Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Balkanbaby

Rudolf

Rudolf — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

What happens when everyone joins NATO?

Andrewh1112

Andrewh1112 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Everyone? Your comment makes no sense. It’s not like they’re the last countries outside NATO anyway.

Besides that even if everyone did join the pact says all the members have to come to the aid of a member under attack regardless of who the agressor is... if Denmark attacked Germany, NATO would have to fight the Danes regardless of their NATO membership.

Do you even know where these countries are? Or how small they are? The European Union is taking more steps towards the goal of having a Continental army - and protecting European territory. These countries belong to the European community and will become EU members in the future.

Eventually NATO will just have two armies: the US and the EU. That is *if* NATO survives. Many Europeans see NATO as a relic and an American proxy.

Rudolf

Rudolf — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

So if Germany attacks Poland, which is more like what will happen, U.S will attack Germany? From U.S base in Germany?

My real concern is that the pact is being watered down with this endless expansion. I understand the need to protect the small new countries from Russia but how do you explain the fact that the more NATO expands the harder it is for NATO to find troops to its mission.

Eventually the expansion will end or else...

Andrewh1112

Andrewh1112 — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

In all seriousness do you really think NATO members are likely to attack each other? The members are members because they have something in common. The new members would also have to be vetted - and they do have ”sponsors” you know. The EU is the perfect example - conflict is no longer possible or productive because of the economic and social integration.

And if the new members start acting up they’ll get scorn from both NATO and the EU. If it’s one thing they want it’s economic integration with the EU. If you’re a naughty boy you’ll get kicked out of the club.

The expansion is of course worrisome if you really believe it is a defensive pact. In my opinion NATO has been abused by the US to further American political goals. NATO is not supposed to be an American proxy - a bunch of serfs to the feudal lord. However now it’s shaping up to become just a group for ”action” where the UN fails to act. I don’t see that stated anywhere in the founding treaty.

Protecting countries from Russia is not the issue. Russia has no intentions of taking new countries - it has no need for them now. The Eastern Block was a buffer zone for them. Now that the EU is firmly in their economic resource grip they can rest easy. Germany has long since been neutered.

This is all about power. Russia is looking for it’s glory days. And it’s actually coming sooner rather than later. But the power is not military - but economical and political. If you know how the Serbs and Russians feel about each other you will understand the ”need” for Russia to have power in that region of Europe. It’s a deep kinship to say the least.

The fact that NATO members are not willing to commit troops speaks volumes of the problems I outlined above. No wonder we don’t want to supply troops to wars America wants fought. The whole pact was founded on the principals of mutual protection in war. The ”war on terror” is not a war. I for one would seriously like to see the EU speed up the work it’s doing on the military wing (WEU) and quit NATO altogether. If the US wants to fight wars it should pay the price in blood too.

The US was attacked by a small terrorist group. Defeating al-Quaida is not done by invading Afghanistan or Iraq. And that’s what American wants, right? You can’t fight terrorists with a regular army.

Edward

Edward — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Andrewh1112, War is now very unlikely between members of NATO, clearly the idea of Germany invading Denmark or Spain conquoring Portugal is ridiculous. On the otherhand, how close did we come to war over Cyprus? Both Greece and Turkey were NATO members and this episode caused real strains within the organisation. It’s hard to predict where such a case could occur in the future but Kosovo is brewing in the background and members are indeed divided over this. I’m not saying that it will ever come to war, purely that there is the potential for real dispute if the stakes are high enough, as they were in Cyprus.

Andrewh1112

Andrewh1112 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0000

You make an interesting point there, Edward. However does it not also prove the very point I was making? That Turkey and Greece are unable to go to war because of their NATO membership?

Or more importantly that Turkey would loose any and all hope of joining the EU if it attacked Greece.

Turkey and Greece have after all ”fought” with other means for some time now. A full scale war is unthinkable and probably impossible to win.

In some ways NATO membership is seen as a stepping stone towards EU membership. After all if you are going to become ”family”, you better put your weapons down or join us.

And Turkey is the odd man out in the alliance. Why did we bring Turkey into NATO? And why does America fight so hard to force Turkey on us Europeans? Why does Turkey call in favors from the US in their struggle to become members of the EU?

Turkey does not make sense in the current situation. The Cold War is over and Turkey has no real strategic defensive value to NATO. It does however have a very good location for American policy expansion and power projection in the Middle East. But are those goals the same as NATO’s?