war strongly, obviously. But if it didn’t as a matter of necessity, it would be preferable to allow it to exist and not have a war.

Similarly, if peace can be brought by bringing Russia into the NATO fold, it would be absolutely worth it.

But why would either of these authoritarian states enter into alliances with nations with which they have mutually exclusive territorial claims?

There’s a strong chance (100% in Germany’s case) that they wouldn’t. But if they would, it would undoubtedly be better for everyone involved. The only one crying would be the military industrial complex.

[KaiserDave]

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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

By this logic, we should go to war with North Korea right now, which is all those things except genocidal. I would note that if the Holocaust was limited to German Jews, while it would still be incredibly tragic, would have only killed ~250,000 Jews- far less than how many were actually killed, and far, far less than how many would’ve been killed in WW2 in Europe.

Tell me, what level of Jew death is acceptable to you?

0. Which is why it would’ve been preferable to allow Nazi Germany to exist in peace vs letting it be destroyed in war. The latter was done, and it led to millions of Jews being killed.

Did you really suggest that the Holocaust only happened because we didn't let Nazi Germany "exist in peace." Are you saying that the Jews were only massacred because we didn't respect Nazi Germany's rights? You are a fascist, you are a Holocaust apologist, and you are disgusting.

Good lord. You know I was still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're clearly an ignorant moron, but I was willing to grant than you were not a malicious Nazi ignorant moron. I was wrong. You deserve no better treatment than being known as the forum's resident fascist. 

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

With respect to the Nazi Germany analogy, this did actually happen. It was called the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and it didn’t work out so well for the Soviets.

[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?

To what end?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

By this logic, we should go to war with North Korea right now, which is all those things except genocidal. I would note that if the Holocaust was limited to German Jews, while it would still be incredibly tragic, would have only killed ~250,000 Jews- far less than how many were actually killed, and far, far less than how many would’ve been killed in WW2 in Europe.

Tell me, what level of Jew death is acceptable to you?

0. Which is why it would’ve been preferable to allow Nazi Germany to exist in peace vs letting it be destroyed in war. The latter was done, and it led to millions of Jews being killed.

Did you really suggest that the Holocaust only happened because we didn't let Nazi Germany "exist in peace." Are you saying that the Jews were only massacred because we didn't respect Nazi Germany's rights? You are a fascist, you are a Holocaust apologist, and you are disgusting.

Good lord. You know I was still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're clearly an ignorant moron, but I was willing to grant than you were not a malicious Nazi ignorant moron. I was wrong. You deserve no better treatment than being known as the forum's resident fascist. 

No, because we did let Germany exist in peace. It’s just that Nazi Germany didn’t want to exist in peace. Despite the best efforts of folks like Chamberlain, Nazi Germany wanted war. As I have made clear here, nothing we could’ve done would’ve prevented war with Nazi Germany. But if we could’ve done so, it would’ve prevented the deaths of millions of Jews, and tens of millions of other Europeans.

That’s why if allowing Russia to join NATO could be done, it would preferable to war.

[KaiserDave]

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?

Not leading to a war in which tens of millions of people died?

... thus legitimizing an ultra-authoritarian genocidal state in Central Europe that would've potentially enslaved and abused its citizens for multiple generations? Not a great trade-off. Sometimes war is the lesser of the evils.

By this logic, we should go to war with North Korea right now, which is all those things except genocidal. I would note that if the Holocaust was limited to German Jews, while it would still be incredibly tragic, would have only killed ~250,000 Jews- far less than how many were actually killed, and far, far less than how many would’ve been killed in WW2 in Europe.

Tell me, what level of Jew death is acceptable to you?

0. Which is why it would’ve been preferable to allow Nazi Germany to exist in peace vs letting it be destroyed in war. The latter was done, and it led to millions of Jews being killed.

Did you really suggest that the Holocaust only happened because we didn't let Nazi Germany "exist in peace." Are you saying that the Jews were only massacred because we didn't respect Nazi Germany's rights? You are a fascist, you are a Holocaust apologist, and you are disgusting.

Good lord. You know I was still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're clearly an ignorant moron, but I was willing to grant than you were not a malicious Nazi ignorant moron. I was wrong. You deserve no better treatment than being known as the forum's resident fascist. 

No, because we did let Germany exist in peace. It’s just that Nazi Germany didn’t want to exist in peace. Despite the best efforts of folks like Chamberlain, Nazi Germany wanted war. As I have made clear here, nothing we could’ve done would’ve prevented war with Nazi Germany. But if we could’ve done so, it would’ve prevented the deaths of millions of Jews, and tens of millions of other Europeans.

That’s why if allowing Russia to join NATO could be done, it would preferable to war.

No you are are an idiot who apparently doesn't think that the hundreds of thousands of German, Austrian, and Czech Jews existed.

[TheReckoning]

No you are are an idiot who apparently doesn't think that the hundreds of thousands of German, Austrian, and Czech Jews existed.

You clearly aren’t even bothering to read my posts. I said earlier that if Nazi Germany didn’t go to war/invade other countries, and still carried out the Holocaust, it would’ve killed at most ~250,000 Jews. A tragedy of massive proportions? Absolutely. But far preferable to what actually happened.

[KaiserDave]

No you are are an idiot who apparently doesn't think that the hundreds of thousands of German, Austrian, and Czech Jews existed.

You clearly aren’t even bothering to read my posts. I said earlier that if Nazi Germany didn’t go to war/invade other countries, and still carried out the Holocaust, it would’ve killed at most ~250,000 Jews. A tragedy of massive proportions? Absolutely. But far preferable to what actually happened.

Your assumptions and analogy is idiotic and pointless to begin with an part of a large pattern of your morbid fascination with fascism and fascists.

Why are you always thinking about Hitler.

[John Dule]

"WWII was worth fighting, huh? Well, would you still think that even if the entire geopolitical situation was completely different in a way I just thought up? Yeah, didn't think so."

[parochial boy]

A take that essentially amounts to "if only the Nazis hadn't been Nazis then they wouldn't have done the stuff that the Nazis did" is definitely a sparkling one, I have to say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I see that Lord Darlington now posts on the forum.

[KaiserDave]

What if Hitler was actually this made up guy in my head named Hitler and not the actual real Hitler? Checkmate.