“but I don’t see how you can deny the universalism in American thinking. ”
I don’t think you can deny the universalism in any other big power’s thinking either. I mean, in a time where you have an autocrat risking nuclear war for an sheer power grab (no, I don’t think Russia has anything to fear from NATO with a 7000 nuke arsenal, that’s 19th century talk, no one buys that excuse), your timing couldn’t be more ironic blaming it all on the US.
I’m glad for the Europeanization of the world. It wasn’t done properly in the first centuries, but if it wasn’t for it the millions of people living in the rest of the world wouldn’t have a tenth of the quality of life that they have today. I’m glad that Europe has conquered the world culture, because not only it drastically improves the average person’s life, it also prevents other less desirable cultures from doing it. Try to put any other big power in the place of it… We’d be living horrible lives today. (And I can assure you they’d have done it, and in a way less desirable way in many aspects).
In 2000, Putin considered joining NATO. According to some sources, we weren’t to keen on it. Massive mistake. Today we wouldn’t be on the brink of a large war, and China wouldn’t be half the threat.
I am curious, how would the “Putin in NATO situation” actually work?
Imagine that Putin invades Moldova, Moldova fights back… are now all NATO members obligated to attack Moldova? Or do you assume that in the parallel universe, Putin would not invade Moldova?
In other words, could Putin simply leverage his NATO membership into conquering the former territories of Soviet Union? What exactly would have prevented him from doing so?
NATO is a defensive organization. Article 5 says “an attack on a member is an attack on all members”. So far is was only activated once, due to the 9/11 attacks. Yet the US has been in many wars since it joined NATO.
Yes, according to the NATO treaty there is only support for a victim of an attack. Here is the relevant Article 5 of the NATO treaty:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” (NATO) [emphasis by me]
My understanding is that if Greece and Turkey decide to go to war over Cyprus NATO would not be compelled to intervene one way or the other. Presumably neither country would be silly enough to try invoking article 5 in the first place and the rest of the block would be heavily pushing the peace process.
I believe their last war ended 1922. But there were times when a next war between them seemed quiet likely and NATO spend a lot of energy discouraging both sides from open hostilities, if I remember correctly.
Yes, two NATO members were involved on different sides in a civil war in a third (independent & non-NATO) country. I think that lies outside the scope of NATO’s Article 5.
If Russia were part of NATO, then something like that could have happened, too, e.g.: Romanian and Russian troops fighting each other in a civil war in the Republic of Moldova.
I don’t think it was a massive mistake. Putin would still be the autocrat he is, his countrymen would still be supporting him on his military adventures. If anything Russia would be emboldened by their NATO membership status.
Look at how much headache Turkey has already caused. NATO would most likely have de facto fallen apart with a trojan horse as big as Russia, with the US falling back on bilateral defense treaties. Which I think was Putin’s true motivation anyway.
The US has had plenty of military ventures too, and not once was NATO called in, except for 9/11. NATO is only called in when you’re attacked first.
On one hand it’s not cool to have dictators on the board (still they are in the UN). But what we would gain: no current war on Ukraine (tragedy for Ukrainians and massive danger for the world), no China being half as much a threat (also a danger to the world). What we would lose: nothing, the downsides would be the same as they are today more or less.
Also, I don’t think NATO means “you can do what you want, we forgive you” either.
After all most of his bad deeds are from fear of losing ground to the West.
“but I don’t see how you can deny the universalism in American thinking. ”
I don’t think you can deny the universalism in any other big power’s thinking either. I mean, in a time where you have an autocrat risking nuclear war for an sheer power grab (no, I don’t think Russia has anything to fear from NATO with a 7000 nuke arsenal, that’s 19th century talk, no one buys that excuse), your timing couldn’t be more ironic blaming it all on the US.
I’m glad for the Europeanization of the world. It wasn’t done properly in the first centuries, but if it wasn’t for it the millions of people living in the rest of the world wouldn’t have a tenth of the quality of life that they have today. I’m glad that Europe has conquered the world culture, because not only it drastically improves the average person’s life, it also prevents other less desirable cultures from doing it. Try to put any other big power in the place of it… We’d be living horrible lives today. (And I can assure you they’d have done it, and in a way less desirable way in many aspects).
In 2000, Putin considered joining NATO. According to some sources, we weren’t to keen on it. Massive mistake. Today we wouldn’t be on the brink of a large war, and China wouldn’t be half the threat.
I am curious, how would the “Putin in NATO situation” actually work?
Imagine that Putin invades Moldova, Moldova fights back… are now all NATO members obligated to attack Moldova? Or do you assume that in the parallel universe, Putin would not invade Moldova?
In other words, could Putin simply leverage his NATO membership into conquering the former territories of Soviet Union? What exactly would have prevented him from doing so?
NATO is a defensive organization. Article 5 says “an attack on a member is an attack on all members”. So far is was only activated once, due to the 9/11 attacks. Yet the US has been in many wars since it joined NATO.
I expect there are rules in NATO’s treaties for this kind of problems. And NATO membership, just like EU membership, comes with strings attached.
Yes, according to the NATO treaty there is only support for a victim of an attack. Here is the relevant Article 5 of the NATO treaty:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” (NATO)
[emphasis by me]
As far as I remember, Turkey and Greece, NATO members, were at war with each other.
My understanding is that if Greece and Turkey decide to go to war over Cyprus NATO would not be compelled to intervene one way or the other. Presumably neither country would be silly enough to try invoking article 5 in the first place and the rest of the block would be heavily pushing the peace process.
I believe their last war ended 1922. But there were times when a next war between them seemed quiet likely and NATO spend a lot of energy discouraging both sides from open hostilities, if I remember correctly.
I was talking about the war in Cyprus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus
Yes, two NATO members were involved on different sides in a civil war in a third (independent & non-NATO) country. I think that lies outside the scope of NATO’s Article 5.
If Russia were part of NATO, then something like that could have happened, too, e.g.:
Romanian and Russian troops fighting each other in a civil war in the Republic of Moldova.
I don’t think it was a massive mistake. Putin would still be the autocrat he is, his countrymen would still be supporting him on his military adventures. If anything Russia would be emboldened by their NATO membership status.
Look at how much headache Turkey has already caused. NATO would most likely have de facto fallen apart with a trojan horse as big as Russia, with the US falling back on bilateral defense treaties. Which I think was Putin’s true motivation anyway.
The US has had plenty of military ventures too, and not once was NATO called in, except for 9/11. NATO is only called in when you’re attacked first.
On one hand it’s not cool to have dictators on the board (still they are in the UN). But what we would gain: no current war on Ukraine (tragedy for Ukrainians and massive danger for the world), no China being half as much a threat (also a danger to the world). What we would lose: nothing, the downsides would be the same as they are today more or less.
Also, I don’t think NATO means “you can do what you want, we forgive you” either.
After all most of his bad deeds are from fear of losing ground to the West.