Should NATO stop accepting new members into the alliance?

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Considering that NATO can only invite countries that meet the alliance's standards (democratic level, military technology, military structure, transparency, etc.), and they can accept or even refuse the invitation, should NATO become an exclusive club only for current allies and nothing more?

By the way, NATO would now also have the option of accepting nations from outside Europe and North America. Theoretically, anyone who meets the standards could apply to become a member or be invited as one.

NO (Any country must be free to decide whether it wants to be part of the alliance)

YES (NATO should become an exclusive club for certain states only)

See the voting result

[BCA6010]

NATO should kick out anyone who isn't meeting their minimum obligations for defense spending... Which is almost everyone. The countries even coming close are only getting there because the US is sending them money to offset other costs.

In other words, the US should withdraw from NATO entirely (which would cause it to dissolve because it isn't functional without the US) and make individual alliances with the handful of countries that are serious about their preparedness and willingness to fight if it comes to it.

In fact this goes for all alliances and agreements: when members aren't upholding their ends of the deal, the deal should be terminated and/or renegotiated. The US can't afford to keep propping up weak (and frankly inconsequential) allies.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Big talk from the same nation that claims we should befriend with aggressors and oligarchs. You had 2 Republicans before Trump, why wasn't it a problem then and is it now?
There's a saying "the dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds him".
Although you have a larger and more modern army, the conditions that you didn't have in Europe for your soldiers.
(I agree with the equal contribution of all members).
But not under the threat of destruction by an ally.

[BCA6010]

The basic requirement that all NATO members contribute 2% of their GDP towards defense spending has been in place since the very beginning... Yet the only two countries who have been doing pretty good about that (aside from the US) are Greece, who barely matters, and Poland, who is a relative newcomer to the alliance. The next closest is France, and that's ignoring the fact they're still short overall, and occasionally just leave and re-enter NATO whenever it suits them. In spite of this, the second most important NATO member in terms of just sheer manpower and assets... Is Turkey. No, there needs to be a hard ultimatum that ALL members meet that barebones (frankly obsolete) minimum requirement or they get the boot. Period. In the extremely likely event that the vast majority of them are unable or unwilling to do it, then the alliance should be terminated and replaced with a new one with the serious members only.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

It is clear that you are a fool in politics and diplomacy.
As I said, the conditions that American soldiers have in Europe are clearly superior to those in the USA.
Your soldiers come to good campuses, with the possibility of bringing their families to Europe, of benefiting from the medical and educational systems for themselves and their children, as well as extremely convenient transportation to enjoy their vacations.
Considering that what you are asking for should have been implemented, these facilities should never have been available to these people. If NATO dissolves it will be the beginning of the end of the world and even you, the USA, will end up feeling the consequences in your country.
Remember how on 9/11 you were attacked for the first time in your history on your own soil and to this day you cry after that event.
It will be worse if what you are asking for happens.

[DrPepper12]

No. The incentive of collective security is a POWERFUL one to offer other nations!

They'll do better working towards NATO standards

[Alexandrubaschet08]

HOW LONG HAVE I WAITED FOR YOU

[DryGermanGuy]

Contrary to the EU, NATO is not geographically bound. But maybe any new aspiring partners should wait for application until this deranged US-administration is gone the way of the Dodo.

[NathanDavis]

they will do as they see it fit... regardless

[Alexandrubaschet08]

don't understand your answer, can you share some more details?

[NathanDavis]

the people really doesn't get to vote on these things... lol

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Yes they do, people vote in a country if they want to join NATO or not. Even my country as well.

[Ladsin2]

Said B, the purpose of NATO is pretty much to defend against Russia and maybe China right? I don't see the benefit in overextending into countries that can't provide much in terms of defense, but will increase our obligations dramatically.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

is to protect country against thous countrys. If they can mentain a minimum level of security for themself (2%+ GBP contribution) then they should be able to defend themself till the aliance get to them. Is not extending, is inclusion, country want to join to feel protected, NATO is not pushing them to join.

[Ladsin2]

I presume that English is not your first language, but I agree that the purpose is mutual defense. I don't understand why we should let more people in, which would increase the likelihood we get dragged into a war, when that country can't provide much to us.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

how we get dragged? NATO policy is simple, we are attack we go to war, we are not , we don't.

[Ladsin2]

Who's more likely to get attacked, one weak individual person, 10 strong people, or some random guy out of 1,000,000 people?

[Alexandrubaschet08]

What are you talking about?

