I am finding the reasoning somewhat disorienting. Is it really the only way? The only way to move forward is to move Russia towards NATO, and I am assuming NATO framework of world view. This would hardly be the solution. Cooperation with NATO, definitely. This is a great opporunity. But for what purpose? NATO is a military alliance. As an alliance, it is selective as to who it wants to protect, and who should stay outside this security cartel. Since the Cold War, NATO tried consistently to redefine United Nations. These attempts at redefining took various forms, bombings and invasions, sanctions and starvations. The attempts were clearly aimed at making UN irrelevant, except as a mopping mechanisms to NATO operations. But it was always less then clear how will NATO transform into a global security strategy. At least UN, with all its imperfections, provided for the platform where, publicly, members of UN SC had to take a position on Resolutions, advancing or blocking initiatives. This is still actually the only way to solve conflicts today. Veto simply allows for a problem to be delayed until there is a meeting of the minds. NATO undermined this process, leaving global security worse off. Russia and others, should try to engage NATO in recognizing that it cannot prevail by force, except against smaller, less defended targets. But the price of such attrition by force is high. The diminishing security, barriers to free trade, and the enormous costs of sustaining the occupied, semi-occupied or tribute-managed entities. NATO is thinking only force. What can Russia do to insure at least European security, for the time being? It failed in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia and then Georgia. How many more failures does it take to create a true guarantor of peace, not petty exploitator of ethnic strife? The cost in lives and treasure to everyone is just too high.