Is NATO membership for Russia now inevitable with the rise of China?
The idea of Russia becoming a NATO member has at different times been floated by both Western and Russian leaders, as well as by some experts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Suggestions_of_Russia_joining_NATO
During a series of interviews with filmmaker Oliver Stone, President Vladimir Putin told him that he floated the possibility of Russia joining NATO to Bill Clinton when he visited Moscow in 2000. Putin stated: “During the meeting I said, ‘Let’s consider an option that Russia might join NATO. Mr. Clinton said ‘Why not?’ But the U.S. delegation got very nervous.”[4] According to former Secretary General of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in the early days of his presidency around 2000–2001, Putin made many statements that indicated he was very favorable to the idea of Russia joining NATO. When Rasmussen first met President Putin in 2002, the Russian leader seemed to him as very “pro-Western.”
Initially, it was the Americans who did not want Russia to join NATO.
It seems that NATO is pretty much all about defense against Russia.
In 1990, while negotiating German reunification at the end of the Cold War with United States Secretary of State James Baker, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said that “You say that NATO is not directed against us, that it is simply a security structure that is adapting to new realities … therefore, we propose to join NATO.” However, Baker dismissed the possibility as a “dream”.
Because the Soviet Union no longer exists, this American discomfort with the idea of a democratic Russia joining NATO can seem puzzling.
This can be explained by distinguishing between idealism and realism in foreign policy.
Idealists tend to perceive the world in terms of a clash of ideologies, for example, democracy versus communism.
Idealists would then advance the notion that people need to become more educated and then join together to “overcome their differences”.
One sees this in the Black Lives Matter protests.
Idealists perceive the problem to be a stubborn ideology of “hatred”, namely “racism”.
A realist perspective would emphasize that groups and individuals are in a permanent state of competition for resources, both material and ideal (status).
Ideological conflict tends to be superficial and merely an excuse for competition over resources.
Ideology serves the purpose of hiding the corruption and hypocrisy of all parties engaged in conflict with one another.
Indeed, the idealistic BLM protesters tend to be mostly white and college educated.
They have absolutely no intention of altering American housing policies or any other policies that privilege themselves over historically abused minorities.
From a realist perspective, NATO exists to contain Russia, and not just squashing Soviet-sponsored revolution and deterring the military might of the Eastern bloc.
Peace can only be achieved by attaining a balance of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations)
The balance of power theory in international relations suggests that states may secure their survival by preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others.[1] If one state becomes much stronger, the theory predicts it will take advantage of its weaker neighbors, thereby driving them to unite in a defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that a balance-of-power system is more stable than one with a dominant state, as aggression is unprofitable when there is equilibrium of power between rival coalitions.
One can see advocacy for a realignment in a balance of power in the efforts of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
For whatever reason, Flynn became increasingly pro-Russian, much to the alarm of his colleagues in the national security apparatus.
Flynn also became vehemently opposed to the Islamic State around this time, a policy position which was also considered peculiar by the military.
The Islamic State is a criminal enterprise pretending to be fanatically religious, and is not an existential threat to the USA.
Flynn’s idea was that the USA could join forces with Russia and the Assad regime of Syria to counter the Islamic State.
Flynn’s idea is bizarre, but it does help to illustrate the general framework of how balance of power works in international relations.
In a nutshell, my enemy’s enemy is my friend.
Again, Flynn’s view might reflect the logic of realism in a credible way.
But Flynn’s estimation of the capabilities and intentions of the various players is eccentric.
The Islamic State is a regional challenge.
But Russia is a challenge on a global scale.
If anything, a realist would ally themselves with the smaller power against the greater mutual threat.
Russia is not the smaller power compared to the supposed threat posed by political Islam.
But there is an elephant in the room that Flynn totally neglects.
That is China.
Russia may be a great power.
But Russia is not a rising power.
In fact, economically, Russia might be set up to be a declining power.
China might not only be a rising power, but an eventual global superpower.
So one would expect Russia to be a likely ally with the West and others against China.
Not creating a balance of power against China would lead to war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides_Trap
The Thucydides Trap, also referred to as Thucydides’s Trap, is a term coined by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as the international hegemon.[1] It was coined and is primarily used to describe a potential conflict between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.[2]
The term is based on a quote by ancient Athenian historian and military general Thucydides, which posits that the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta had been inevitable because of Spartan fear of the growth of Athenian power.
The USA would also have to reign itself in to prevent war, for example, by avoiding a trade war that can escalate into real war.
