Posted on 03/03/2022 10:23:55 AM PST by libh8er
While there is no official checklist for membership, the alliance maintains a list of minimum requirements that aspiring countries should be able to meet:
New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity
New members must be making progress toward a market economy
Their military forces must be under firm civilian control They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders
They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces
Once a country makes its desire to join the alliance known, NATO may invite the country to join the Membership Action Plan, which is a program that helps nations prepare for future membership, though participation does not guarantee membership, according to NATO's website.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.in ...
You’d think it would have something to do with the North Atlantic.
Ukraine in NATO makes about as much sense as Nepal in NATO.
(Some really outstanding reading and viewing on this Twitter thread that has gone viral among folks who read and understand history. IOW, about 1% of people.)
(Stephen Cohen died 2 years ago, Prof. Mearsheimer is still active. His included 2015 lecture is must watching.)
Dr Jordan B Peterson
@jordanbpeterson·7h
This is a rough thread.
Quote Tweet Arnaud Bertrand · Feb 28 Most fascinating thing about the Ukraine war is the sheer number of top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming if we continued down the same path.
No-one listened to them and here we are.
Small compilation of these warnings, from Kennan to Kissinger to Mearsheimer.
Show this thread
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592
I’m not familiar with the relationship between the EU and NATO.
Does NATO follow marching orders from the EU? or is NATO simply a military alliance which exists outside of the EU?
Money. Period.
Why is there still a NATO?
.... because post-Soviet treaties explicitly forbid Ukraine from joining NATO? I mean, there are plenty of other reasons that are NOT any of Putin’s business, but there’s one.
NATO is a pledge to go to all-out HOT war if any member nation is attacked... unconditionally. That means we’d better make sure...
1) the government is not substantially corrupt
2) the economy is such that it won’t inspire guerrilla movements
3) the government is democratic and stable enough that there will be no basis for rebels who might seek foreign support.
Ukraine is a frickin’ basket case. If you think that in any way justifies Putin, then YOU’RE the one buying into Russian propaganda. But Ukraine used to be just about the wealthiest Soviet Republic, and now, most former Soviet Republics, including Russia, are at least four to ten times wealthier. Why has the breadbasket, the industrial base, the powerhouse of Eastern Europe been so poor? Corrupt, incompetent leadership. Hell, maybe THAT’S why Putin hates Zelenskyy so much... he’s better than brutal monsters like Poroshenko and corrupt oligarchs like Tymoshenko; if Zelenskyy unites Ukraine without being ultra-corrupt AND without abusing Russian minorities, where does that leave Russia?
Aside from Ukraine being horribly corrupt?
NATO is a military alliance that predates the EU.
What a joke! If that mattered Turkey wouldn't be part of NATO.
Making yourself dependent on Russian oil and gas at the same time you openly discuss expanding your military alliance right to the border of Russia seems like something that might be considered provocative. Maybe when Russia asked them to commit to not doing that it would have been a good idea. Oh well, water under the bridge I guess.
So it’s independent then?
I see confusing signals suggesting that being in one means your in the other.
Zelensky officially requested admission into the EU... but Did he separately request recently admission into NATO as well?
I potentially see conflicts of interest developing between NATO and the EU.
As in the movie Highlander, “there can be only one” in a new world order.
I suspect that NATO AND the UN will eventually have to bow to the EU or disappear.
This whole fiasco with UKRAINE has made NATO look like a backyard kindergarten club which is pretty much useless... just like the UN.
These are some Russian thoughts:
https://washington.mid.ru/en/press-centre/news/draft_agreements_on_security_guarantees/
> Why is there still a NATO? <
It’s a great place for the United States to pretend it’s still Big Daddy, the world’s only superpower. Germany, the UK, etc. are more than happy to go along with that. It saves them quite a lot of money.
Neither reason is good enough to justify NATO’s continued existence, as I believe you’d agree.
NATO is a relic of the past. If countries have similar interests and obligations they’ll help each other. No reason to have the US be an official part of that Anti-American dinosaur.
Funny how something so Anti-American is so effin’ reliant on the very country it hates. Pres Trump called them out for who they were and it was glorious to see. I watched that meeting with him and the NATO SecGen. The man was a flat out savage when he wanted to be.
It would have been amazing and funny to be a part a staffer in that room, knowing that once the NATO guy stopped talking a tsunami of facts and demands, that they couldn’t deny, was about to be unleashed. They must have hated having to deal with him knowing they were about to get their asses handed to them.
However, there's a big difference. For example, remember England voting for Brexit? That was to get out of the EU, but not NATO. Being a member of the EU requires, among other things, freedom of movement across the borders of fellow member EU nations. England had had enough of the rapefugees that Germany (Merkel) had let into Europe. Remember the Rotherham grooming scandal? (I hate using the word "grooming" like they were styling their hair instead of raping girls.) The Bits were fed up with trying to get their authorities to protect their citizens from the Muslim rapefugees and that was one of the main reasons they voted for Brexit (to get out of the EU). There are other things too, like the nations have to give money into the EU, which divvies that out as a kind of welfare to other EU nations (Germany always feels slighted for being the EU's wealthiest sugar daddy and feeling like it gives them the right to have more say in how the EU is run.)
>>> There are other things too, like the nations have to give money into the EU,
A good example of potential conflicts of interest. Both cannot stand unless one totally gives into the other.
I’m wondering if the real target here is actually PUTIN AND NATO... with the EU using a war between Russia and the US to do their dirty work.
Regardless of how I may feel about Putin, the fact remains that Russia has the largest supply of nukes and poking at a cornered bear is really not a smart idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.