Would this not of been the best possible solution for Russia, Ukraine and the bordering countries regarding NATO that could of worked for all?

[User13579862]

One of Putins main vocalised objectives is preventing Ukraine from joining NATO (and obtaining nuclear weapons) along with other countries bordering Russia. The issue now for many bordering countries is their wanting to join NATO to protect their own borders from invasion by Russia as the current invasion in Ukraine shows they are not fully safe from Russia either way. Therefore, surely the solution to protect all could of been achieved with the following:

All bordering countries that want to, NATO and Russia sign a treaty of sorts agreeing that none of the bordering countries involved will join NATO or procure any nuclear weapons. However, if Russia attacks any of these bordering countries again, or NATO themselves, then it automatically triggers all of the bordering countries involved to instantly become a NATO member.

This way, if Putins objective really is to secure Russias border from NATO then this is the best solution for him as only he and his actions can then trigger them joining. At the same time it protects the involved bordering countries from the fear of Russian invasion and not being a part of NATO.

Of course there would be more to it than simply the above as they would have to account for what exactly would count as a Russian attack to prevent just anybody from breaking the treaty, amongst many other smaller issues, but surely that can be accounted for if everyone agreed to the above.

I know that many seem to believe that NATO is the excuse and not the reason but if that’s really true, then by not accepting the above, surely Russia is showing their hand regarding future intentions if they didn’t agree to it? The same goes for NATO if they didn’t.

There are obviously other issues to account for but surely the above could of been a big enough win for everyone, including Putin, that palatable enough terms could be sorted regarding everything else. So what’s the big flaw in the above for it not to seemingly of been on the table? Of course it could of been and we just weren’t informed about it but if so then wouldn’t we be going about things differently if it had been rejected?

1: It was never about NATO. That’s an excuse.
2: There are lots of rules about joining NATO, and those countries won’t be allowed to join, in the main.

So what’s the big flaw in the above for it not to seemingly of[sic] been on the table?
You can't simultaneously join and not join NATO as your "solution" seems to envisage.

One of the NATO rules is that you can’t join if your country is under threat/already at war. It’s like an insurance policy. You can’t buy house insurance after your house has already burned down and expect to be able to make a claim.

if Putins objective really is to secure Russias border from NATO

Putin’s objective is to rebuild the Soviet Union. There has never been a NATO threat to Russia’s border. Putin is a liar.

@Woollystockings

That is one of my points though, that if true and Putin rejected the very thing he claims he wants then wouldn’t that prove it? In which case we know it won’t just stop at Ukraine. As for the second point, in normal times I understand that, but if it’s got to the point that the above was violated then it’s because full on war is the intention and would we really care about NATOs conditions to join at that point?

"So what’s the big flaw in the above for it not to seemingly of been on the table?"

It's taking away sovereignty from those countries and still basically allowing then stuff determination only if it lines up with Russia's interests.

You're not autonomous if you are being prevented from doing something lawful by the threat of invasion.

surely Russia is showing their hand regarding future intentions if they didn’t agree to it?

Sorry, you don't think that's already been demonstrated?

You appear (aside from the Schrodinger membership idea) to be labouring under the misapprehension that Putin cares what anyone else thinks or is operating logically. Putin will do what he pleases, and no fancy-shmancy treaty will stop him. He may or may not have designs beyond Ukraine. Whatever his plan is now may change. There is no point signing a treaty with Russia with him in charge.

Wasn’t that the Warsaw Pact?

@Mayorquimby2

"So what’s the big flaw in the above for it not to seemingly of been on the table?"

It's taking away sovereignty from those countries and still basically allowing then stuff determination only if it lines up with Russia's interests.

You're not autonomous if you are being prevented from doing something lawful by the threat of invasion.

It's curious how keen some people are to surrender the independence of other nations in order to serve their own self-interest.

I know I'll get slated for this but I am having a little smile about the idea that someone on MN has the simple answer to this issue - if only the countries "would of" thought of it.

@Mayorquimby2

I wouldn’t agree that it takes away a countries sovereignty if they willingly signed up as they believe it to be beneficial to them. How is it any different than any other negotiation that happens the world over. Isn’t the threat from Russia part of the reason Finland decided to ‘stay neutral’ and not to sign up to NATO in the first place? Yet you would still say they have their independence. No where have I put that they should be forced to agree if they don’t wish to.

