OP-ED: How To Twist Russia's Arm: Let It Join NATO, By Andrew Meier, Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2008
Interesting argument. It does seem like history will judge us harshly for missing the chance to integrate Russia better when we had the chance. We were petty when we could have been grand, and now we're letting something truly small and meaningless drive everything. We let small countries drive our grand strategy, and that's just plain dumb.
(Thanks: Ricardo Marquez)
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
I felt this way a decade ago. Back then it was celibratory in nature. Now, it will be harder than then. It will become "keep your enemies closer" looking.
Posted by Robert Langland
|
August 22, 2008 7:46 AM
Seems to me that we have a NATO identity crisis - what is it and what is its purpose? It was set up by Kennan/Acheson to implement the containment policy. According to PNM, we had "mission accomplished" on containment at the end of the Cold War, and NATO then went into the Gap-shrinking business, which it did very effectively shrinking the Gap in Europe (Yugoslavia), but not so well when it ventured out of Europe (Afghanistan), and it has now drifted back towards a containment rationale to deal with "resurgent Russia." I guess some foreign policy "realists" would say that it was never in the Gap-shrinking business, and that Yugoslavia was really all about containment to suppress Serbia as Russia's proxy. Seems to me that you've got 2 very different worldviews here. I know which one I prefer, but I'm not running things.
Posted by stuart abrams | August 22, 2008 12:25 PM
Seems to me this statement of old has it precisely backwards:
""For NATO," he added, "there is a danger of dilution.""
Bringing Russia into NATO would force said organization to focus its efforts on problems the US, Canada, Europe and Russia can agree on. Those problems would then receive a lot more attention than they currently do and be solved faster.
Posted by Michael
|
August 22, 2008 11:27 PM