In my opinion it's a rotten idea. Some others have commented on it, such as NRO:
It is a relief that Georgia was not permitted into NATO ahead of Russia's clearly orchestrated invasion. Yes, you heard correctly, a relief.
Why? Here's why: Is there anyone who thinks for a second that any of the NATO members would have risen to the occasion to defend a newly admitted Georgia against "mighty Russia"?
It is much more than possible that Russian armor would have been confronted with flurries of impenetrable "strongly worded statements." Kind of like now. Only, had NATO failed to rise to defend a member state — which is wholly plausible — NATO would have been exposed as nothing more than the paper it is constructed around.
There may be some credibility to the claim that NATO membership would have served as a deterrent for Russia, thus preventing the invasion. Perhaps. Credibility, but not assurance. And what if Putin, who cares little about world opinion (perhaps his greatest asset), had called the NATO bluff? Then what?
Malcolm Rifkind:
Yet weak is exactly how the West will be perceived if it extends NATO membership to nations it has no intention of defending. Had Georgia already been a member of the defensive alliance, it is less likely that Russia would have behaved in the way it did.
However, it is not unlikely. The Caucasus are vital to the security of Russia's most southerly regions. Had deterrence failed, there is very little chance that the Russian invasion could have been repelled. As a result, the guarantee of Article Five which Western European countries have relied on since the dawn of the Cold War would have been shattered, together with NATO's credibility.
The issue at hand, at least for political leaders in Western Europe, is not just whether it is in the interests of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. It is whether it is in the interests of existing members to admit them.
Another Orgah has expressed a rather messianic view that not only should Georgia be admitted to NATO, but so should Russia once they behave "acceptably." What, I am forced to wonder, is the point of a defense treaty if it becomes universal? Does it then mean anything?
Bookmarks