@daimbarsatemydogsbone

I never said it was a simple answer or that I was the only person to ever think of it. I asked for opinions precisely because I knew it wasn’t as simple as the above and I wanted to understand where my thinking was lacking so I could understand better. How is that something to mock?

The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is already covered by treaty. I don't think adding another treaty wouid make any difference to adherence.

You can't have 'Schroedinger's NATO' because if you say that 'an attack on one is an attack in all' then that is essentially the same as extending Chapter 5 to non-members in a blanket fashion. But without the standards, training, budgetary contributions or interoperabilty that NATO normally requires. It's de facto NATO membership, in a way that wouid weaken NATO and remove flexibility

Not only would this not work for a myriad of legal reasons but also a loose contract saying if you're invaded nato step in is essentially nato membership is it not? But with enough wiggle room there for us to utterly fail the invaded country like we are doing now by refusing to assist Ukraine... absolutely moronic.

@cornflakedreams

I honestly don’t know. So many people think so and I can certainly understand why but there are also some not in agreement. However, if NATO/European Union thinks that it is a certainty then why would we be going about things the way we are? Latvia may not be part of NATO but they are a part of the European Union so if the Soviet Union is Putins objective then surely we are only delaying the inevitable?

[quote User13579862]@daimbarsatemydogsbone

I never said it was a simple answer or that I was the only person to ever think of it. I asked for opinions precisely because I knew it wasn’t as simple as the above and I wanted to understand where my thinking was lacking so I could understand better. How is that something to mock?[/quote]
I wasn't mocking HTH.

All bordering countries that want to, NATO and Russia sign a treaty of sorts agreeing that none of the bordering countries involved will join NATO or procure any nuclear weapons.

Bordering countries are sovereign nations who should make decisions based on their own populace. They should not be bound by NATO, Russia or any other more powerful neighbour.

Because these countries on the border have every right to decide their own affairs. It isn't up to other countries to determine which orgs they can or can't belong to.

1: It was never about NATO. That’s an excuse.

That. Many analysts are saying these events are about Putin creating his legacy as Russia's protector. Genuine threats to Russia aren't part of the picture, just the image that he is some kind of Russia champion. If Putin cared about genuine threats he'd diversify the economy to be less petro-chemical dependent, for a start.

Also intimidating the crap out of his neighbours, just because Russians like to see selves as powerful. After Covid took so many Russians & their military proves so under-maintained & ill unprepared many will know those things to be true, but be too afraid to say it out loud too "unpatriotic" to dare say all that aloud.

Russians want to think they are amazingly tough (Stalingrad) fighters against decadent facism. The decadence of their own corrupt oligarchies -- ignored.

This is like a lot of historical wars.

If you have leadership like putin & co, they aren't going to respect these various international agreements anyway.

[quote User13579862]@cornflakedreams

I honestly don’t know. So many people think so and I can certainly understand why but there are also some not in agreement. However, if NATO/European Union thinks that it is a certainty then why would we be going about things the way we are? Latvia may not be part of NATO but they are a part of the European Union so if the Soviet Union is Putins objective then surely we are only delaying the inevitable?[/quote]
Latvia is a NATO member

www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are the former Soviet republics who are now in NATO.

There are also former Warsaw Pact countries that are now members

@mpsw

Thank you for that. I knew about the other two so not sure how I’ve misremembered about Latvia.

Latvia and Estonia are both in NATO and border Russia. Under your scheme would they have to come out of NATO?

However, can I say that I think it's great you're thinking of ideas. If everyone just went along the route of "don't you think someone will have thought of that", we'd never do anything new. Some solutions are so simple, people think they won't work. So good on you

@moonbedazzled

I appreciate what you’ve said and thank you for the point that some members would have to leave NATO for it to even be a possibility. You are right. I was so focused on countries that I believed weren’t a part of NATO that I didn’t even properly think about that issue as even Norway would also be affected by it now that you’ve pointed it out. I knew there would be flaws which is why I wanted to know where I was going wrong in my thought process by getting another prospective.

As for other posts, thank you for pointing some stuff out for me to look into and think about.