Georgia: Does It Make Sense to Admit it into NATO?

[warpus]

Depends, even Russians one day would have to acknowledge real dangers. Until their enter I am againist their influence on NATO´s decisions. But of course, I know that there are not only idealists in NATO and would try get something from it.

That's like saying , as a defender on a football (soccer) team, that the players on the other team do not influence the decisions that your coach makes.

I'm not saying that Russia and NATO are enemies, but that is right on their border, and a place they still consider their "sphere of influence" (as dated a concept as that is), so of course NATO should consider outside ramifications when admitting new members. Not doing so would be shortsighted and silly.

 

[RedRalph]

Da, comrade Commissar! That's exactly what the imperialist pigs want!

AFAIK NATO membership didn't have majority support in the Czech Rep. either in 1999. 10 years after, it has. I guess the evil Americans have brainwashed us already

fabulous logic. So after Lukashenko goes and Russia and Belarus eventually unite, you'll be wholeheartedly behind it, regardless of Belarussian public opinion...

Once again, you demonstrate your fabulous democratic credentials

 

[Gelion]

Da, comrade Commissar! That's exactly what the imperialist pigs want!

AFAIK NATO membership didn't have majority support in the Czech Rep. either in 1999. 10 years after, it has. I guess the evil Americans have brainwashed us already

Exactly..... have a nice day.

 

[Winner]

fabulous logic. So after Lukashenko goes and Russia and Belarus eventually unite, you'll be wholeheartedly behind it, regardless of Belarussian public opinion...

Once again, you demonstrate your fabulous democratic credentials

Is that supposed to be another "argument" of yours? Yeah, public opinion in democratic countries changes with time, surprise surprise Ralphy, I guess you just learned something new today Another thing you should accept is that Belarus isn't a democratic country, and neither is Russia, so it's rather pointless to compare them to standard Western democracies.

Ukrainian gov. represents the people. In the next elections, they may as well elect a new one, which won't see NATO membership as a priority - that's up to the Ukrainian voters. Unlike you, I don't worship public opinion surveys, which can be manipulated in a thousand ways, but I acknowledge results of democratic elections.

Besides, except Ukraine almost all European post-commie countries are now members of NATO or candidates for membership - I guess they're all the exception while Ukraine is the norm - according to RedRalph

Tell me, Ralph, were they all fooled by the US imperialists and brainwashers? Gelion will say yes, I know his opinion already, but what about you - how far are you willing to go with this insanity?

 

[Gelion]

Is that supposed to be another "argument" of yours? Yeah, public opinion in democratic countries changes with time, surprise surprise Ralphy, I guess you just learned something new today Another thing you should accept is that Belarus isn't a democratic country, and neither is Russia, so it's rather pointless to compare them to standard Western democracies.

Winner fails to admit that an opinion can be formed by the media, regardless of government in charge. Very interesting.

Ukrainian gov. represents the people. In the next elections, they may as well elect a new one, which won't see NATO membership as a priority - that's up to the Ukrainian voters. Unlike you, I don't worship public opinion surveys, which can be manipulated in a thousand ways, but I acknowledge results of democratic elections.

We all know how democratic those elections were. It seems like every election is used to install a government friendly to the US. Manipulating public opinion has nothing to do with that I suppose.

Besides, except Ukraine almost all European post-commie countries are now members of NATO or candidates for membership - I guess they're all the exception while Ukraine is the norm - according to RedRalph

Now thats a rule to follow when making foreign policy! Brilliant, winner, any more ideas?

 

[RedRalph]

Is that supposed to be another "argument" of yours? Yeah, public opinion in democratic countries changes with time, surprise surprise Ralphy, I guess you just learned something new today Another thing you should accept is that Belarus isn't a democratic country, and neither is Russia, so it's rather pointless to compare them to standard Western democracies.

Yes, it does change over time. So you wait until/if it does, you dont act on what your crystal ball tells you

Ukrainian gov. represents the people. In the next elections, they may as well elect a new one, which won't see NATO membership as a priority - that's up to the Ukrainian voters. Unlike you, I don't worship public opinion surveys, which can be manipulated in a thousand ways, but I acknowledge results of democratic elections.

Fair enough, then you know Ukrain isnt going to be in NATO for a long time, if ever. I doubt it ever will be.

Besides, except Ukraine almost all European post-commie countries are now members of NATO or candidates for membership - I guess they're all the exception while Ukraine is the norm - according to RedRalph

No, bribes, pressure and in some cases genuine fear of Russia are all powerful motivators.

Tell me, Ralph, were they all fooled by the US imperialists and brainwashers? Gelion will say yes, I know his opinion already, but what about you - how far are you willing to go with this insanity?