The term is primarily used and was coined in relation to a potential military conflict between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.[2]Xi Jinping, the paramount leader of China, has himself referenced the term, cautioning that “We all need to work together to avoid the Thucydides trap”.[13] The term gained further influence in 2018 as a result of a surge in US-Chinese tensions after US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on almost half of China’s exports to the US, leading to a tit-for-tat series of economic escalations.
There is one major precedent for engaging with Russia in order to contain China.
The Nixon administration in the 1970s engaged in one of the greatest coup of the Cold War when Nixon unexpectedly visited China and normalized relations.
IIRC, turning a third power against its former ally is known to realists as “triangulation”.
It is akin to turning a foreign spy into a double agent working for oneself.
That tilt toward Moscow cannot happen now because Putin has become too hostile to the West.
When Putin finally pass from the scene, it might be conceivable that NATO and Russia will form some sort of accord against China.
That would be a geopolitically formidable arrangement against China.
This does not mean that Russia would be a formal member of NATO.
For example, France withdrew from NATO in 1966, although it was readmitted in 2009.
During that period, France was nevertheless integrated with NATO forces.
Economically, however, all Western countries would comprise a free trade area with the Eurasian Economic Union.
The EEU seems to be modeled after the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union
The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)[note 1] is an economic union of states located in Eastern Europe, Western Asia, and Central Asia.
The Eurasian Economic Union has an integrated single market of 180 million people and a gross domestic product of over Int$5 trillion.[8] The EAEU encourages the free movement of goods and services, and provides for common policies in the macroeconomic sphere, transport, industry and agriculture, energy, foreign trade and investment, customs, technical regulation, competition and antitrust regulation. Provisions for a single currency and greater integration are envisioned for the future.[9][10][11] The union operates through supranational and intergovernmental institutions. The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council is the supreme body of the Union, consisting of the Heads of the Member States. The second level of intergovernmental institutions is represented by the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council (consisting of the Heads of the governments of member states). The day-to-day work of the EAEU is done through the Eurasian Economic Commission, the executive body of the Union. There is also a judicial body – the Court of the EAEU.
Eventually, this pan-Eurasian free trade area would merge with other free-trade areas — with the exception of China.
There is one problem with this vision of a global free trade zone.
The problem is the USA.
It seems that the USA is the only country in the world that is turning its back on trade with other countries.
In fact, China is signing free trade pacts with other countries, including America’s closest allies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54899254
Asian leaders have signed a mammoth trade deal that has been nearly a decade in the making.
It includes the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), plus China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
The members make up nearly a third of the world’s population and account for 29% of global gross domestic product.
The new free trade zone will be bigger than both the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the European Union.
There are products that countries should be able to produce themselves to a certain extent.
There is a need to have a significant internal source of domestically produced food, medicine, high tech equipment and weaponry in case of a disaster that would disrupt the supply chain.
But those sources are comparatively small, and serves merely as a cushion in an emergency.
Prosperity and growth, in contrast, are based on trade.
Turning away from trade is economic suicide.
It’s not a good idea to take North Korea’s policy of total self-reliance (juche) as an economic inspiration.
It has become a cliche that in the past couple of generations two-thirds of humanity has been lifted out of poverty not by socialism but through trade.
In terms of national security, however, even a mild socialism would have its benefits compared to a nationalistic populism hostile to trade.
Again, the cliche is that socialism provides a safety net but not a ladder.
That safety net would be crucial in a catastrophic crisis, and thus would have value in terms of national security.
For example, envision an entire population of a country that had access to basic healthcare, if not comprehensive healthcare.
That is, the cost of a visit to the doctor and tests would be covered by the state for all citizens, although treatment and medication might not be covered.
This would be crucial in a pandemic, for example, in order to get patients into hospitals in order to gauge infections and unfamiliar symptoms in the population.
Again, the point would be that a minimal level of health care would be an imperative for national security.
Notably, there has been no movement in that direction in the USA during a pandemic and under the leadership of a supposedly populist administration.
This reveals something remarkable about the nature of nationalist authoritarian populism.
At one time, the dominant theory was that populism is triggered by the fear of change and the fear of obsolescence.
It has been pointed out that conservatives fear change and they stoically hunker down as they face it.
In contrast to conservatives, populists don’t so much fear change as they loath outsiders and scapegoat foreigners.
Moreover, also in contrast to conservatives, the populist does not hold back in the expression of their emotions.
Recently, this line of thought has been refined even further.
It is not those who are under economic pressure who turn toward populism.
Indeed, those who are suffering quietly hunker down and wait for the storm to pass.
Rather, those who turn toward populism are usually doing quite well.