[Ladsin2]

I presume it's a language barrier. Last time I'll try to explain before we just say it was a nice conversation and leave it at that.
There are currently 32 member states in NATO that we (US) are sworn to protect and defend. The chance that any one of those member states is attacked by a foreign enemy is X%. If we let every country into NATO that wants to join for the security guarantees the member states would balloon to ~100. The odds that any one of 100 states will be attacked, as opposed to 32, will be significantly higher. Therefor the likelihood that America will have to be engaged in foreign conflict increases precipitously. I don't want that likelihood to increase at all, if it is going to increase I want it to be for a very good reason. I want it to be a strong country that doesn't need our defense and can contribute at least as much as the potential drawback of their added membership.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

NATO had been attacked just once, 9/11! But not any other small nation. NATO is a security defence aliance. Any nation that join the aliance will not be able to be attacked. Nobady can face NATO.

[Ladsin2]

That's a presumption that I don't agree with.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Please expres yourself

[Ladsin2]

I don't believe that all NATO member states will never be attacked, especially if it starts to expand. If it starts to expand to anyone that wants membership then it'll be just like the UN. A feckless group that does nothing. NATO member states have been attacked at least 5/6 times, but only enough to invoke article 5 once. I don't believe that will continue to be the case if we start expanding it.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Witch are the 5 time we had been attacked? (i know only the misael in to Poland by Russia or Ukraine). But if the alliance doesn't face a major attack with huge loses and thus incident don't happen regularly then is no point to respond, been most of the time accidents. And even if we are unde an attack, NATO can face any nation in the world at this moment. And with the insecurity of USA, NATO will start to grow even more economically and military in order to be able to not depend on USA. A rise of the contribution is planet between 3% and 5%. If 5% will be enforced NATO will be even USA big boss.

[Dargil]

If the intent is to further surround and threatened Russia the answer is no. We need to get along with them not prepare for war with them.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Do we have the mental capacity to understand that NATO is a defensive alliance?
Even if Russia were surrounded by NATO, this should not represent a threat to Russia considering that it has approximately 6000 NUCLEAR BOMBS!!!
Russia being surrounded by NATO would be absolute proof of a policy of terror exercised by Russia on its neighbors.
However, NATO does not interfere with Russia's economic interests, this would still allow Russia to develop as it wishes and continue to improve its military, economic and social capacity.
But Russia is incapable of such a thing so it needs small and weak neighbors that are extremely vulnerable to its precarious military capabilities.
China being Russia's only threat, and Russia signed that pact with the devil a long time ago.

[Dargil]

Russia is not the threat that it was after the second world war. Yes it does have certain weapons but it's economy is the same size as that of Texas and it's war machine has been severely depleted by the foray into ukraine. I do not think that Europe or America has to defend themselves against russia. We do however have to protect ourselves against China who has designs on world domination before it fades into obscurity because of demographic suicide.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

My friend, it is very serious if you do not put the Russian danger on an equal footing with the Chinese one.
And the economy of Russia has been a circus throughout its history, the Tsarist Empire was hungry, the USSR was queuing for bread, milk and other food, today's Russia does not have enough money to buy a house or cross the street.
Russia is free to reform its economy as it wants, it has resources and skilled people. It is not wanted, in a dictatorship everyone is condemned to hunger.
There is not a single prosperous dictatorship in the world.
Russia is a greater current threat because it has been manifesting its aggression since 1991!!! Since it emerged as a "Republic".

[Alexandrubaschet08]

First Chechen War (1994-1996)

After the dissolution of the USSR, Russia intervened in Chechnya to confront separatist movements in the region, resulting in an intense conflict with Chechen forces.
Second Chechen War (1999-2009)

After a period of calm, Russia launched a second military intervention in Chechnya to combat Chechen rebellions and restore control over the region.
Transnistria Conflict (1992)

After the dissolution of the USSR, in March 1992, a conflict erupted between Moldovan forces and separatist groups in Transnistria, supported by Russia. Russia directly intervened, providing military and logistical support to the separatist region and maintaining troops in the area under the status of "peacekeeping forces." The conflict remains unresolved to this day.
Intervention in Georgia (2008)

In August 2008, Russia intervened militarily in the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, following a conflict between Georgia and separatist forces supported by Russia.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Annexation of Crimea and the War in Eastern Ukraine (2014)

Russia annexed Crimea and intervened militarily in eastern Ukraine, supporting separatist groups in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, leading to an ongoing military conflict in the area.
Intervention in Syria (2015-present)

Russia intervened in Syria to support Bashar al-Assad's regime, launching airstrikes and providing military support in the fight against opposition and terrorist groups within the context of a complex civil war.
Intervention in Kazakhstan (2022)

In January 2022, amid massive and violent protests in Kazakhstan due to rising fuel prices, the Kazakh government requested help from Russia and other members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Russia sent troops to help restore order and security, participating in an intervention aimed at supporting the Kazakh authorities. Russian forces assisted in defeating the protesters and restoring control in the affected cities.
Ukraine War (2022-present)

In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, initiating a large-scale conflict that continues to this day, aiming to subjugate the Ukrainian government and seize territories in Ukraine.

