Should Georgia Be Admitted to NATO?

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?

No. Georgia is incapable of being a serious military asset to the rest of NATO in the case of war and admitting them would just be a provocative move against Russia. It would be like Russia signing an alliance with Canada or Mexico to align against us, like you stated in the other thread.

Only nations that have something major to contribute militarily should be allowed to join NATO. If you believe Georgia can contribute, they should join. If not, they should not join.

If Russia invaded a NATO Georgia would be the same as Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Nothing could really be done in time to save the country, but the fighting would erupt elsewhere and that elsewhere might not run as well for the Russians as their Georgian campaign did. To be honest, comparing fighting Georgia's minuscule army in a six days war with fighting the entire NATO alliance is wierd. That taking off from the premise that NATO would fulfill it's duty to defend every single member in the alliance (As it honestly should and without any hesitation)

The problem is the distance that goes on between being a member of NATO and not being.

As for being a valuable asset, the only one I can immediatly remember is about opening a Southern front against the Russians, fighting the Russians together with most of the Turkish Army.

Georgia and Ukraine could help solidify a NATO naval presence in the black sea that would be otherwise closed off to real deterrent. Plus I don't believe that Russia would have done what it had if they were part of NATO. The jig will be up once they are in the alliance. Also, Georgian leadership will be much less russophobic after they feel more secure.

Isnt it the North Atlantic Treaty organization for a reason??? last time i checked the Pontus Euxine isnt the North atlantic by a long shot...Only country who gets an exception to that in my book is turkey.

(another half joke...The debate tonight started this....)

Admitting Georgia into NATO won't really benefit the organization, however, should Russian aggression persist in the Caucasus, Georgia may be either A. The first campaign in a NATO-Russian War or B. The country that exposes NATO as, as stated before, the paper it is constructed around.

The United States agreed not to expand NATO into Russia's Sphere of Influence and they should stand by that. Doing anything else will just lead to large-scale conflict with Russia as it becomes increasingly desperate to try to leave a mark on this world.

Keeping NATO as it is will most likely be better for Russia and NATO alike in that it will cause less irritation to both parties and allow for ample security on both sides.

Fortunately they will still most likely be brought into the fold irrespective of the judgments on this forum. If Russia is going to start a nuclear war because its border nations realize westernized security - then they are a legitimate threat to guard against. They are a dying breed - a hyper-nationalist, isolated, paranoid, rogue power. We need to tame the wild beast and get them acquainted with a solid west. We've started a confederacy of western States - they think they don't want in, but they do.

georgia? Possibly - the pipeline is an asset worth protecting.
Ukraine? Definitely.

~:smoking:

One question.

What about Russia in the EU? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Fortunately they will still most likely be brought into the fold irrespective of the judgments on this forum. If Russia is going to start a nuclear war because its border nations realize westernized security - then they are a legitimate threat to guard against. They are a dying breed - a hyper-nationalist, isolated, paranoid, rogue power. We need to tame the wild beast and get them acquainted with a solid west. We've started a confederacy of western States - they think they don't want in, but they do.

---

Democratic states on the border are not an issue. Western-backed half-hearted democracies led by President Idiot, dotted with NATO military bases and missile sites pointing at Moscow are an issue.

Really, you seem to love the idea of going to a war with Russia. As Lemur told you in the other thread, go join the Georgian army. Be the first to fight before the menace. That is assuming that you don't start having a bad taste after a month or so. :beam:

You'd figure at some-point in time someone would've warned us against entangling alliances.....oh well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

You'd figure at some-point in time someone would've warned us against entangling alliances.....oh well

---

But that was about, what, 300 years ago? You don't think anything's changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

But that was about, what, 300 years ago? You don't think anything's changed?

---

I am a huge proponent of the KISS method of goverment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Democratic states on the border are not an issue. Western-backed half-hearted democracies led by President Idiot, dotted with NATO military bases and missile sites pointing at Moscow are an issue.

Really, you seem to love the idea of going to a war with Russia. As Lemur told you in the other thread, go join the Georgian army. Be the first to fight before the menace. That is assuming that you don't start having a bad taste after a month or so. :beam:

---

I couldn't really sum up my analysis of it any better. I think the front that this is legitimate concern for Georgia or legitimate concern over supposed international interests we have in Georgia is pretense for bellicosity towards Russia. NATO is a military alliance, and should not be an ideological pulpit, if Georgia can be a meaningful part of NATO fine. If not, admitting them just to sap at Russia's borders is provocative and not worth the risk of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I couldn't really sum up my analysis of it any better. I think the front that this is legitimate concern for Georgia or legitimate concern over supposed international interests we have in Georgia is pretense for bellicosity towards Russia. NATO is a military alliance, and should not be an ideological pulpit, if Georgia can be a meaningful part of NATO fine. If not, admitting them just to sap at Russia's borders is provocative and not worth the risk of war.

