Should Georgia Be Admitted to NATO?

[gaelic cowboy]

Who really could be a threat against Europe, Russia and America? China? Please. India? What?

Really if you base your alliances on threats you lock yourself into defensive thinking NATO has tried and is trying to turn itself into a power projection tool this is a correct thing for a millatary alliance armies are for fighting and winning with there is no substitute for victory.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is a desirable and even possibly a noble objective to increase the EU/NATO even up to and including Russia. Desirable but its not doable first they have to want it since they think they have the upper hand with oil and gas reserves short term they wont.

Long term as China and Indian expand they will court Russia for its energy at first Russia will be top dog but the whip will be passed to the new guy eventually. This means Russia will become a toy of bigger powers.

Even now its unlikey Russia could beat a mid ranking nato member since you cant just magic up strength I predict a very humble Russia in less than twenty yrs. Russia and even EU members Talked a lot lately about a concept called a multipolar world well guess what not all poles will be equal.

If that becomes true no superpower would want a potential flashpoint country with resentful minority populations in its alliance as these can lead downs roads you never intended hence Kosovo.

I'm not interested in Russia joining the EU, but NATO is another story. Russia should expand south and eastward in an economic bloc. The fear of Russia doesn't seem to be as high in central asian nations. I don't care about a 1 government fantasy - II don't even think that is ideal - but security and democratic expansion is definitely on the agenda.

I believe that quite a bit of Russian aggression is caused by their fear and previous humiliations. They feel alone in a sea of hostility - Europe doesn't accept them. NATO could change that.

I believe that Russia in NATO would help me relax as an American - I would no longer fear China and It may help real progress move forward.

[KarlXII]

Russia should expand south and eastward in an economic bloc.

So now you want Russia to expand it's economic influence and sphere into Central Asia?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So now you want Russia to expand it's economic influence and sphere into Central Asia?

Without a doubt. I want them to shore up support in central Asia at the expense of China and India from NATO's point of view. This is what they seem to be doing naturally without much resistance anyway. I'm interested in creating a balancing act of power with NATO left, right, and center.

[gaelic cowboy]

Without a doubt. I want them to shore up support in central Asia at the expense of China and India from a NATO point of view.

They are not mature enough to do this correctly so it could only be done at swordpoint or through absorbing weak countries since that didn't work last time why is it differant now.

[KarlXII]

Without a doubt. I want them to shore up support in central Asia at the expense of China and India from NATO's point of view. This is what they seem to be doing naturally without much resistance anyway. I'm interested in creating a balancing act of power with NATO left, right, and center.

What's up with you and India?

NATO doesn't need Russia, and Russia doesn't need to expand.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They are not mature enough to do this correctly so it could only be done at swordpoint or through absorbing weak countries since that didn't work last time why is it differant now.

They are still on the road to democratic freedom, they have just made some bad moves. It would be very different from their tsarist or soviet expansions. It should be done with the utmost delicacy - like the way they have been doing it Link

Or they could just create a CATO of sorts, but I think NATO would benefit everyone. Bringing responsible, hands-off government to every nook and cranny of the planet is a good idea. You do that by slowly expanding working systems or ideas and the security necessary to make them possible.

[gaelic cowboy]

They are still on the road to democratic freedom, they have just made some bad moves. It would be very different from their tsarist or soviet expansions. It should be done with the utmost delicacy - like the way they have been doing it Link

Or they could just create a CATO of sorts, but I think NATO would benefit everyone. Bringing responsible, hands-off government to every nook and cranny of the planet is a good idea. You do that by slowly expanding working systems or ideas and the security necessary to make them possible.

Yes well thats the theory but thats all it will ever be cos they themselves would only be interested in running the show just like in the good ol days.

The thread is sidetracking a bit its supposed to be about Georgias possibly NATO membership here is where things get really complicated.

It is now almost certain Georgia will be a member not because of Russia's intervention but because they have tried to claim a veto on a nations right to join.
This is unacceptable for NATO any nation could in theory join I imagine which means other parties placing restrictions is a direct challenge that cannot be allowed to pass.

Funnily enough its likely Georgia might never have got in before this recent invasion. Georgia has as we can see ethic minority problems that can have far reaching problems.
I would be off the opinion Georgia should not be in NATO but now that Russia is trying to call a halt it must be prevented from directing NATO policy therfore seeing as Russia took the two areas of internal strife Georgia is probably stable enough for admittance.

