The Hill currently has a feature titled To avert war, the West should welcome Ukraine and a reformed Russia into NATO written by Joseph Bosco, identified as a country director for China to the U.S. defense secretary at the beginning of the century.
After tripping through the required litany of Russian crimes present, past and to come, real and illusory and delusional, the author broaches a theme that we may be hearing more about in the near future: an implicit trade-off between NATO and Russia in which the first gets Ukraine and the second gets…NATO.
He revives the probably apocryphal anecdote of Vladimir Putin, just installed as Russian head of state, asking then NATO Secretary General George Robertson, “When are you going to invite us to NATO?” To which the latter, from whom the tale emanated, responded, “We don’t invite people to join NATO; they apply to join NATO.”
That the long-dormant NATO-Russia Council is being revived, even after the mutual expulsion of the each other’s personnel from Brussels and Moscow last year, and that a meeting in that format will occur in eight days is an indication that something unconventional is underway.
There has been a flurry of statements in recent months, mounting almost by the day, by Putin’s spokesman in the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu that Turkey could act as an intermediary between Russia and Ukraine over the war in the Donbass and over Crimea – though Turkey unequivocally supports the Ukrainian government on both scores and in fact has provided it with combat drones for the first – and, from the Russian officials, that Turkey is a model for wider Russian-NATO cooperation.
As half-baked and far-fetched as the suggestion made by Bosco in The Hill appears – essentially giving Russia a five-year probation period in which to “make major changes in Russia’s economic and political system” as the precondition “to apply and qualify for [NATO] membership like other countries” – something is decidedly afoot in regard to an offer or offers made by one or both sides along the lines of a compromise on Ukraine in exchange for Russia having some voice in NATO, with Ankara acting as the go-between, as the agreed-upon honest broker.
Even in the most sanguine version of such an arrangement should it come to fruition it’s hard to imagine how Europe – or the world – gains anything other than a yet-further enhanced U.S.-dominated global military bloc. Lost in any such historic compromise is the prospect for international, even if for awhile regional, peace and disarmament.
Anti-bellum 
It seems like this is directed at China. If Putin had any scruples, he would turn down “any” generous offer from NATO. The communist country seems to ripping along without much help from the West.
LikeLike
A friend of over 40 years standing, originally from Afghanistan, has suggested to me that the unrest/anti-government uprising underway in Kazakhstan may be aimed at Russia and China, both of whom border the country; in regard to Russia, perhaps as a diversionary action vis-s-via Ukraine. Have you any thoughts on the matter? Would appreciate reading them.
LikeLike
Like I said, I think these are sleeper cells being activated. You provided an excellent background of Kazakhstan post Soviet breakup. Soften Russia with promises from the West along with attacking both China and Russia at the same time with these activities in Kazakhstan. I think we’re in the end stages of the battle of control for the destiny of the planet. The West is striking while the iron is hot. God help us.
LikeLiked by 1 person