you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 2 years ago (44 children)

So -- pure curiosity... Which countries could yet still potentially join NATO.

Switzerland doesn't join anything ever, so it's the dark horse. But since everything is done by referendum there, it could change on a dime if the public demanded it.

Austria literally has it in their constitution that they aren't allowed -- but in theory they could change their constitution (unlikely).

Moldova has the whole Transnistria incentive -- but NATO would be shy about that one, because that could potentially immediately put them in hot conflict. However, suppose they backdoored their way in by creating a union with Romania (not impossible, but complicated).

Ireland has been neutral forever -- but the public support for Ukraine is extremely high. So they might even be possible. Higher than Switzerland anyway ;)

Bosnia and Herzegovina is sort of a special case where they're sort of partially engaged already.

Serbia is extremely unlikely while they continue to be extremely contemptuous of everyone. That's fine. Although Kosovo is sort of under NATO protection.

In theory, Georgia or Armenia would be candidates, but Turkey would pooh-pooh Armenia right away, and Georgia has contested territory.

In order of odds, I wager: Ireland, Moldova (via Romania), Georgia+Ukraine (in that order chronologically).

  • source
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    I'm interested in Ireland too, especially in the next few years as the reunification party is resurgent

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Ireland has no chance, people here are extremely pro neutrality to the point there were protests when American Airforce jets refueled here. It's not a case of alignment, it's that nobody wants to get involved in any sort of conflict.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    That was a very long time ago unless I've missed something more recent? (Genuine question) Personally think it's time to re-examine our neutrality

    It feels wrong not to support Ukraine militarily.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Hi-dilly-hi....hi-dilly-ho.....over the side of the boat you go!

    Nah we're all friendly now for the most part. Sporting events excluded naturally where fervent, screaming nationalism from the Irish comes in and the English wonder why we are so angry at them. :D

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    There was a lot of backlash in the last few months when Leo Varadkar attended a defense conference which was mostly NATO members. He was forced to state that Ireland will not join any military alliance whatsoever. I do agree that it feels wrong to not support countries that realistically we're aligned with but the Irish military is in such a state that if we tried I'd expect Ukraine to actually donate equipment to us instead

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    A reunified Ireland could benefit from being in NATO in case England loses their God damn minds and tried to take them back at some point in the future, but I guess those days are over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    To be fair, Ireland doesn’t have the resources or population to be involved in a continental conflict in a impactful way. Getting involved in a war you might not win and might result in the end of your small nation isn’t normally a good idea.

    I don’t believe nato could lose a war with Russia, but I don’t blame Ireland for not wanting to risk it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If Russia somehow won a war against NATO and took over all the European NATO countries, which is the vast majority of Europe, what would prevent them from just taking over the leftover bits at that point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Yeah neutrality is worthless at that point. Sure Hitler wasn't going to stop with the UK. We were definitely next.

    The main advantage it has given us has been as a trusted UN peacekeeper where the Irish Defence Forces have been seen as a neutral third part to conflict and they have done and continue to do solid work abroad in that regard.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    I was surprised to learn Ireland is not in Nato. They should obviously join asap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Have you seen their support of Palestinians? They'll never join NATO

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Wait, is NATO Zionist or something? Did I miss the memo?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 2 years ago

    Yes. Israel fully depends on US for weapons and finances. Just like NATO. So naturally US government uses both for the same purpose of controlling oil in the middle east.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I have not. In what way do they support Palestine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 2 years ago

    US has authority in Israel and NATO, so they can make both of them fight in these wars that benefit their oil companies. So NATO and Israel are part of the same miltiary force, only run by different puppet governments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    Personally, I see no reason why ever nation couldn't join NATO at some point.

    I expect "clever" dipshits to be like "NORTH ATLANTIC", though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Nothing clever needs to be invoked. It's baked into the text of the treaty. Article 5 is what's invoked to bring the whole alliance together to defend against an attack on any one member. However, Article 6 limits Article 5 to attacks within Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Strictly speaking, even an attack on Hawaii wouldn't invoke it.

    I guess countries outside that area could join, but without a change to the treaty, the key clause in the whole thing wouldn't apply to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We got one!

    but without a change to the treaty

    If only there was some way to address this. I guess we should just start a new alliance if we ever want to accept people outside of the North Atlantic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -16 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    Maybe they don't want to die in middle east for US oil companies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    You got downvoted but you're not wrong. NATO is getting good PR at the moment because of Ukraine, but the invasion of Iraq and Libya are examples of how god-awful NATO is. Iraq was invaded out of trumped up accusations but the real reason is gaining access to Iraqi oil. I remember it was France and UK who were antsy to invade Libya while US refused initially but eventually caved in. Look at the long term implications of such invasions. ISIS sprung up, and Libya is in a civil war causing thousands of refugees which Europe absorbed.

    NATO is getting good image at the moment because of recency bias

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    NATO didn't participate in the invasion of Iraq, so what exactly are you talking about?

    You might remember the term 'coalition of the willing'. The only major ally the US actually got to come along with us to Iraq was the UK. Everyone else rightfully sat out of that mess.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Good thing the west would never invade anything if they don't have a defensive pact. Ow wait!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Did Iraq and Libya invade any democracies or NATO? Plenty of coping and short term memories in this thread. Or it could be something else?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [+] -17 points 2 years ago

    A lot of countries from your list are already very close with NATO, they have NATO offices in their top military command and do most of the military exceraises with NATO. NATO also has a lot of officers of these countries on their paycheck, even some biggest presidentail candidates in these countries are NATO generals.

    NATO has a huge control over the netural governments, only reason they don't join is because of their populations that don't like NATO countries invading middle east for oil. Mostly in the Balkans that is the case and some of the countries that joined, they did it without referendums against the will of their people. There is a big sentiment of NATO looking imperialistic and treating middle east and the balkans as colonies. Bosnia for example, doesn't even have real independence, high representitve placed by the west, from the UN can veto anything that is not in their interest. "So far, all of the High Representatives named have been from European Union countries, and their principal deputies have typically been from the United States"

  • source
  • parent