Wouldnt that be hilarious if that turned out true.

[Koga No Goshi]

It's only about defense in the last instance. It is really about helping people to relax, avoid autocracy and spend money on the things that make the world a better place. It's funny how a military alliance can do that and all anyone hears is "military".

This is not the problem I think anyone has with it. It's the fact that you propose using it ideologically to make "the west" and the "wannabe west" a united monolithic hegemony against the whole rest of the world, basically. I would be interested to hear if you would tout the virtues of an Islamic sharia bloc attempting to organize the same thing for the same spoken purposes you just gave.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is not the problem I think anyone has with it. It's the fact that you propose using it ideologically to make "the west" and the "wannabe west" a united monolithic hegemony against the whole rest of the world, basically. I would be interested to hear if you would tout the virtues of an Islamic sharia bloc attempting to organize the same thing for the same spoken purposes you just gave.

No way. I would be fine with an Near-eastern bloc based on constitutional democratic principles.

[Sarmatian]

They are still on the road to democratic freedom, they have just made some bad moves. It would be very different from their tsarist or soviet expansions. It should be done with the utmost delicacy - like the way they have been doing it Link

Or they could just create a CATO of sorts, but I think NATO would benefit everyone. Bringing responsible, hands-off government to every nook and cranny of the planet is a good idea. You do that by slowly expanding working systems or ideas and the security necessary to make them possible.

In the S. Ossetia thread you held the position that Russia is a kleptocracy, that it's control of European energy is dangerous, that this undemocratic, aggressive, resurgent Russia needs to be contained and that NATO should intervene in Georgia, at risk of war, while now your position is that Russia is a natural ally of NATO. I don't get it, why the change?

While I understand what are you trying to say, don't you get it that it's the basically continuation of current policy? Seeking to preserve unipolar world by swallowing a bit of pride and admitting Russia in the fold to contain China and India? What next? To admit China to contain India and Brazil? The reality is that we are moving towards multipolar world, and no rearrangement within the existing block or forming new ones is gonna change that. Russia will still want its say in the world matters, within or out of NATO, as will China, India, Brazil etc...

And ask yourself why do you want Russia in NATO? I guess it's because you want to feel safe from Russia and want Russia to feel safe from NATO. That is something that can be achieved without Russia being in NATO or EU, but it takes time. Changing policies toward Russia would be a first step. And when that mutual trust is achieved, it won't matter whether Russia is or isn't in NATO. That would be just a formality.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In the S. Ossetia thread you held the position that Russia is a kleptocracy, that it's control of European energy is dangerous, that this undemocratic, aggressive, resurgent Russia needs to be contained and that NATO should intervene in Georgia, at risk of war, while now your position is that Russia is a natural ally of NATO. I don't get it, why the change?

While I understand what are you trying to say, don't you get it that it's the basically continuation of current policy? Seeking to preserve unipolar world by swallowing a bit of pride and admitting Russia in the fold to contain China and India? What next? To admit China to contain India and Brazil? The reality is that we are moving towards multipolar world, and no rearrangement within the existing block or forming new ones is gonna change that. Russia will still want its say in the world matters, within or out of NATO, as will China, India, Brazil etc...

And ask yourself why do you want Russia in NATO? I guess it's because you want to feel safe from Russia and want Russia to feel safe from NATO. That is something that can be achieved without Russia being in NATO or EU, but it takes time. Changing policies toward Russia would be a first step. And when that mutual trust is achieved, it won't matter whether Russia is or isn't in NATO. That would be just a formality.

I stand by those sentiments. See my opinions on the U.S. government.

I'm looking to ensure military defense for when we are no longer the hegemon. I believe that creating appropriate alliances now can help us deal with the natural reduction in military might that comes with economic might dissipating. I've re-evaluated my priorities. I recognize that NATO has an inherent value for ushering democratic change. If Russia is a threat now, it wasn't 10 years ago - and the best way to ensure that it won't be 10 years from now is to make it feel safe from violent external threats.

The most effective weapon that we have to help nations feel more secure is NATO.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

When it comes to Georgia being admitted to NATO my opinion is that should the member states agree on admitting them then yes. There is a lot of conjecture about how Russia will feel threatened, and this could lead to World War. I doubt it. It would put increasing pressure on Russia to behave however.

To those who claim that Georgia cannot offer anything meaningful to NATO and thus should be excluded. If hey meet the criteria for entry into NATO, but have a small military force, that is clearly incapable of defending itself from outside threats, you wish to throw to the lions (or bear in this case).

