The USSR attempted to join NATO in the 1950s:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantray...

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-t...

Putin also wanted to join NATO in 2000-2001, but it didn't work out.

> why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia?

NATO is a mutual defence pact. Russia is the most militarily aggressive country in Europe. Agreeing to defend the bully when their chickens come home to roost is a tough sell.

Most of them are internal conflicts though.

It's not such a crazy idea really, but I'd rather we just abolished NATO entirely.

I'm no fan of Russia, but I don't want to go to war just because they shoot down a Turkish fighter plane in Syria, etc.

That’s not how NATO works. It’s a defense pact not a suicide pact. In any military action outside their territory, other countries are not obligated to help. Admittedly casus belli are often a bit of a stretch, but so far NATO has never joined an aggressive war. Various countries chose to join the American Crusade in Iraq but the war in Afghanistan was certainly started in defense.

NATO has ensured 70 years of peace in Western Europe. There hasn’t been a period this peaceful since the Pax Romana, which still had plenty of wars. Why mess up a good thing? Less people die in wars now. And while the value in trade and infrastructure compared to land is certainly a part of ensuring the peace, that was also true for the decades preceding the Great War. The modern international order is simply more peaceful.

The problem is that at that point the USA, Canada, France, Italy would be obligated to defend Russia if it was attacked by sending in its forces. This is already the problem we face in the Baltic States. In theory you can say you will go to war if Estonia is attacked. But if you are Italy or Canada how popular is a war in Estonia going to be if your citizens are dying? There would be a lot of pressure to pull out.

Once the guarantee of NATO becomes a maybe then you start having a lot of incentives for the members to make their own agreements that they can depend on. Then you would be back to regional alliances and from there rivalries. Germany's security agreement partners may not agree with Turkey's security agreement partners about what to do in Syria. Part of what made NATO work was the common interest and values of the members. As you spread it you loose that cohesion.

> But if you are Italy or Canada how popular is a war in Estonia going to be if your citizens are dying?

This is why all the baltic states have multi-country forces in them. Literally small Canadian and Italian forces are in those states, so if there is ever an invasion, those troops will the first casualties that will win the hearts and minds of the rest of NATO countries to defend because of the losses of their own countrymen.

it was floated up 30 years ago https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/31/russia-assoc...

>Then if either side attacks the other, all the other members are obligated to defend against the aggressor.

The reason Ukraine hasn't been allowed to join NATO already is because the rest of the alliance isn't willing to make that promise (that they'll go to war with Russia to protect Ukraine).

Russia's recent demonstrations, like Admiral Kuznetsov's problems, leaving Armenia faced with Turkey and Azerbaijan, weak drone program shows that in reality Russian military isn't that strong against serious opponent. Even more importantly, a serious military operations will undermine the power within the country.

It's doubtful Russia would go to fight Ukraine even now (it would be rather disastrous), but even more doubtful if Ukraine would join NATO.

Ukraine has its own internal problems for now.

A situation that could be considered disastrous, i.e. poverty that would result from the western sanctions/isolation, the strife against the occupied Ukrainian nationalists, against internal dissent/opposition is beneficial to the silovik class -- more people to crush/imprison/destroy, more space to advance their careers, more power to wield, and it's them who Putin relies on to keep himself in power, not the populace at large. (The effectiveness of such approach has been demonstrated by the Lukashenko regime) For Putin it's also much easier to keep his power till his death in a locked down curfewed country, with all the possible freedoms taken away due to the great war with the eternal enemy that's going on. Think of North Korea. So I would say it's much more probable than 'doubtful' considering that the key players are likely going to gain, if their plans go smoothly that is.

The problem for Putin here is that as long as economy continues to deteriorate, it's harder and harder to pay those siloviks (police, national guard, army etc.) to remain in power - he has to have good reasons for why they can't just replace them. Putin can't really recreate the Stalin's level of closeness - too hard. Getting money from natural resources - which admittedly requires much less people - can be iffy if the West will put sanctions (and also world moves away from fossil fuels).

Unfortunately it's still possible that Putin will cling to power for a rather long time.

>pay those siloviks (police, national guard, army etc.)

The fact that they (professionally) can't do anything else, and that a pro-democratic alternative to Putin would likely severely cut their numbers (Russia has one of the highest if not the highest number of siloviks per capita) or even conduct lustrations against them for protecting the autocracy, plays into Putin's hand. They are also not that demanding, higher ups known to "live of the land" (protection racket etc), and Russian economy even under sanctions still a capitalist economy, so it won't be as bad as in the 80ies.

Also Russia coming under isolating western sanctions would effectively make Russia a China's tributary state, since it's the only other power with manufacturing capability Russia would be able to trade with. So that adventure would be exchanging Putin's and silovik interests for Russian future BIG time.

Because then nothing protects members from Russia. If two NATO members go to war, there is no clear side to take.

Also, Russia does not want to join. They want the USSR back

>They want the USSR back

No, they don't, and I don't understand why people (Americans in particular?) seem to think this. Is it just nostalgia for the first Cold War?

Yes, there is clear and really big difference between autocratic ideas and the wishes of the population. Unfortunately Russians are weak to keep autocracy off their backs, so they have to suffer from it.

>Russians are weak to keep autocracy off their backs

And that weakness comes from the complete lack of the political culture needed for a functional democracy. The elite of the Russian empire that had a prototypical form of that culture had been eradicated by the communists, and about 10 years of relative lack of authoritarianism in the 90s and early 2000s wasn't nearly enough to form even a semblance of such culture. An ordinary Russian doesn't know what separation of powers is for, how freedom of speech/expression protects their interests, that it's their taxes that Putin spends, not government's money, the norms of civil debate, the individualist thinking etc etc.

Putin wants to recreate influence in ex USSR. He stated that in 2002. He tried with soft power, but failed, hence 2008 Georgia 2014 military action in Ukraine.

In his recent easy he claimed Ukrainians and Russians are the same nation

> If two NATO members go to war, there is no clear side to take.

In fact there was such a historical precedent. Turkey and Greece, both NATO members, fought a war in Northern Cyprus in 1974 [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus