Russia did inquire about joining NATO multiple times, as far back as the 50s as the USSR, in the 90s after USSR collapsed, and then again by Putin in the 2000s. It was rebuffed each time.
Joining the EU would be somewhat nonsensical as they would gain very little from it and cede substantial sovereignty in exchange. It's the same reason places like Norway have no interest in joining the EU.
>Russia did inquire about joining NATO multiple times, as far back as the 50s as the USSR,
But Russia never inquired in good faith. It was only ever sarcastically. And had it joined NATO (perhaps because the west was stupid, which it is), then right now we'd be in the pickle of trying to reconcile one NATO member invading another (likely) NATO member, and wondering what to do about it. Russia doesn't honor its treaties, neither according to the spirit of the law nor to the letter.
Now that there's no longer any point in hiding it, we should expand NATO to include everyone that is marginally adjacent to Russia. Japan, South Korea, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan. Hell, why not throw Taiwan in.
Citation needed.
Stalin did at one point signal interest in joining NATO, fully aware that the proposal would be rejected; the gesture was largely ironic and intended to expose the alliance’s anti-Soviet character rather than to pursue genuine integration.
Post-Soviet Russia likewise raised the possibility of NATO membership on two occasions—first under Yeltsin and again early in Putin’s presidency. In both cases, the idea was dismissed, even as NATO proceeded to incorporate nearly all former Warsaw Pact members. This asymmetry contributed to the deterioration of Russia–NATO relations. Declassified materials from the U.S. National Archives documenting NATO–Russia talks over the years shed light on the alliance’s consistent reluctance to treat Russia as a potential partner rather than an object of containment.
That said, NATO and Russia were structurally ill-suited for integration from the outset. Russia’s geographic scale, strategic culture, and legacy military doctrine and equipment posed serious obstacles to meaningful interoperability within a U.S.-led alliance. A more stable European security order might have emerged from the creation of a new, inclusive framework after the dissolution of the USSR. Instead, Western states chose to expand and entrench NATO, a decision that effectively marginalized Russia and helped lay the groundwork for today’s confrontation.
> This asymmetry contributed to the deterioration of Russia–NATO relations.
What asymmetry are we talking about here? The Warsaw Pact disintegrated because it was held together by force by the Soviet Union and as that had ceased to exist, the Warsaw Pact had no reason to exist either (ask yourself if you think for example Poland would be in a military alliance with Russia if it could choose freely; the same for Czechoslovakia (invaded 1968-1991) and Hungary (1956)). Maybe if Russia sincerely tried to become part of the Western World, many things would look different now, buth we both know it did not.
> Western states chose to expand and entrench NATO
Well if the russians could once think about other peoples as having free agency it would help them immensely to get out of their eternal (and of course false) victim status. Why exactly do you think the Central European states jumped onto the chance to get into NATO as fast as possible? By whom are they feeling threatened? Of course since at least 2008 (Georgia) everyone knows the feeling was right and Russia will continue mass killings of their neigbours unless they meet a stronger enemy.
>and as that had ceased to exist, the Warsaw Pact had no reason to exist either
It should be mentioned that Russia's attempt at "We don't need NATO, we have our own NATO at home" (CSTO) is hilariously awful and failed to keep the peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan just recently.
The Warsaw Pact ceased to exist because it always was a joke and Russia/SU has never had any true desire or ability to protect these other countries... they merely want to discourage them in any way possible from "joining the other team".
Until Russia stops being Russia, they will always be the problem.
If you look at Yeltsin’s presidency and Putin’s first term, both pursued the goal of integrating Russia into the Western world, and to some extent they succeeded. At the same time, both leaders strongly opposed NATO’s expansion eastward. This opposition was rooted in explicit assurances given by Western governments that NATO would not expand, assurances made in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany. Putin’s stance hardened once it became clear that Russia would never be accepted into either the EU or NATO, unlike many other former Soviet states.
You speak of Russia’s aggression toward its neighbors, but overlook Western aggression toward Russia. Russia—and earlier the USSR—was invaded twice in the last century by coalitions of Western powers. Two of the most devastating wars of the twentieth century were fought largely on Russian territory, resulting in the loss of tens of millions of lives. These experiences are often downplayed or ignored in Western historiography, but they remain central to Russian historical memory.
Take Finland as an example. The USSR attacked Finland once, but Finland invaded Soviet territory twice: first by annexing land, and later by participating in mass violence alongside Nazi Germany. Yet popular memory outside Russia tends to focus almost exclusively on the Soviet attack. Given this historical context, it is hardly surprising that Russia remains deeply suspicious of NATO and Western countries—especially considering that, over the past 30 years, NATO members have been involved in numerous wars of aggression.
> If you look at Yeltsin’s presidency and Putin’s first term, both pursued the goal of integrating Russia into the Western world, and to some extent they succeeded.