However, they perceive themselves as potentially under threat by outsiders.
But even this does not capture the true spirit of populism.
Here it is important to emphasize that populism is better understood as an ethos or mentality.
That is, populism is a frame of mind more than an articulated ideology or philosophy.
Liberals and conservatives place a primacy on moral considerations.
Progressives and libertarians value rationality above all else (enlightenment and enlightened self-interest, respectively).
For populists, the guiding principal of their lives is wilfulness.
The primary motive of populism might not be fear but rather the desire for uninhibited self-aggrandizement as a cure-all.
The populist tends to believe that if society is stripped of any and all forms of moral, societal or governmental inhibitions, then they will thrive.
The populist mentality can be summarized as “Do whatever you feel like doing” — especially if what you feel like doing is aggressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema
In moral terms, this is the opposite of conservatism.
Populism resembles a perverse sociopathic version of romanticism, which advocates liberation from restraint as the essence of justice.
Moreover, this impulsive populism is not a coolly rationalistic libertarianism.
Exhibit A is the infamous speech of 1987’s “Wall Street” in which the character Gordon Gekko explained that “Greed is good.”
Notably, greed is not self-interest, much less enlightened self-interest.
Greed is when people become irrational, imprudent and get carried away.
(“Wall Street”, 1987, greed is good speech)
That’s also the theme of 1990s “Pretty Woman”, which is Exhibit B.
The old-fashioned industrial capitalist is presented in the movie as a stately gentleman who proudly aspires to build up an actual industry.
In contrast, the finance capitalist of the 1980s values aggression for the sake of aggression in his desire to tear down companies.
It could be that the current spirit of populism in the USA finds its origins in the upper classes, and trickled down slowly.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/11/how-greenwich-republicans-learned-to-love-trump
Populism is not identical with fascism.
But insofar that there are claims that they are both appropriated by or even originate from the upper classes is instructive.
IIRC, at least one Marxist critique of fascism claims that fascism originates in the upper-middle classes and drifted upward into the ruling elites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#By_Marxists
Marxists argue that fascism represents the last attempt of a ruling class (specifically, the capitalist bourgeoisie) to preserve its grip on power in the face of an imminent proletarian revolution. Fascist movements are not necessarily created by the ruling class, but they can only gain political power with the help of that class and with funding from big business. Once in power, the fascists serve the interests of their benefactors.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Intellectual-origins
Social bases of fascist movements
Despite their long history in European thought, fascist ideas prospered politically only when perceived economic threats increased their appeal to members of certain social groups. In 1928, before the onset of the Great Depression in Germany, Hitler received less than 3 percent of the vote; after 1930, however, far more voters—many of them middle and lower-middle class individuals fearful of “proletarianization”—gave him their support. The economic anxiety underlying the success of Nazism was reflected to some extent in party membership, which was drawn disproportionately from economic elites and other high-status groups—especially for leadership positions. These posts also contained large numbers of university professors, high school teachers, higher civil servants, former military officers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and landed aristocrats. In the lower ranks of the party, white-collar workers were overrepresented and blue-collar workers were underrepresented. Similarly, in Italy, as historian Charles Maier has shown, fascism originally received most of its support from large and small landowners who felt beleaguered by landless farm workers and from businessmen and white-collar workers who felt a similar threat from industrial workers. In 1927, 75 percent of the membership of Mussolini’s party came from the middle and lower-middle classes and only 15 percent from the working class. Nearly 10 percent came from Italy’s economic elites, who represented a much smaller portion of the general population.
Again, populist anger in contemporary America is not primarily based on economic hardship.
It is based on temperament.
- A segment of the population scattered throughout the ideological spectrum has an underlying ethos of uninhibited aggression, greed, emotionalism, tribalism.
- They believe that a stripping away of all inhibitions is the path to personal profit.
- In normal times, this segment of society disguises its inclinations as every sort of political ideology, even to itself (they identify as liberal, libertarian, conservative, etc.).
- They to be
- lucky in their privileged social origins,
- underwhelming in their mediocrity, and
- awesomely overconfident.
- During a period of diminished prospects, this segment of society begins to advocate for this new philosophy of self-indulgence as a cure-all.
- They react with explosive hostility against those who insist on imposing rules.
The populist opposes free trade, and that is a problem economically.
But it is also a problem in terms of national security and the effort to contain China by creating trade areas that exclude China.
It’s also a moral problem.
The populist complains that the game is rigged.
But historically, the system was rigged in their favor.
They want to rig the game again for their own benefit by eliminating competition by banning trade and immigration.
