Posted on 02/09/2024 10:30:45 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Russian leader Vladimir Putin said in his interview with Tucker Carlson this week that he asked U.S. President Bill Clinton in 2000 if Russia could join NATO and, while Clinton allegedly said he was personally warm to the idea, his advisers decided it was politically impossible.
“I asked him: ‘Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen?’ Suddenly he said, ‘You know, it’s interesting. I think so,’” Putin recalled.
“But in the evening, when we met for dinner, he said: ‘You know, I’ve talked to my team, no, it’s not possible now,’” Putin continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I don’t expect Bent to answer.
Russia joining NATO?
That would be like getting MS-13 to become members of the Police Force, or Hamas into the Israeli Army
you don’t invite the enemy into your defensive group, that’s idiocy
not surprising Clinton couldn’t figure that out
Did you watch Tucker’s interview of Putin?
Would have been better if we just shut down the entire organization after the fall of the Soviet Union
No, I prefer reading the transcipts
I would have rather had Russia in NATO than Turkey.
Hillary and Bill had no problem dealing with Russia over Uranium One.
contrary to opinion here, Russia had ZERO interest in US Uranium mines or assets. The US industry barely exists any longer.
What they really wanted - was Uranium One’s Kazakstan JV’s. Kazakstan has since become the global leader in Uranium production, and the Russian JV’s with Kazak Gov’t are the largest since producing mines in the country
A HUGE strategic issue for Russia - and Clinton’s were happy to give their blessing, for a fee, of course.
Once the Warsaw Pact disappeared, what was NATO’s purpose?
Why not integrate Russia in? It was NATO vs. WARSAW Pact (USSR), not NATO vs. Russia.
Trust needs to start somewhere.
It might have been better to just phase out NATO.
like reading texts?
Much lost in the lack of body language.
Why can’t Russia be part of NATO?
Honestly, it’s a fair question. The problem with Russia is they won’t meet the requirements with Putin in charge at this point.
Why would the requirements for Russia be different than Ukraine or any other nation? What if Russia actually paid their ‘Fair Share’ of costs and didn’t threaten anybody?
Things change, people have to keep an open mind. Russia doesn’t need to be the enemy, they need to make that decision though.
Pretty sure it was well-known that Russia at least hinted at an interest in exploring NATO membership back then. That Putin asked Clinton directly is new to me.
Russia did not want to be enemies of the rest Europe at that time.
They wanted re-integration into the European community like pre-Bolshevik times.
One small problem with Russia in NATO ...
Russia would then be the only country to have thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles pointed at other NATO members ... that’s not gonna work
Tell Russia to get rid of all its nukes first, THEN we can maybe talk about possible membership
There are two actual problems with Russia in NATO. One, if Russia is in it, what is the purpose of it and why does it need a voracious appetite for money and weapons.
NATO without an enemy has no job.
Two, NATO was intended for us to be in complete control. It would move the center of gravity east if a friendly Russia full of resources was also a member.
So in the 90s and 2000s we diligently cultivated Russia back into the enemy we needed.
That’s why I do it
focus on the words without any distractions
They wanted that and friendly relations with America. They put out a big effort. But we would only tolerate a vassal or an enemy. And now we have an enemy.
It is a tragic waste of what was once possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.