What will Russia's joining the NATO bloc lead to?


Negotiations on guarantees not to expand the anti-Russian military NATO bloc to the East have actually failed. The North Atlantic Alliance has made it clear that its doors are open to new members, including Ukraine and Georgia. “Putin's ultimatum”, alas, did not work, and some measures of a military-technical nature will have to be taken. But what if Moscow makes a knight's move and joins NATO itself?


The idea of ​​the possibility of Russia, and earlier the USSR, joining the North Atlantic Alliance has a long history. She always slowed down from the "other side", but perhaps something has already changed?

We want the USA not


Almost immediately after the end of the Second World War, another one began between the victor countries, already "Cold". For its part, the West erected the "Iron Curtain", and the North Atlantic Alliance acquired a clearly expressed anti-Soviet orientation. Shortly before the admission of Germany to NATO in 1954, the Kremlin raised the question of joining the alliance of the USSR itself, provided that its members assumed a commitment not to interfere in each other's internal affairs, which would neutralize the very radical essence of the military bloc from within. The United States, Great Britain and France considered such a proposal from Moscow "unworthy of discussion", and a year later Germany joined NATO.

For the second time, the USSR considered the possibility of joining the North Atlantic Alliance in 1983 with the aim of global detente. But by a strange coincidence, it was then that the tragic incident with the South Korean Boeing occurred, when, apparently, some foreign special services deliberately set the liner under the Soviet air defense. The USSR was immediately proclaimed an "evil empire", and the Able Archer headquarters exercises were held in Europe to simulate a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. The degree of pre-war tension has only grown.

For the third time, they thought about joining the North Atlantic Alliance in 1991 under President Yeltsin after the collapse of the USSR. But instead, in 1994, the bloc launched the Partnership for Peace program without Russia's participation, and then the First Chechen War began, and relations with the West deteriorated sharply. NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia became another test for them.

The last time at the highest level, the newly-baked President Putin spoke favorably about the possibility of joining the North Atlantic Alliance in 2000:

Why not? I do not exclude such a possibility - in the event that Russia's interests are taken into account, if it becomes a full partner.

It became a sensation, but again it did not go beyond words. No one was going to speak on an equal footing with Moscow; instead, Brussels was pushing its borders further and further to the East, to ours. What could have changed?

We don't want it anymore, but does the USA want it?


Answering the question about the possibility of the Russian Federation joining NATO on an equal footing, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry in an interview with the "mouthpiece of the Kremlin" Vladimir Solovyov spoke briefly and decisively:

Of course not. I do not see such a situation.

Now let's look at the reaction of the "mouthpiece of the West", our so-called "liberal intelligentsia". The so-called Congress of the Russian intelligentsia on the Echo of Moscow website published an appeal for several days calling for Russia to be included in the NATO bloc:

We are on the verge of a big war - we have been waging small wars in recent years. We opposed ourselves to the whole world, having gathered around us only a few archaic dictatorships that are in vassalage from us. In the future, the transformation of our country into a province of China ...
We want our country today and in the future to be worthy of its great culture, its best achievements and victories. Our common victory over world evil in World War II. We want Russia to be not an enemy of European civilization, but its integral part ...

Among the self-proclaimed "intellectuals" were Leonid Gozman, Andrei Piontkovsky, Valery Borshov, foreign agent Lev Ponomarev, and Anatoly Chubais's father-in-law, director Andrei Smirnov. For whose interests this liberal get-together is actually drowning, it has long been clear. It is quite indicative that the word “China” sounded in their “appeal”.

Oddly enough, Russia as part of the North Atlantic Alliance is really beneficial to the United States today, but only as an additional counterbalance to the PRC. To contain the Middle Kingdom in the Asia-Pacific region, the United States, Great Britain and Australia created the AUKUS block. However, from the north, China has a reliable "support" and rear in the form of Russia with its natural resources, oil and gas, land transit capabilities and the Northern Sea Route, as well as many other "goodies". But what if Russia becomes an ally of the United States in the NATO bloc, as the domestic "intellectuals" wish?

