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

Georgia was not a NATO member. If it had been, then the Russians would have attacked.

If you read how the situation progressed, the US first wanted to keep ABM treaty, but amend it in order to allow limited missile defense as the one which is currently being constructed by the US. Russians wouldn't hear about it, so the only honorable way forward was to terminate the agreement. If the Russians were willing to compromise, the treaty could be still here, so they can blame themselves and their stubborness.

Stabilisation of Balkans, perhaps? I don't know, but I also don't see how this is related to Russian irrational fears which stand behind some of the most controversial foreign policy moves by Russia.

It isn't, which is what Europeans tried to tell the Americans. HOWEVER, how is this related to Russian foreign policy? Iraq didn't concern Russia, the invasion didn't threaten Russian interests in any way.

In fact, when you look at the history, Russia used Iraq as a leverage against the West from the very beginning. It's just another pawn on the chessboard of Russian foreign policy - first thing you have to learn about it is that the Russians are very CYNICAL about their foreign policy, they don't mean most of the things they say.

I warned you from using this "other do this too" pseudo-argument. This disproves absolutely nothing of what I said, it just underlines it.

I wasn't accusing you of anything, I just mentioned appeasement isn't the right policy towards Russia. Historically it didn't work. What did work was a policy backed by real power - this is what the Russians understand.

We're finished, I won't listen to such pathetic accussations. Each time when I discuss Russia, somebody says "you're not objective because you're from a post-commie country". Yeah, right.

The West can make deals with Russia, but it must make it clear that the West won't trade other countries like they were some sort of inferior serfs one can shuffle around at will. In other words, the West can talk with Russia, make deals with Russia, but it can't back away from its values.

 

As said: West Germany's membership had the proviso of resolving any "unresolved border disputes" in a peaceful manner - and this was blocked by ruling Christian Democrats until the 60s, yes.

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.


Article 8

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.


Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Article 11

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)

(http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm)

As you can see from the NATO treaty text above, the ad hoc proviso reads that a peaceful solution of any dispute is a prerequisite for becoming a NATO member. You may recall that the Falkland War was initiated by a faltering Argentinian junta, which rather suggests an unwillingness on the other party's side to settle the matter peacefully - not the UK's.

 

How are "polish nationalists" threat to peace of whatever?

 

ah who cares, NATO is worthless and dead anyway. It has served zero purpose in the last 10 years. We might as well invite the Russians into it. I mean when was the last time the French Honored there treaty and alliance to anyone?

 

Tell me of one single occurence when the French were supposed to uphold their NATO treaty obligations according to the 5th article and they didn't - I dare you.

 

The Argentine claim has existed since the 1830s and to claim that no peaceful arbitration of that claim being dropped has occurred is facetious in the extreme.

 

one work Taliban

 

It's not 'nonsense' at all. It is also deliciously ironic you decided to later mention it yourself on the next page in the same thread:

Now that's nonsense. NATO members are in no way responsible for invading other countries merely because one of its members decides to do so. Nor do they have to come to the aid of a country that gets invaded as a direct result of their obvious initial stupidity.

I'd probably say it's more due to being from a past Nazi country that still has a rich history of reactionary paranoia, but that's just me. YMMV.

 

Georgia didn't invade a foreign country. While I believe Saakashvili is probably responsible for the crisis, he didn't invade Russia or any other independant state: according to international law, South Ossetia is part of Georgia.

 

Please. France is contributing forces as of this moment in Afghanistan.

@Winner, sorry for the delay in replying.

 

I'm sure you're aware that Argentine gained independence from Spain; until the issue was forced by the Argentine junta, was there ever any serious effort to resolve the matter? Furthermore, I did not 'claim that no peaceful arbitration of that claim being dropped has occurred' (whatever that means).

 

Aaaand how is this relevant?

Actually there were talks in the 1940s and the 1960s. Nothing came of them.

So, no peaceful solution. Hence there was an outstanding territorial issue:

...yeah, it did, which is the point. Can we please just get to the part where we all go OHHH IT'S BECAUSE THE TERRITORIAL STICKING POINT INVOLVES A SCARY COUNTRY THAT COULD ACTUALLY START A FIGHT IN NATO'S AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY INSTEAD OF A PISSANT LITTLE CRAPPY ONE THAT COULDN'T SEND A SINGLE SHIP INTO THE NORTH ATLANTIC BARRING AN ACT OF GOD and move on with our lives.

 

I appreciate your mentioning of inconclusive talks in the 1940s (irrelevant to NATO admittance) and 1960s, which proves there were efforts to resolve the Falkland dispute peacefully - which is what NATO membership requires (The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.). I fail to see how an Argentine attack can serve as a pretext to deny the UK NATO membership. As concerns the fact that Argentine gained independence from Spain - not the UK - I would suggest that a claim to the Falklands does not have any substance in international or any other law; no sizeable Argentine population resides there - in fact, the Falklands do not have a sizeable population at all and the majority of those residing there have rejected a claim by Argentina. One might also mention Gibraltar (still claimed by Spain, I believe) and the Antarctic territory to the south of the Falklands, where similar territorial claims overlap. The fact of the matter is that Britian has - in accordance with the NATO statute - agreed to settle any such disputes in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered. By contrast, Georgia's invasion of neighbouring territory showed a clear breach with such methods. Ukraine, while facing a similar dispute, has refrained from such conduct; it would therefore have a better chance of being admitted as a NATO member. (Whether such a course of action would be the wise thing to do, is ofcourse another matter.)

 

And was that dispute settled? No? Shocking! Have any negotiations taken place since the 1980s conflict? No? Gordon Brown even said this past spring that he was ruling out any possibility of further negotiations? The British aren't acting in good faith in accordance to the NATO Charter?

It's almost as though there's a nonlegalistic explanation for this turn of events!

O_o

Dude doesn't understand my point.

The claim's standing in international law is irrelevant. The fact that a dispute exists is. It is even enshrined in the bloody Argentine constitution.

Shut up and put your money where your mouth is
That's what you get for waking up in Vegas

Hey, the way I see it, at least the Georgians are kinda sorta still trying to solve the dispute as opposed to their British buddies.

 

I would say, Georgia has very serious border issues - parts of its territory are de-facto independent, partially recogized countries. Protectorates of state, possessing nuclear weapons. The situation is not similar to British.

 

one squad doesnt mean anything, and they went behind our backs in 2003 to sell arms to the Iraqi's right before we invaded. Please define how the French are acting as a proper Ally. Personally id prefer to cut all diplomatic ties to Europe and let them figure there own stuff out. My honest view is in WW1 we should have sat out, if not for American intervention you would still be fighting that war. And with the lack of respect we get from Europe these days I see no problems with cutting all ties with Europe, where better off without them.

 

Unfortunately the charter does not ask for a definitive settlement, just the will to undertake such a settlement. Your same 'argument' could be applied to the BRD membership discussed earlier, where it took up to 40 years to settle remaining territorial 'disputes'.

 

Exactly. And France also contributed to the initial military strike against Afghanistan in 2001.

Wrong again, huh? So now I guess you're gonna pretend that nobody debunked your ignorant assertion - you believers are good at that

Number of French troops in Afganistan: 3,300. Europe total: ~28,000. US: ~26,000.

Source? And don't tell it's written in Bible too, for Gods' sake...

Sure you are. Go read something from the scripture if it calms you down.

 

If Georgia gives up claims on the two independent republics, can it join NATO?