Anyone who believes that Russia would voluntarily enter into a union in which it will cede any part of its political, economic, or military autonomy to another power needs to review the last nine or ten centuries of Russian history. Culturally, Russians fear invasion and foreign dominance above all other threats, and aren’t going to enter into any pact or agreement that doesn’t offer substantial protection and benefit to Russia. The EU is an standardized competitive market intended to impose reasonable price controls and remove barriers to trade of goods and services within Europe. Russia, which for its size and population ranks very poorly as an industrial power, is primarily an exporter of raw agricultural stocks, ores, and petroleum products. Its primary finished goods exports are weapons and military materiel, and would very likely not benefit from membership in the EU as a whole, or at least, the handful of plutocrats who run all major Russian industries would not benefit.
It is a bit unjust to consider NATO to be obsolete in the post-Cold War Europe. While its original mission–to contain Soviet expansion in Europe–is no longer an issue, it now fills the role of providing a coherent joint military logistics organization and command that provides for the greater defense of Europe. (One can debate the necessity and morality of the NATO pacification campaigns in the former Yugoslavia in 1995 and 1999, but not that their effectiveness–for better or worse–was substantially more than that of the preceding UN peacekeeping forces.) Normalization agreements have also lead to standardization of ammunition and facilities in NATO member militaries. So NATO, having outlived its original charter, still serves the same purpose; to provide a theater defense logistics support and command structure for the common benefit of its members. Again, this is of no benefit to Russia, which has its own established military industries, logistical systems, ammunition specifications, et cetera.
Joining the EU would mean that Russian citizens could freely emigrate to other EU countries, right? Both sides might worry about the possible magnitude of that movement of people.
Yes, but a great deal many things have changed since then. The USSR was an undisputed superpower in a time when nuclear capability = undisputed superpower status.
Since then, the USSR has lost about a dozen countries to post-Soviet independence, which has contributed greatly to Russia’s military aggression towards other breakaway regions (see: Chechnya, Georgia, Kosovo). They’ve been catapulted to recent wealth only in the past 10 years, when commodities prices skyrocketed, and the country hasn’t caught up to the 9 or 10 superbillionaires that make Moscow look pretty. This still represents a very very small fraction of the country, and is not representative of the way the rest of the country lives. Their age expectancy for men is still around 50 or 55 if I remember correctly.
The former Soviet Union was the obvious big threat to most NATO members but it’s a general military alliance. It was, for example, invoked when the United States was attacked on 9/11.
So people who are advocating Russia joining NATO should understand it’s not just a symbol. It’s the United States committing itself to going to war if any country attacks Russia. Personally I don’t think American and Russian interests overlap to the extent that we can pledge that we’ll always be on Russia’s side in the future.
Is NATO’s mission still “an attack on one, an attack on all?” While I can see the US going to fight for France or the UK, I really don’t see the US going to fight for Latvia or Bulgaria.
The EU is still having issues incorporating the former Eastern block countries into it, so why add another country that would be even harder.
Russia would overpower France and German in terms of land and population. France already strives for leadership and has to fight Germany and the UK to get it. It wouldn’t want to add another potential rival.
As currently written, no. The North Atlantic Treaty specifies that only an attack against a member state in Europe, North America, Algeria, Turkey, or any island or naval vessel in the Mediterranean or North Atlantic invokes the treaty.
But I believe this was originally included to differentiate between an attack against a member’s homeland (all of which were located in Europe or North America) and a member’s colonies. Presumedly if a nation whose homeland was outside of Europe or North America joined the alliance the terms of the treaty would be revised to reflect this. (For example, the original treaty did not include the territory of Turkey under its coverage - that was added in 1951 when Turkey joined NATO.) No country is likely to join an alliance that compels it to defend other countries without getting a reciprocal agreement for them.
As I said, a lot of people were eager to add new members to NATO back in the nineties without thinking about the obligations being occurred. Because the United States has agreed that we would fight for Latvia or Bulgaria.
Georgia did quite a bit to instigate that particular event of “neo-imperialist aggression”. It wasn’t just that Russia decided they wanted to take the land.
I was in Hungary soon after they joined the EU and NATO and they were very much under the impression that the United States, and all of NATO, would fight for them if they were attacked. The idea was very gratifying to them. There were posters all over showing Hungary as part of NATO and saying things like – “At last, Hungary is protected from foreign invasions!”
As for why it was included in 1949, back then Algeria was a part of France the same way that Alaska is a part of the United States - physically seperated by legally joined.