If the generous flow of raw materials at a reasonable price suddenly stops, the transit of Chinese goods towards Europe will stop, and instead of friendship with Beijing, Moscow will begin to build defensive or even offensive lines on the border with China, China will be almost completely isolated. Compressed from all sides by NATO and AUKUS, he will eventually be forced to capitulate and agree to all conditions of Washington, and then it will be Russia’s turn to pay for the wrong choice of friends and partners. If the PRC does not surrender without a fight, then the Russian soldiers will be given the "honorable right" to fight the PLA instead of the Americans.

Approximately such prospects shine for Russia if it joins the North Atlantic Alliance today. Needless to say that such scenarios should be avoided in every possible way? You have to listen to what Russian liberals say and just do the opposite. Then everything will be fine.
12 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 12 January 2022 17: 37
    -5
    For whose interests this liberal get-together is actually drowning, it has long been clear.

    And for whose interests is Mr. Marzhetsky drowning? Then he proposes to build a bunch of aircraft carriers to protect the Kuril Islands (which are home to a couple of tens of thousands of people, and for the cost of an aircraft carrier, you can rebuild a new Yekaterinburg). Then he proposes to arrange a bloodbath in Ukraine, ruinous for the Russian Federation. It looks like he's some kind of foreign agent.

    the transit of Chinese goods towards Europe will stop,

    Transit to NATO countries? If NATO goes to war with China, why would they need transit to NATO countries?

    Does anyone have doubts that an equal alliance with China is impossible?
    1. isofat Offline isofat
      isofat (isofat) 12 January 2022 18: 35
      0
      Olezhek, master of the artistic word, how do you regard mutually beneficial union, what is it, on an equal footing? laughing
  3. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 12 January 2022 17: 51
    +4
    Quote: Oleg Rambover
    And for whose interests is Mr. Marzhetsky drowning? Then he proposes to build a bunch of aircraft carriers to protect the Kuril Islands (which are home to a couple of tens of thousands of people, and for the cost of an aircraft carrier, you can rebuild a new Yekaterinburg). Then he proposes to arrange a bloodbath in Ukraine, ruinous for the Russian Federation. It looks like he's some kind of foreign agent.

    Look who's Talking smile And you don't need the Kuril Islands in figs, right? And Ukraine too?
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 12 January 2022 21: 26
      -2
      I just hinted transparently that some see the beautiful Russia of the future in a whirlwind of violent attacks, others in good neighborly cooperation with their neighbors. People may have different views on what is good for the citizens of Russia.
      What worries you how I feel about the Kuriles? It would be better to worry about how Putin treats them, who wanted to exchange them for a peace treaty with Japan and an American base. If he succeeded, he would treat the return of Tarabarov Island, half of Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island and Bolshoi Island on the Amur in 2005. Or as the transfer of the villages of Uryan-Uba and Khrakh-Uba to Azerbaijan in 2010. Moreover, I am sure no one in their right mind, the Kuril Islands will not be taken away from the Russian Federation by force. Even without AUG, the price is like the entire Primorsky Territory + a kidney from every inhabitant of this region.
      And Ukraine, at the cost of thousands of lives of its citizens and citizens of the Russian Federation, and even at the cost of the well-being of my family, I really don’t need a fig.