They succeeded to some extent to integrate Russia into the Western world, but failed or didn't try to actually change Russia. Already in first Putin's term it becomes clear how will the country proceed.
> This opposition was rooted in explicit assurances
No such explicit assurances have ever existed and if someone claims russian politicians have believed some spoken sentences as ratified pacts, they are either dumb or lying. Anyway, Russia also promised in writing to guarantee the territorial integrity and safety of Ukraine (1994), so there is no reason to believe anything they say or write for the foreseeable future.
> You speak of Russia’s aggression toward its neighbors,
For which they never apologised.
> Yet popular memory outside Russia tends to focus almost exclusively on the Soviet attack.
For which they never apologised and annexed Karelia.
And this is exactly why many people say the only good Russian is a dead one. If the country and nation wants to be universally hated, it should proceed exactly like that.
> No such explicit assurances have ever existed and if someone claims russian politicians have believed some spoken sentences as ratified pacts, they are either dumb or lying. Anyway, Russia also promised in writing to guarantee the territorial integrity and safety of Ukraine (1994), so there is no reason to believe anything they say or write for the foreseeable future.
You can look at this issue from both sides. The Budapest Memorandum was exactly that—a memorandum—and it was never ratified by Russia. As such, it carries no more legal weight than the security assurances provided by NATO. Moreover, it was largely the Clinton administration, together with the EU, that pressured Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, since no one wanted the emergence of a new nuclear state in Europe.
> For which they never apologised.
You are also incorrect on the historical point. Russia officially apologised for the Winter War during Yeltsin’s presidency, along with issuing several other apologies for Soviet-era crimes. Finland, by contrast, has never apologised for its own actions, nor does it adequately teach about its own atrocities. Ask the average Finn how Finland acquired Petsamo or about Finland’s role in the siege of Leningrad, and you are unlikely to encounter much regret or acknowledgment of responsibility.
> And this is exactly why many people say the only good Russian is a dead one. If the country and nation wants to be universally hated, it should proceed exactly like that.
> As such, it carries no more legal weight than the security assurances provided by NATO.
There were no 'security assurances provided by NATO', but I also agree any political agreement signed or even ratified by Russia carries zero significance as they do not feel to be bound by it. They only understand force, not dialogue, and as such can't be a part of the civilised world.
> You are also incorrect on the historical point.
I am correct on that, there is no formal apology for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, for example.
> And that is just sheer racism and speech hate.
That may be, but it's also completely understandable in the face of russian behavior of the past over 100 years, of the russian public indifference to the heinous crimes perpetrated by their army in Ukraine and it is still way better and less racist and hateful that daily murdering Ukrainian children in their sleep.
(0) GP didn't mention NATO, (1) NATO exists primarily to defend against Russian aggression, so obviously they're not allowed to join, and (2) besides the incidental details added for flavor, the actual question is why Russia insists on being broadly hostile to the world rather than broadly cooperative.
The logic of 'No of course you can't join us - we're organizing to fight you!' is a good way to create a self fulfilling prophecy. Beyond that, one of the big practical reasons NATO exists is to stop its members from fighting against each other. Europe had centuries of never-ending and ever deadlier warfare eventually culminating in WW2. NATO largely stopped that by putting them under a common umbrella. Of course a practical reality is that history has shown alliances need an external enemy, or they start to turn on themselves. If the US had foreseen had powerful China would be today, I expect Russia would have been 'enlisted' into NATO.
And I don't think Russia is broadly hostile to the world. They cofounded BRICS which comprises near to a majority of the world's population, and also a greater share of the world's economy than e.g. the G7. Rather the "problem", and one that applies to China too, is that they will never behave in a submissive fashion to the US. They want a multipolar world, whereas the political establishment in the US still dreams of a hegemonic world order, akin to what we had after the USSR collapsed. This inevitably sets the stage for geopolitical conflict, and as the saying goes - when two elephants fight it is the grass that suffers.
> 'No of course you can't join us - we're organizing to fight you!'
If only this had a more complicated explanation than something akin to schoolyard drama.
> NATO largely stopped that by putting them under a common umbrella.
You're thinking of democratization, the end of imperialism, and the elimination of aggressive regimes. Helped along by the financial devastation caused by the war.
> I don't think Russia is broadly hostile to the world.
Sure, unless you listen to all of their broadly hostile rhetoric or are on a Malaysian or Azerbaijani airliner or something.
> This inevitably sets the stage for geopolitical conflict
This your way of saying Russia needs to cut undersea cables and invade neighbors?
> You're right, a democratic country would never do anything like that.
Can you point to the place I said this? Does the US shooting down an Iranian airliner somehow make Russia not hostile to the world? These seem like independent things.
"The world"? I don't think I've ever heard the definition of the world defined as narrowly as "80% of Europe and the US with its military allies" before.