Partially. Its funny, you can accept public opinion when its pro-NATO, but not when its against. Once again you demonstrate your fabulous democratic credentials.

 

[Agent327]

I am for enter of Georgia

...

4)Entrance of country to NATO will help establish its domestic stability, Georgian stability will help economy and democracy in region.

Spain and Portugal's NATO membership did little to help democracy. As with Ukraine, Georgia is not even applicable as a member.

 

[Masada]

Spain and Portugal's NATO membership did little to help democracy. As with Ukraine, Georgia is not even applicable as a member.

NATO membership has done little to help bonny little Belgium's internal situation: honestly they need another war to weld them together again. The Netherlands should make the occasional pass at them - existential threat and all that.

 

[xgmx]

Geographically....no.

 

[REDY]

That's like saying , as a defender on a football (soccer) team, that the players on the other team do not influence the decisions that your coach makes.

I'm not saying that Russia and NATO are enemies, but that is right on their border, and a place they still consider their "sphere of influence" (as dated a concept as that is), so of course NATO should consider outside ramifications when admitting new members. Not doing so would be shortsighted and silly.

Russia in example would be fan (as other non-NATO countries are), who should acknowledge that its other countries which play. Of course when will one fan come with big gun and will be prepared to kill player who would score, its worthy knowledge for match organisers. But its still not argument againist sport or usage of skilled players.

Spain and Portugal's NATO membership did little to help democracy. As with Ukraine, Georgia is not even applicable as a member.

I dont know how they were threatened or destabilised by foreign power. I have not good insight to their situation though.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Present-day conflict with Russia has nothing to do with Cold War.

Sure it does. Otherwise, explain why Russia hasn't been admitted into NATO. Explain why everybody is considering the consequences if Georgia is stupid enough to invade South Ossetia again.

The Russians aren't any more a threat to world peace than Iraq was after the first Gulf War. You are still fighting the Cold War and so is NATO.

pretty sure the cold war didn't care much for stable western democracies

Paranoia of the Soviets didn't help any more than paranoia over Muslims, or any other group for that matter. It led to the CIA overthrow of numerous democratically elected governments. It even included the overthrow of a dictatorship who was ironically our own puppet in South Vietnam.

 

[RalofTyr]

Russia should join NATO.

That would solve a lot of problems.

 

[RedRalph]

Russia should join NATO.

That would solve a lot of problems.

CCCP applied and was refused

 

[amadeus]

CCCP applied and was refused

In 1954.

 

[warpus]

Russia in example would be fan (as other non-NATO countries are), who should acknowledge that its other countries which play. Of course when will one fan come with big gun and will be prepared to kill player who would score, its worthy knowledge for match organisers. But its still not argument againist sport or usage of skilled players.

Ignoring Russia as a "bystander" would be a big mistake in this case. I find it weird that you fail to see this.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

I was well aware of the facts; obviously the political reason (i.e. the Cold War) was very different from the legal "technicalities". But you may notice that Germany agreed to recognize existing territorial agreements. As I said, the ruling Christian Democrats effectively blocked this formal recognition until Brandt's Ostpolitik settled the issue. By 1990 and beyond no German party still considered the "lost Eastern territories" a political issue; not to mention that a de facto arrangement had come into place folowing the Allied territorial agreements with respect to the Occupation Zones - which was legal enough, as I explained in my previous post. The whole "issue" revolved around the refusal of successive Christian Democrat governments to come to a formal agreement on these territorial matters, which had been settled by the Allies. The whole "claim to lost territories"bears a remarkable resemblance to post-WW I feelings among the ultra-right parties in the Weimar republic. (Not too mention that many former Nazis - among which high ranking officals - were allowed to function within West German institutions; a similar occurence may be observed in the DDR - despite its ostentatious denazification program.)

Any hypothetical Ukrainian NATO membership will meet similar judicial difficulties as a Georgian one. (Not too mention it will only serve to antagonize Russia, making this a completely impractical idea.)

Brandt didn't come along until the 60's. That doesn't solve the problem of West German membership into the alliance with unresolved border issues. The fact is, even if resolved at a de facto level, if it isn't resolved at a de jure level, it is still a problem in regard to legality...

Speaking of which, does anyone know the exact requirements for NATO membership?

 

[Imperialmajesty]

It won't. Baltic countries are safe - sure Russia sometimes tries to harm them, but it never uses military tools to do that because Kremlin knows what it would mean.



And you're right, at least in the short term. Adding a potentially very unstable countries to NATO would be a mistake.