      You seem to be on the left. It seemed to me that a leftist could not be an imperialist like you. Should be for the peace of friendship gum. An internationalist in short. How does right-wing imperialism coexist in you with leftism?
  4. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 12 January 2022 17: 59
    -1
    Who was NATO created against? The question is simple, answer. Then the next question: "Next what?" Bases, bio laboratories all over Russia? Explain how Russia will exist in this bloc and on what rights? Remind you how during EBN the CIA-shniki opened doors with their feet? Do not upset me and do not become on a par with the liberals!
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 13 January 2022 10: 10
      0
      Why did I upset you? I kind of said that we do not need any entry into the NATO bloc.
  5. Navigator Offline Navigator
    Navigator (Andrei) 12 January 2022 18: 15
    +2
    I read the title of the article and the first thought that the author is Mr. Marzhetsky. I guessed it. Only he writes articles that are far from reality with reasoning about anything. I recommend doing fantasy writing or fighting fiction. I think you can do it. And the main thing is that you can read with pleasure with the impossibility of reproaching for the unrealistic events.
  6. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 12 January 2022 19: 07
    0
    And either the inadequacy of a number of Russian politicians and political scientists bordering on psychopathology, or profound unprofessionalism, or really outright betrayal can explain their continuing attempts to push through the idea of ​​Russia's joining NATO. Meanwhile, it is known that when, a year after Stalin's death, Moscow made a similar request, it was refused. And exactly one year later, West Germany was admitted to the Alliance - a more than eloquent fact. In May 1990, they returned to the topic again - this time at the initiative of M. Gorbachev, during his meeting with J. Baker in Moscow. “Baker assured me,” Gorbachev said, “that his administration’s policy was not aimed at tearing Eastern Europe away from the Soviet Union. Before, he admitted, we had such a line. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe and doing it together in you ... Objection to Baker, I seriously, and not in the form of hints, as before, raised the question of the Soviet Union's entry into NATO. Then this organization would immediately lose, both in essence and in form, its former purpose as a weapon of the Cold War, and it would be possible to jointly build pan-European security in the context of the OSCE.

    Baker avoided this directly posed question in every possible way ... ”(Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 07, 1999).

    It would seem that everything was clear, but such clarity did not in the least change the general line of Gorbachev's behavior; a Regularly dragging out the topic of Russia's accession to NATO by politicians of all sizes, despite repeated decisive refusals, puts it in the humiliating position of a dependent supplicant and allows not to stand on ceremony in expressions. For example, in early 1997, the Washington Post published an article by Henry Kissinger, in which he openly mocked “no Rybkins or myaskins' ideas” about Russia's accession to NATO. For, he wrote frankly, Russia will not see NATO membership as its ears: the bloc was not created for this.

    Today, exactly what it was created for is being realized: as much as possible advance to the east and "enveloping" the former powerful enemy from the flanks, favorable conditions for which were created not only by the collapse of the USSR, but also by a series of local wars unfolding in the post-Soviet space. It is also clear that the pushing back of the UN to a secondary role by the North Atlantic Alliance, which became a reality during NATO's Kosovo aggression, was originally included in the plan of the bloc.
  7. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 12 January 2022 19: 17
    0
    Former US Ambassador to the UN David Ebshire, Former US Ambassador to Germany Robert Burt and CIA Director James Woolsey presented the doctrine of the "Transformed Atlantic Alliance", accompanied by a more than unambiguous comment: "A watchdog is needed, and NATO is a logical candidate for this role." From now on, however, it was not only the historical western space that had to guard the "dog". NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner, "Father" of the Partnership for Peace program, expanded tasks: "The key to NATO's transformation is to spread its influence over the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the newly independent republics of the Soviet Union.".
  8. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 13 January 2022 10: 03
    0
    Quote: Navigator
    I recommend writing about fantasy or combat fiction. I think you will succeed. And most importantly, that you can read with pleasure with the inability to reproach for the unrealistic events.

    Thank you, of course. By the way, I was having fun. smile He wrote his first stories in the 8th grade, his first fantasy novel at the age of 20. tongue

    I read the title of the article and the first thought is that the author is Mr. Marzhetsky. Guessed. Only he writes articles that are far from reality with arguments about nothing.