[exitseven]

Yes, only countries that will pay their fair share of their GDP.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

You understand that "YES" means that the alliance will no longer accept members, right?

Although I agree that we should all pay our NATO contribution of at least 2%, anyone who wants more is welcome. (I know there is talk of increasing the contribution). If you voted "YES" it means that no matter who the candidate is and if he wants to pay that contribution, he will no longer have the opportunity.

(NATO should become an exclusive club for certain states only)

[Pet68]

NATO should have been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact was (1989).

[Alexandrubaschet08]

The strong survive despite the wishes of the weak.
Nu mor caii cand vor cainii.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

If Russia had democratized and made reforms in the judiciary and not continued the dictatorial tradition, perhaps NATO would have disbanded.
But the future has shown us the opposite.
Russia invaded in 1991.
Russia invaded in 2004
Russia invaded in 2014
Russia interfered in all the former Soviet republics, Lucasenco being the most famous example for Europe

[Pet68]

Which countries did Russia "invade" during those years? You don't even mention them! In 1991? Where? Whom?
I'm GLAD that Trump is destroying NATO. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say! :D

[Anonymous]

I agree, no more USSR, so what's the point of NATO.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Defance against Russia and any other nation that want to attack a NATO member. You don't need USSR for NATO to still exist. NATO is a suscesful creation that created security and safty in the aliance. Not like Warszawa pact.

[Opinion Owner]

USSR was a super-power, Russia is not.
USSR was the reason for creating NATO, without USSR, there is no purpose for the pact.
Russia is incompetent, and unable to handle any of the NATO members, even Putin knows that.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

You are a fool if you belive that shit. Russia is not using invasion against NATO, but propaganda, conspiracy theory, revolts, isolationism ideology. Rusia can fight any European nation, ONLY if they fight them one by one.
Is working with Hungary, is working with Romania, it had work with UK who left EU, it work with USA who is now friend whit Russia.

That how Russia is invading countrys, in Ukraine happen the same thing before the invasion in 2014.
Lot of fake news that people belive them and end up very bad.

NATO MUST STAY, AND EVEN ENLARGE THEMSELF WITH NATIONS THAT WANT TO JOIN AND FULFIL THE REQUIRMENTS!

[Opinion Owner]

Conspiracy theories are just words... with no realism.
Revolts? The only revolts I've seen are people protesting against Russia, not for Russia.
Isolationism? Isolated countries who support them (like North Korea) are all under sanctions, they can't help them much, considering their economy power (or lack of it).

LOOOL, really? That's just media propaganda... if Russia was "so dangerous" - they would finish the war in Ukraine in less than a few weeks... in reality - they wouldn't stand a chance against any NATO member.
Hungary supports Russia just because they need their oil. Romania probably has the same reasons.
USA - Trump wants an excuse to take Greenland, that's why he supports Russia, so that he doesn't look like a hypocrite when he uses military forces to invade.

If Europe is afraid of such an unrealistic and weak opponent as Russia, they should form some kind of new EU ENTENTE pact, they don't need NATO anymore.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

After Russia, Romania is the biggest OIL producer in Europe.
Is the Russian propaganda who is invading the nations first and when they are weak and divided it come the Russian army.
If Ukraine will not had suport from EU and USA will had fall for sure.

EU want to unite in one single federation but there are people like you who say there is no point because Russia is not a big deal. Russia win against France, Ottomans, Germany. Who had live in East Europe know the worst thing you can do against Russia is to underestimate it.

Even if it look weak, against Russia you need to fight will all you got.
And Russia is pushing more and more their propaganda against people now.
Saying USA is evile as well and there is no point to reliant on them, in this way people will come more close to isolationism (to do their own jobs in their own countrys). Is what Russia want.

[Opinion Owner]

Then they have some other agenda with Romania, maybe related to orthodox church.
No country is weak and divided by propaganda, nobody even listens to what Russia has to say.
Russia showed just how weak they are when they invaded Ukraine. See how USA handled Venezuela, that's how the real super-force operates, Russia is not capable to do that.

