[Peace] Nato and Angelina/Brad

[Karen Aram]

A good FB example related to Nato, from a former State Dept. Official, who did two tours of duty in the USSR. One would think the simplicity is to enlighten the simple folk, but given he has only former US State Dept. Officials on his FB page, and no share button, well I guess thats the point, the simple folk following lockstep USG policies. I responded with a desire to disband Nato altogether as a means of securing peace in the world. 

"So many reasons have been given for granting NATO membership to additional countries that I felt an urge to create a simper criterion, the Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) test. If you are interested in it, read further.
Ukrainian NATO Membership: The Angelina Jolie Test
Let us posit that Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) accepts my right to request her to join with me in connubial bliss. Does accepting that right also require her to accept my request? Common sense says that she will call the police, ignore me, or just say no, perhaps in that order of probability. Let us further imagine, however, that she replies, perhaps not kindly but accurately enough, that I am not sufficiently rich, good-looking, or talented for candidacy as her consort. Imagining nevertheless all the benefits I would gain from this alliance, I determine to overcome her objections. I become rich, hire plastic surgeons and personal trainers to mold me into, say, Brad Pitt, and discover a hitherto undiscovered talent for playing the didgeridoo. Having met her requirements, I renew my suit. Surely now she is obligated to accept me. Not exactly. She can still just say no, or advise me, probably through her attorneys, that she has other priorities, relationships and interests that preclude my attaining my heart’s desire under any circumstances.
And so it is with international alliances. The oft-repeated trope that any country has the right to apply for NATO membership would be unobjectionable were it not accompanied by the assumption that having first applied and then met NATO’s requirements, the applicant has a right to be accepted into membership. A strategic alliance may well be to the benefit of the applicant, but it does not thereby follow that it is in the interest of the grantor. It would be kinder of the perspective grantor to make that clear in the beginning, but not having done so creates no obligation to say yes in the end.
There are numerous reasons why the United States should not agree to even consider NATO membership for Ukraine, either now or later. The most important is that it has no vital interests in the country and should not accept an obligation to go to war on behalf of countries in which it has no vital interests. Of almost equal importance, the U.S. relationship with Russia is far more important than the relationship with Ukraine and this is one of the most neuralgic issues in that relationship. Further, while it is up to Ukraine to determine what its own national interests are, it does that country no kindness to allow it to delude itself that it will not have to work out a relationship with Russia that both sides can live with.
So, the next time someone tries to persuade you that Ukraine should be a candidate for NATO membership, ask yourself whether Angelina Jolie (or Brad Pitt) is likely to marry you.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20191218/d5f42110/attachment-0001.htm>