Democracy is worth defending.

What NATO really offers is security. In other words any member can rely on other members to assist it should it come under threat. Thus the more nations that are involved, the more secure all will be. So long as there are no serious ideological rifts, which could lead to the breakdown of the alliance, membership should be entertained.

While Russia at the moment would not be a valid candidate for entering NATO, should it rediscover the democratic principles that Putin has so completely undermined, I'd be all for them joining.

Of course this is just the idealistic and naive opinion of a young European living the other side of the world (Australia), and I'm underinformed. However, negotiation and agreement are the key issues here. Should member states agree on letting Georgia then that is fine. The argument that they are too small to add anything should not preclude them from the security that NATO offers. (Also note the hypocrisy, Luxembourg is a member, and they are much smaller than Georgia).

Curio

[Koga No Goshi]

Georgia is not yet a NATO member and already hawks are trying to use Georgia as a warcry against Russia. Very simply, I think Georgia's entry into NATO should be a decision made independently of some people's desires to recreate an old superpower enemy. I'm not assigning that particular slant to anyone here, but it is some of the writing on the wall in global politics, particularly here in the U.S. where coverage of the issue has been very slanted. I also think closer scrutiny should be paid to the fact that Georgia felt free to flex (abuse) military muscle because they had been led to believe that NATO via the U.S. and Bush Admin would back up pretty much any belligerent move they made.

My two cents.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Georgia is not yet a NATO member and already hawks are trying to use Georgia as a warcry against Russia. Very simply, I think Georgia's entry into NATO should be a decision made independently of some people's desires to recreate an old superpower enemy. I'm not assigning that particular slant to anyone here, but it is some of the writing on the wall in global politics, particularly here in the U.S. where coverage of the issue has been very slanted. I also think closer scrutiny should be paid to the fact that Georgia felt free to flex (abuse) military muscle because they had been led to believe that NATO via the U.S. and Bush Admin would back up pretty much any belligerent move they made.

My two cents.

We've got plenty of enemies already, why not just get more use out of the ones we have?

[cmacq]

Georgia is not yet a NATO member and already hawks are trying to use Georgia as a warcry against Russia. Very simply, I think Georgia's entry into NATO should be a decision made independently of some people's desires to recreate an old superpower enemy. I'm not assigning that particular slant to anyone here, but it is some of the writing on the wall in global politics, particularly here in the U.S. where coverage of the issue has been very slanted. I also think closer scrutiny should be paid to the fact that Georgia felt free to flex (abuse) military muscle because they had been led to believe that NATO via the U.S. and Bush Admin would back up pretty much any belligerent move they made.

My two cents.

Not sure where you get that load of spin from. One would have to be completely ignorant of world history for the last 150 years to believe that. You do understand the Russian policy of destabilization through the use of colonization and ethnic cleansing within strategic districts of former independent states? Actually, to except the Russian claim of defending a belligerent colonial population, one might have to be completely unversed in the history of Russia. There are issues of the EU’s access to strategic recourses as well as free-market access and the survival of several of central Asian republics, as well.


CmacQ

[Husar]

Victory will not be achieved before all of earth's human nations are part of NATO.
At that point we can also finally use NATO to defend against them octosquids, aliens and bacteria.

[CountArach]

We've got plenty of enemies already, why not just get more use out of the ones we have?

I have an idea - you could reconcile with them

[KukriKhan]

Long-term strategy: admit Columbia to NATO, to put the final nail into the concept of the treaty being only for "north atlantic" nations. After that, anyone can join; we ditch the UN, superceded by NATO, which becomes the de-facto League of Democratic Nations (not that Columbia is all that democratic; I just pulled the first sub-equator nation I thought of out of thin air).

Then, Georgia, Ukraine, Russia, China...

[CountArach]

Would you prefer Venezuela to Columbia?

[KukriKhan]

Would you prefer Venezuela to Columbia?

Maybe Liberia first.

[CrossLOPER]

Actually, to except the Russian claim of defending a belligerent colonial population, one might have to be completely unversed in the history of Russia.

...and you would have to be completely unversed in the history of Caucasia to believe that the Georgian government has anything on good intentions.