---

NATO is security. It helps nations (except for ours) to focus on their domestic reforms rather than elect strongmen to protect them from invasion. Russia will be part of it one day if they cut the crap and recognize that we don't want a fight. It isn't a threat to Russia as it is not like the U.S. empire is knocking at their door - as many European anti-Americans can attest to. If we were annexing land their reservations would make sense - but we are not, so they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

[NATO] isn't a threat to Russia as it is not like the U.S. empire is knocking at their door - as many European anti-Americans can attest to.

---

Um, yeah, see, here's the problem — that's not how Russia sees it. And I doubt they will ever take such a benign view of NATO. Remember that the alliance was formed with the express purpose of containing the Soviet Union and responding to them militarily. That's a fact that is not lost on Russia.

I seriously doubt they want to join NATO, and any attempt to get them in would end in bitter failure. That's just la-la fantasyland, man.

If they want to preserve their freedom from Russia, don't enter, Georgia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, yeah, see, here's the problem — that's not how Russia sees it. And I doubt they will ever take such a benign view of NATO. Remember that the alliance was formed with the express purpose of containing the Soviet Union and responding to them militarily. That's a fact that is not lost on Russia.

I seriously doubt they want to join NATO, and any attempt to get them in would end in bitter failure. That's just la-la fantasyland, man.

---

Is it?

2000 - Putin mentions his desire to join NATO
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...to-722225.html

Gorbachev suggested it after the fall of the Soviet Union

Yeltsin suggested it as well
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A967958260

I guess I'm dancing around la-la fantasy land. With the expansion of the EU and eventual centralization of that state, the U.S. will no doubt look for a counterweight in the alliance that Canada simply can't provide. We could use that as an excuse to help create a central Asian union similar to the one the Russian Federation has been working on. I'm all about expanding security and helping nations rely less on military deterrence. NATO has provided an excuse for European nations to spend drastically less on defense. Russia is looking for security from China above all else and needs to realize that the west will be an ally; they are part of the west for craps sake.

The whole deal is this - If someone was to say 70 years ago that European nations would be part of one superstate without violent annexation people would call you crazy - possibly in la-la land. It is possible and desirable to create a superstate in central Asia within NATO - with the practical purpose of containing China and India and promoting democratic, socio-capitalist expansion. It also wouldn't be bad to have a massive, functional state that holds massive energy reserves and a small population within the confines of NATO.

It is necessary for security, it is desirable for both parties, and it is doable in the long term. Why is that fantasy land?

I think these fancy arguments all still basically dance around the fact that Georgia is not a significant factor in the balance of power between the west and Russia. Playing around with this is just a pretext to provoke confrontation, IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I think these fancy arguments all still basically dance around the fact that Georgia is not a significant factor in the balance of power between the west and Russia. Playing around with this is just a pretext to provoke confrontation, IMHO.

---

Maybe my "fancy arguments" can be my dancing partner when we are dancing around la-la fantasy land?

Yes - we are trying to provoke confrontation. Why shouldn't we want to de-stabilize the one thing that is keeping China out of the largest, most resource dense, least populated per square mile country in the world?

Why do we want a weak or hostile Russia? We simply want a democratic Russia that is a responsible player in global progression.

If Russia were to enter NATO, we wouldn't need NATO.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

If Russia were to enter NATO, we wouldn't need NATO.....

---

Quote:

---

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. The NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, [3] and the organization constitutes a system of collective defense whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

---

Why would any rational person want to get rid of that?

We'd still need it against any threats coming from south, east or west of the North Atlantic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

If Russia were to enter NATO, we wouldn't need NATO.....

---

Well, you know, except for defending against China, India, and any other potential superpower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Well, you know, except for defending against China, India, and any other potential superpower.

---

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

One question.

What about Russia in the EU? :P

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Is it?

2000 - Putin mentions his desire to join NATO
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...to-722225.html

Gorbachev suggested it after the fall of the Soviet Union

Yeltsin suggested it as well
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A967958260

I guess I'm dancing around la-la fantasy land. With the expansion of the EU and eventual centralization of that state, the U.S. will no doubt look for a counterweight in the alliance that Canada simply can't provide. We could use that as an excuse to help create a central Asian union similar to the one the Russian Federation has been working on. I'm all about expanding security and helping nations rely less on military deterrence. NATO has provided an excuse for European nations to spend drastically less on defense. Russia is looking for security from China above all else and needs to realize that the west will be an ally; they are part of the west for craps sake.

The whole deal is this - If someone was to say 70 years ago that European nations would be part of one superstate without violent annexation people would call you crazy - possibly in la-la land. It is possible and desirable to create a superstate in central Asia within NATO - with the practical purpose of containing China and India and promoting democratic, socio-capitalist expansion. It also wouldn't be bad to have a massive, functional state that holds massive energy reserves and a small population within the confines of NATO.

It is necessary for security, it is desirable for both parties, and it is doable in the long term. Why is that fantasy land?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Why would any rational person want to get rid of that?

We'd still need it against any threats coming from south, east or west of the North Atlantic.

---

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