Russians are returning to the imperialist policies of the past and the West is right to oppose them. If you want to face reality, face this: no matter what the West does in the area of fromer USSR, Russians will inevitably see it as a provocation and an aggressive move. Again, nothing we can do about it - if they want to see the West as the enemy, what could we do? When my country offered to host a part of the US missile defense system, the Russians reacted almost hysterically despite knowing the system cannot hurt them or their interests. Hours later, a "sudden technical problem" reduced the oil flow to the Czech Rep. by 40%, surely it was just a "coincidence". See, 20 years after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, they believe we should ask them for permission when we want to have our own foreign policy. Imagine what they expect from countries which actually border with Russia.

Russian foreign policy is a mixture of rational (cynical) and irrational elements. They're rationally (cynically) trying to expand their influence and reduce the Western ability to interfere with Russian plans - this is why they're so loud about the missile defense which they know is harmless, this is why they support Venezuela, Iran and others. These countries are a distraction, something Russia can use as a leverage against the West: "We help you with Iran, but you give us free hand in Ukraine". The only problem in that is that this policy is more suited for the 19th and 20th centuries, not this one and the West often refuses to play by the same rules.

The irrational aspect is the traditional Russian paranoia and their fear of encirclement by encroaching foreign powers. Expansionism has been a part of Russian foreign policy for the past 500 years, it carries a lot of inertia. After the period of chaos, the Russians believe now's the time to use Russia's wealth to expand the empire again. This irrationality is also making it next to impossible to maintain good relations with Russia - it will inevitably see any Western influence in areas like Eastern Europe, Caucasus or Central Asia as an aggressive move, even though the West doesn't mean it that way.

---

I say we have to live with it - appeasement of Russia won't help, they'd just see it as our weakness and become even more aggressive. Russia needs to be contained until it stops acting like an international bully.

(and please, no "others are the same!" crappy pseudo-arguments, they're irrelevant to this discussion).




Nobody says the West shouldn't talk with Russia, but talking =/= giving them what they want. If Russians had it their way, NATO would have to dissolve itself, all former commie countries would have to bow to Moscow and the US... well the best thing would be if they left Europe, dismantled all their nukes and offered the presidency to a Russian

Jokes aside, being nice to Russians won't bring you the desired results. They understand power, so let's use it - set up clear limits of what they can and can't do. First things first - bullying independent countries in their neigbourhood is not acceptable.

And how many people thought Russia attacking Georgia would happen? If anything, I think a similar train of events is occurring in Estonian-Russian relations.

Every nation for the most part has a strong rational aspect to there foreign policy, they simply wouldn't exist if they didn't.

However, I posit that the US and NATO behave just as irrationally as the Russians in some cases. The ABM treaty? How the heck was that rational? Admitting Albania into the NATO alliance? What is the point of that? Invading Iraq(US), how was that rational in terms of strengthening the position of the US? The whole Axis of Evil speech! How was that rational in terms of foreign relations?

Face it, all Major powers have there irrational quirks. All major powers have irredentist urges that are hard to suppress. All lets out bursts of bombast that are quite uncouth at times.

Also, please stop accusing me of appeasement. Appeasement and diplomacy are not an absolute dichotomy. Sometimes you have to give to get.

I'm sorry that your country was subjected to Soviet hegemony, but it is still not a good reflection on yourself if it clouds your objectivity.

Whats the point of talking if you are not willing to trade anything for something you want? Talking is pointless without potential substance.

 

[Dachs]

Not when it was admitted.

 

[red_elk]

NATO should be disbanded and, in perspective, replaced with new military alliance with participation of major powers, including China and Russia.
USA should stop sponsoring and bringing to power anti-Russian puppets in Russian neighbour states, such as Ukraine and Georgia.
USA should take actions to destroy heroine production in Afghanistan and eliminate drug traffic from Afghanistan to Russia, which increased ~40 times after they took control of the country.
USA should return to ABM treaty and continue reducing nuclear stockpile together with Russia.
That would solve a lot of problems.

 

[Winner]

Sure it does. Otherwise, explain why Russia hasn't been admitted into NATO.

No, it doesn't.

Russia hasn't been admited becase (1) it doesn't want to join (which is a good enough reason, I am sorry you don't understand it); (2) it isn't a democratic country eligible for membership; (3) the structure of its military is vastly incompatible with NATO, Russia would have to reform it profoundly which again they don't want to do; (4) they'd have to share top secret information with other member states and submit to decisions made on multi-national level, which they won't do in a million years.

Oh, the real world - always interfering with yours, isn't it?

Explain why everybody is considering the consequences if Georgia is stupid enough to invade South Ossetia again.

You're talking nonsense unrelated to the topic again.

The Russians aren't any more a threat to world peace than Iraq was after the first Gulf War. You are still fighting the Cold War and so is NATO.

Russia is a real threat to a whole bunch of countries which are constantly being bullied and manipulated by the Moscow. The West should do whatever it takes to help them achieve true independence on Russia.