Russia won the wars against France, Ottomans and Germany - mostly because of their Winter, but whenever they tried to invade someone, they usually lost the war (in Finland, in Korea against Japan) - Generally speaking, Russia is strong only in defence, but in attack, they are one of the weakest countries.

Most medias block Russia, and their economy is a wreck, they won't be able to do anything after the sanctions, they will be as poor as some African countries.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

You are sooo navive to think nobady listen to Russia propaganda.
The Russian propaganda is not just what RT say or Putin.
Le Pan do the Russian work in France.
Trump in USA.
Nigel in UK.
Simion, Sosoaca, Georgescu, Gavrila in Romania
Russia is not F Orthodox, they are the nation of devil, there is no conection of Christianity and Russians at all.

The biggest power of Russia had never been it army, but it propaganda.
Alwase.
Russia is not a superpower but is still a global power.
You are way uninform and underestimate very badly the Russian capabilitys.
Russia was weak only in the 90'.
But now, Russia is dangerous.
If USA attack Greenland, Europe will have no chances agains Europe, 100%.

[Opinion Owner]

They have some politicians who support them, so what? None of those have real power except for Trump.
Now, that's just some kind of prejudice, I know some Russians, and they re decent people.

And propaganda usually doesn't work.
What kind of "secret power" do they have? They have nothing, their weapons are old and useless, their population is declining, their economy is crap.
Europe will have no chances against Europe? Where is the logic in that?
If USA attacks Greenland, Putin might support him, EU will oppose him, but the only possible war I see, is between USA and EU alliance. Russia is too exhausted after several years of a war they can't finish because of their many weaknesses.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Thous politicians who are pro-russian and you belive have no power "NOW" had keep growing sience 2014.
Right now Russia control Hungary and Slovakia and in Poland just the president (the parlament is still EU).

The one and only place where Russia is loseing influence is in Moldova.

Is USA will attack Greenland and Europe need to fight it will be our end becuse Putin will have all the power to devorate East Europe and if that happen Russia will have even more influence in the West.
Russia amplifies the internal problems of countries and finances extremist and even separatist groups.
You can read about Brexit and Russian influence in the UK, how it turned out that several newspapers promoting Brexit were owned by Russian people or received money from Russia.
The AFD in Germany is also the toy of Russia, although they did not take power in Germany, they became very visible and took over "East Germany" in its entirety, these political schisms create divisions between people and frustrations, which amplifies the discontent in society.

It's the same everywhere.

There are many people with very poor educations and no studies who do not inform themselves like a more educated person, and these people go with the popular characters.
Russia's influence is also felt in the Nordic countries, something that made Sweden and Finland join NATO, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, only confirmed their fears that they already had.

I recommend the book "Putin's Trolls - by Jessika Arron" as she is a journalist from Finland who documented Russia's propaganda weapon. Finland is the country that has the strictest laws in the world regarding the rights of journalists. In Finland, journalists can write almost anything they want.
But because she was writing about Russia from Finland and she was Finnish, she had to flee even from her own country.

[Opinion Owner]

They control nothing, those countries are mostly irrelevant and have no influence on EU.

If USA invades Greenland, it will change nothing, Russia has incompetent army, they won't get any further than Ukraine, just like they did in the last few years.
If Russia had any influence on extremists or separatists, than Scotland, Wales, Basque land, Lusatia and many other countries would already be independent, but they are obviously not... and they can't finance anything because they are under sanctions, and their economy is falling apart.
Russia has nothing to do with Brexit, that's just journalist propaganda, they have to make up stories like that so that more people start buy their newspaper.
AFD lost the elections, and Russia has no influence in Nordic countries, in fact, people are strictly against Russia in most Nordic countries, and they are very well educated.

That's the thing, journalists can write anything they want, so they make up stories to sell more newspaper.
No wonder someone from Finland writes against Russia, it's like saying that some journalist from Iran is writing against Israel.

[robocop666]

Too many members and it will collapse like the Mongolian empire.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Moglia was not an empire, but a migratory population, there were no solid institutions to certify this empire. Historians support this.
The idea of ​​the Mongol Empire is only the areas through which these Mongols migrated and plundered.
They did not impose any regime other than that of terror and tributary.
Most of those Mongol populations being absorbed by the civilizations over which they themselves invaded.
NATO will not collapse if it does not allow itself to be indoctrinated by the Putinist ideology that you also promote.
The question is whether NATO should stop expanding or not.
NOT IF IT DISSOLVES.
NATO WILL NOT DISSOLVE BEFORE RUSSIA AND CHINA, STAY CALM.