Then again, everybody here is an expert on foreign affairs.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not sure where you get that load of spin from. One would have to be completely ignorant of world history for the last 150 years to believe that. You do understand the American policy of destabilization through the use of economic colonization and cultural cleansing within strategic districts of former independent states? Actually, to except the American claim of defending a belligerent colonial population, one might have to be completely unversed in the history of America. There are issues of the EU’s access to strategic recourses as well as free-market access and the survival of several of central Asian republics, as well.


CmacQ

There, fixed it for you

[cmacq]

Crossloper,

then can you tell us, for what other cause would Russia invade another country; to protect around 2000 (about 2% of the population) ethnic Russians living there? And Kada-gar, this is why we don’t shy away from truth, and one must then assume you agree with me? It just seems that our poppet states are less maladjusted then those created by others. Due to the nature of my upbringing and cultural heritage I’m of course a bit pragmatic, not so much the fool that doesn’t understand might’s ability to make right. In other words I’m not one to always ask ‘why,’ rather I ask ‘why not.’ Also when America did conduct such a policy, we must all remember that a very large element of said colonial population was typically composed of those then recently washed from the formerly teeming shores of Europe, whom with the exception of the Bear, as seen of late again fallen into paralyzes and pathetic decay. As far as economic colonization, that’s something one must take personal responsibility for themselves.



CmacQ

[Kadagar_AV]

You seem to have a problem spelling my name, Cmacq (in various threads). It's not that hard... Give it one more shot:)

One life, a thousand, a million.... How many lifes do you have to protect to act defensively? Do you have a working formula for how to calculate human lives, or what?

Russia went in, protected their people, and then withdrew. What's the problem?

[cmacq]

You seem to have a problem spelling my name, Cmacq (in various threads). It's not that hard... Give it one more shot:)

One life, a thousand, a million.... How many lifes do you have to protect to act defensively? Do you have a working formula for how to calculate human lives, or what?

Russia went in, protected their people, and then withdrew. What's the problem?

I see, a question one might ask of the Russians? You honestly see no indirect threat to eliminate or control access to, and by extention a source of Western European strategic energy supply? Then I guess its all true; the Russ are simply the peace-loving, peaceful peoples of the ancient Grand Duchy, and through happenstance and no fault of their own the largest Empire in the history of human kind, just fell onto them. If you all aren’t yet, you should look into getting yourselves put on the payroll. It would be more the pity to waste such conviction without any form of compensation.


CmacQ

[Koga No Goshi]

I see, a question one might ask of the Russians? You honestly see no indirect threat to eliminate or control access to, and by extention a source of Western European strategic energy supply? Then I guess its all true; the Russ are simply the peace-loving, peaceful peoples of the ancient Grand Duchy, and through happenstance and no fault of their own the largest Empire in the history of human kind, just fell onto them.


CmacQ

There's some blowhard over in Russia on a message board typing this exact same thing, about Americans and the fascist they elected twice to renew American imperialism.

I love double standards.

[Jolt]

Never happen Russia is too big geographically the E.U. could never pay for all the stuff to build, fix up, reform etc etc. For Russia to enter into membership talks current members would have to approve thats obviously not going to happen for reasons we all already are aware of. Then there is also the problem that Russia governments really see things a bit differant to the rest of us I see nascent democracy they see encirclement of enemies.

I know the possibility would be rather weak, but I mentioned it from an confrontational point of view with the USA. With Russia in the EU, it would really become EU vs USA thingy, rather than Russia vs USA plus EU.

[cmacq]

There's some blowhard over in Russia on a message board typing this exact same thing, about Americans and the fascist they elected twice to renew American imperialism.

I love double standards.

Are you sure that wasn’t, you???

Please don't get me wrong, I understand America Imperialism very well, as well I know the fascist left and right in the US. However, in the end, after all the spin is said and done, and the BS washed away, it all comes down to whom one wants to overcome the other, and how we all keep from getting crushed in the process. Some are just less honest and much more timid about expressing this, than are others. However, like any junior members of a dysfunctional family, apparently not so timid to condemn a benefactor, while condoning the acts of a malefactor. In the current case it is for each to decide who plays which role.

One should always get something out of picking sides. You see, I embrace the hypocrisy and except it on its own terms. It’s one of human kinds most amusing and favored talents. One might even say, 'I love double standards,' as much as, 'the overly self righteous.'


Sorry, I have to go; a ton of work awaits.




CmacQ

[Kadagar_AV]

cmacq, I do not support aggression in any form...

However, I do fail to see how this makes Russia the "bad gys", compared to, say, the US.

As you said, might is right, that is how the world works.

Russia in this case was right:)