    And as for reasoning about nothing, but who are the judges? Reality, it is such, it can have different branches of development. Perhaps I just see more and further than you, have you thought about this?
  9. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 13 January 2022 10: 08
    0
    Quote: Oleg Rambover
    I just hinted transparently that some see the beautiful Russia of the future in a whirlwind of violent attacks, others in good neighborly cooperation with their neighbors. People may have different views on what is good for the citizens of Russia.
    What worries you how I feel about the Kuriles? It would be better to worry about how Putin treats them, who wanted to exchange them for a peace treaty with Japan and an American base. If he succeeded, he would treat the return of Tarabarov Island, half of Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island and Bolshoi Island on the Amur in 2005. Or as the transfer of the villages of Uryan-Uba and Khrakh-Uba to Azerbaijan in 2010. Moreover, I am sure no one in their right mind, the Kuril Islands will not be taken away from the Russian Federation by force. Even without AUG, the price is like the entire Primorsky Territory + a kidney from every inhabitant of this region.
    And Ukraine, at the cost of thousands of lives of its citizens and citizens of the Russian Federation, and even at the cost of the well-being of my family, I really don’t need a fig.

    You seem to be on the left. It seemed to me that a leftist could not be an imperialist like you. Should be for the peace of friendship gum. An internationalist in short. How does right-wing imperialism coexist in you with leftism?

    I am for friendship according to our conditions, therefore it is necessary to be with fists. Otherwise, "friends" will sit on the neck smile
    As for the rest, it's your opinion, you have the right. My opinion is different. hi
  10. Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 13 January 2022 12: 41
    0
    This is a strange question, to say the least.
    By asking ourselves such questions, we are trying to "dodge" what we really do not want to do.

    Negotiations on guarantees not to expand the anti-Russian NATO military bloc to the East actually failed.

    Moreover, Nuland recently invited Finland and Sweden to join NATO as well.
    NATO is actually ready to respond to our ultimatum, or is already responding with its own ultimatum.
    Why is this happening?
    Our confrontation with the States (including their instrument - NATO) is expressed by the following scheme:
    1. Until our ultimatum:
    - The states are gradually tightening the "noose" around our neck
    - We declare our concerns and "red lines"
    The States were fine with this situation.
    2. After our ultimatum, the situation looks like this:
    - The states continue to gradually tighten the "noose" around our neck
    - We declare our demands and military-technical threats
    3. After the transition to military-technical threats, the situation will look like this:
    - The States will accelerate the tightening of the "stranglehold" around our neck, accept new NATO members on an accelerated basis, and take part in the arms race and the creation of military-technical threats, their military-industrial complex will gladly capitalize on this
    - We will try our best to withstand the confrontation in the creation of military-technical threats
    “The world at this time will become more and more dangerous and unpredictable. As danger and unpredictability increase, the world as a state will rapidly depreciate.
    - The side that fails the race first will be forced to surrender, or go to the "hot" phase, i.e. to war. In a world in which the world will already be devalued, this will happen easily and imperceptibly.
    Thus, this is the path of sliding towards a GUARANTEED global war.
    What is the "root" of this situation?
    It lies in the fact that both sides, and above all, the Americans, in this version "to the last" can live in the old, peaceful reality. This allows them, to the last, not to take seriously the price that will have to be paid in the war.
    It is not for nothing that the Americans, as a mantra, mainly for themselves, are repeating the threat of our offensive in Ukraine, and not a blow to them. This is also facilitated by the joint statement of the "nuclear five" on the prevention of nuclear war.
    We need ANOTHER ANOTHER from the Americans.
    We need them NOW to realize the price they will have to pay.
    Therefore, you need a DIFFERENT OPTION.
    It is necessary to declare our withdrawal from the joint statement of the "nuclear five".
    Declare readiness to start a nuclear war against the United States and its NATO allies.
    It is necessary to make one, go several warning shots with nuclear weapons at our ranges. You may need a warning shot at a deserted island, or at a training ground in Nevada.
    The states must move to another reality, understand that these are no longer threats. This is the war itself. But there is still a possibility to stop it.
    If they do not need a nuclear war on their territory, they will stop it.