[Godihateyou]

NATO should be dissolved

[Alexandrubaschet08]

In Putin dream my toll, never ever ever!!! Russia will die before NATO.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Can i also ask why do you want NATO dissolved?

[Alexandrubaschet08]

"I've hurt people gravely and on purpose. More than I've helped people selflessly and for no reward. All of that doesn't matter. I don't believe that Jesus was God's son and I don't believe a hero getting killed by Jews could save me anyway. I've always known I was going to Hell." - Your words THIS IS THE KIDE OF PEOPLE WHO WANT NATO DISSOLVED!!! Godless people, evil, with willing to kill.
Completely opposite from what NATO stand.

[Pet68]

Because there is no longer a Warsaw Pact, that's why. This ridiculous "alliance" serves no useful purpose.

[Pet68]

Russia will never die you jackass!

[Alexandrubaschet08]

@Pet68 I was a member of the Warsaw Group, that was an anti-NATO alliance.
And NATO was an ANTI-USSR alliance! Not of the Eastern Bloc that was controlled by the USSR.
With the death of the USSR, Russia remained, which will also die before NATO.
NATO after the Cold War maintains its defensive purpose for all its allies AGAINST RUSSIA, WHICH IS THE PRECURSOR OF THE USSR, AND THIS HAS NOT DEMOCRATIZED IN ANY WAY AND HAS NOT BECOME ANY MORE TRANSPARENT TO ALLOW NATO TO DISSOLVE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, RUSSIA IS THE ONE TO BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF NATO AND ITS CONTINUITY AND THE EXPANSION OF THE ALLIANCE.
I became a NATO member because of the fear of Russia, since I am in the alliance, Russia no longer had any control over my country, and my country has prospered. Russia has not offered us anything, nothing, it has taken absolutely everything we had, EVERYTHING.
If Russia dies in the near future, it will still be her fault, even if NATO remains behind because it would be possible for NATO to face another threat.

[Pet68]

"... defensive purpose..." - What absolute garbage! Try telling that to the Serbians, or Libyans!
Your country has prospered? I find it interesting that you refuse to say which country is your country. Name it, where do you live?

[Pet68]

NATO stands for North American Terrorist Organisation, because that's what it is; an evil empire, a band of thugs and terrorists.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

@Pet68 Live in UK but is not my country, so not your buisnes. Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of Libya from 1969 until 2011, was accused of numerous crimes and abuses during his regime. Some of the most notable accusations include:

Human Rights Abuses: Gaddafi's regime was responsible for severe human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial executions, and enforced disappearances of political opponents. Many of those who opposed his rule were arrested, tortured, and often killed.

Suppression of Uprisings: His regime was extremely repressive, especially during internal revolts or any form of opposition. In 2011, during the Libyan Civil War, his forces used extreme violence to suppress protests, with many civilians being killed in the process.

Support for Terrorist Groups: Gaddafi was accused of supporting international terrorist organizations, such as the Red Brigades in Italy, groups in Northern Ireland, and various African-based terror organizations. His regime was also implicated in terrorist attacks, including the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people.

Use of Chemical Weapons: Gaddafi was accused of using chemical weapons against his own people, particularly during internal conflicts. His regime was also involved in the development and stockpiling of such weapons.

Corruption and Exploitation of National Resources: Gaddafi’s regime was often criticized for corruption and the misuse of Libya’s natural resources, such as oil, for personal benefit and that of a small circle of loyal supporters.

[Pet68]

None of that is true, but even if it were, it was NATO that attacked his country, and yet here you are trying to tell me that it's just a defensive alliance. Now Libya is a mess, with warring factions vying for control. Before 2011 it was united and prosperous, but thanks to NATO it probably never will be again, and it's now being taken over by Al Qaeda.
NATO must be disbanded.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

@Pet68 Russia played an important role in KFOR, although it was quite tense during that period. During KFOR operations, Russia had its own contingent of troops, but Russia did not agree with NATO's intervention in Kosovo, considering it illegal. This created an atmosphere of tension between Russia and NATO forces, given that Russia was an ally of Serbia.

However, Russian forces operated under the general command of KFOR and had their own sector of responsibility in Kosovo. Additionally, during the conflict and their presence in Kosovo, Russia argued that it had the right to participate in the peacekeeping process in the region.