4 ms·

Russia in EU would mean also Russia in NATO. Russia wanted to join NATO in 1990s and the answer of the alliance was "No". IIRC, one of the reasons behind that w

Russia in EU would mean also Russia in NATO. Russia wanted to join NATO in 1990s and the answer of the alliance was "No". IIRC, one of the reasons behind that was that this means direct border with China. China is more important and there were hopes that China will democratize as it integrates itself into global economy, so that was an unnecessary risk. The times have changed, now everyone talks about containment - having Russia as part of the biggest military and economic alliance in history would mean a lot for it. But this also means including a right wing conservative power with the economy of the similar size to Germany, twice more people, nuclear weapons and ideology similar to the one of Poland or Hungary. Making Putin leave (or waiting until he dies) will not be enough to change this.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
I think Russia in the EU would mean no more NATO. NATO is first and foremost a tool of American power in Europe and against Russia. If the geopolitical landscape changed so much that Russia decided to join the EU and was accepted, I think it would have to mean that the EU/Europe had shifted (back) to standing up on its own. > with the economy of the similar size to Germany Russia's economy is not that big. Nominal GDP is between Spain and Italy.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >NATO is first and foremost a tool of American power in Europe and against Russia Sure, but that's only because Russian and US foreign policy goals are so opposed. Other than their territorial ambitions in Europe this need not be the case.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Not 'only'. That's key. Different countries have different interests. Powerful enough countries can remain independent and pursue them as they see fit. The US want to keep control of Europe, that's partly what NATO is for. There's no reason for Russia to be OK with that. In fact no European country should be OK with that but for historically reasons I think they reckon that this is better than the fear of letting the "good old ways" (i.e. France or Germany trying to take over) come back, although Germany has pretty much taken over by peaceful means at this point, especially since Brexit...
    - bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
      > In fact no European country should be OK with that Russia's brutal annexations in the east following WWII pretty much assured that all European countries were, in fact OK with it.
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
        WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. That led to Eastern Europe being invaded/liberated by the USSR and Western Europe being invaded/liberated by the US. It's not correct to say that all Western European countries were/are OK with US power and presence. The major powers were divided on that. Germany obviously did not really have any say, France did not want the US to stay, the UK thought that it'd help them look more important than they had become. But smaller countries may see the US as a guarantee against larger neighbours trying to invade again, as I mentioned, a bit like South Korea does.
        Viliam1234 5y ago
        > WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. Germany, and also that other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

mytailorisrich 5y ago

I think Russia in the EU would mean no more NATO. NATO is first and foremost a tool of American power in Europe and against Russia. If the geopolitical landscape changed so much that Russia decided to join the EU and was accepted, I think it would have to mean that the EU/Europe had shifted (back) to standing up on its own. > with the economy of the similar size to Germany Russia's economy is not that big. Nominal GDP is between Spain and Italy.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>NATO is first and foremost a tool of American power in Europe and against Russia Sure, but that's only because Russian and US foreign policy goals are so opposed. Other than their territorial ambitions in Europe this need not be the case.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Not 'only'. That's key. Different countries have different interests. Powerful enough countries can remain independent and pursue them as they see fit. The US want to keep control of Europe, that's partly what NATO is for. There's no reason for Russia to be OK with that. In fact no European country should be OK with that but for historically reasons I think they reckon that this is better than the fear of letting the "good old ways" (i.e. France or Germany trying to take over) come back, although Germany has pretty much taken over by peaceful means at this point, especially since Brexit...
  - bigbizisverywyz 5y ago
    > In fact no European country should be OK with that Russia's brutal annexations in the east following WWII pretty much assured that all European countries were, in fact OK with it.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. That led to Eastern Europe being invaded/liberated by the USSR and Western Europe being invaded/liberated by the US. It's not correct to say that all Western European countries were/are OK with US power and presence. The major powers were divided on that. Germany obviously did not really have any say, France did not want the US to stay, the UK thought that it'd help them look more important than they had become. But smaller countries may see the US as a guarantee against larger neighbours trying to invade again, as I mentioned, a bit like South Korea does.
      - Viliam1234 5y ago
        > WWII was the result of Germany trying to take over the continent. Germany, and also that other country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...