"From 6 to 10 August [2025], Ibrahim, the Malaysian King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong), visited Russia at the invitation of President Vladimir Putin. This marked the first visit of a Malaysian head of state to Russia since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries in 1967."
> they will never behave in a submissive fashion to the US.
What does this have to do with both of them repeatedly instigating territorial disputes with their neighbors? Granted the US certainly isn't a saint in that regard but its been quite a while since the Mexico stuff.
Annexing pieces of neighbors and defying US economic interests seem like fairly disjoint activities to me.
That’s because you misunderstand the terminology. They’re talking propaganda and “submissiveness” means something else in their language.
There’s a weird fetishism across Russia: everything is centered around gay sex. There’s no cooperation in the world, either you take it and become “petukh” (cock) or you give it and become “pakhan” (shot caller).
Matches an observation of mine that skips the prison lingo: lack of the concept of friendship without any power gradient that would make it more like a liege/vassal relation than like an alliance between equals. I wonder if that might be an echo of communism, which likely claimed all elements in the Russian language that were related to equal relations and effectively burned them for regular use?
> If the US had foreseen had powerful China would be today, I expect Russia would have been 'enlisted' into NATO.
Lol no, they would not have sabotaged their defensive alliance against a very real, belligerent, immediate enemy for the sake of defending against a potential enemy decades in the future. In any fantasy where the West has that much foresight, they have lots of better options.
Russia doesn't need to be submissive. All Russia has to do is stop starting violence with its neighbors and around the world. Don't mess with Ukraine. Don't mess with Syria. Try actually making their people's lives better instead. (I can already hear you complaining "but the US--" stop. Tu quoque is a fallacy.)
The bar is embarrassingly low. Even after they annexed Crimea, the rest of the world was willing to pretend Russia was a reasonable actor. But it wasn't enough for Russia, mostly for Putin himself I suspect.
Tu quoque can be a fallacy but in this case it demonstrates that the US not only expects, but demands, that other countries to behave in a way far and away from how it itself behaves. And that is important because it gets back to the point of the US trying to assert itself as having a position of dominance.
And also, I think many people have a rather distorted view of the world. When you say 'the rest of the world' I assume you are speaking as most do when they use this term - the Anglosphere, Europe excluding Russia/Belarus, and then the handful of oddballs like Japan and sometimes South Korea. What percent of the world do you think this is? It's less than 15%, and trending downward.
Truly sovereign nations can be expected to act in their own best interest. Russia responded to the US deciding to expand a military alliance all the way up to Ukraine, one of their most vulnerable points, exactly how the US would respond if Russia tried to form a military alliance with Mexico. I mean we brought the world to the verge of nuclear armageddon over the USSR establishing weaponry in Cuba, which doesn't even have a land route to the US!
That's why you don't do things like this, unless you're actively working to both establish and demonstrate your dominance over another country, which we were. I just don't think the moralizing angle can be argued in good faith. If you want to see 'starting shit' - we just mostly randomly invaded Venezuela and kidnapped their president which is pretty lol. This moralizing angle is just disingenuous or naive.
> I mean we brought the world to the verge of nuclear armageddon over the USSR establishing weaponry in Cuba, which doesn't even have a land route to the US!
Oh I see, you really are just clueless. Do you think missiles need a "land route" to be dangerous?
You're still leaning on tu quoque too. I don't disagree that the US had behaved badly. That continues not to make Russia any smarter.
The point is that missiles are a subset of land logistics (or invasion) of which Ukraine offers both. So the US expanding into Ukraine was substantially more strategically threatening than the USSR expanding into Cuba. And the US response to Cuba was not particularly irrational, nor was Russia's to Ukraine. In the end the only way we will ever maintain a stable world order is when the giants of this world respect each other's reasonable self interest.
Oh sure, giants should respect each other's self interest, but Ukraine and it's people can get fucked as long as it's in Russia's interest. It's pathetic how you try to impugn my moral standing via US actions I don't defend, while you're the one actively pushing a morally incoherent position.
I'm not impugning your moral standing in the least. I'm saying that the moral argument you were concocting wasn't reasonable because you were implicitly expecting a great power to abide a standard which no great power ever would.
I am basing my arguments entire on realpolitik - great powers can be expected to act in their own self interest. It's consistently reliable and helps explain (and predict) things that are otherwise incomprehensible if you try listening to anybody's rhetoric. Countries do not act morally.
When a relatively weak and strategically important country tries to align itself against a giant on its doorstep, that's never going to lead to happy things for that country in the longrun. One of the countries that may be next on the chopping block for the US is Cuba, which I think makes our likely motivation behind this whole thing somewhat more clear.
Joining the EU would be somewhat nonsensical as they would gain very little from it and cede substantial sovereignty in exchange. It's the same reason places like Norway have no interest in joining the EU.