3 ms·
Sure, but if they’re likely to pull you into a conflict you don’t want and would otherwise avoid, it’s usually a better idea to avoid it. See, for example, Ukr
by mikeash 8y ago
Sure, but if they’re likely to pull you into a conflict you don’t want and would otherwise avoid, it’s usually a better idea to avoid it.
See, for example, Ukraine joining NATO.
- StavrosK 8y agoSo there isn't a hard and fast rule of "don't let countries bordering on aggressive nations" join, which is my initial point. The benefits and downsides of Greece joining the EU were weighed, and it was allowed to join.
- mikeash 8y agoI thought your initial point was that the other commenter implied that Greece was an aggressor against an innocent country, and that they were either misinformed or trolling. My point, in turn, is that nothing about their statement implied this.
- StavrosK 8y agoTheir statement could be taken in two ways: Either aggressors should never be allowed, or countries with a risk of receiving aggression should never be allowed. Since the latter is extreme, I can only assume the commenter meant the former.
- tormeh 8y agoThat's not what I meant. Greece and Turkey doesn't have any military conflicts currently, and are unlikely to get any in the near future. What Greece does have are dumb and immature gripes with Macedonia and Turkey. Cyprus should be a solved problem by now. There's no reason to have it hanging around as this diplomatic pain point. The Macedonia conflict is stranger than parody, and is about to be solved because Macedonia is showing itself to be slightly less stubborn than Greece.
- mikeash 8y agoI don’t see them making any sort of general statement. They were always talking specifically about Greece. One could say that EU membership for Greece was a bad idea because of the potential conflict with Turkey without ever implying a general rule that countries at risk for aggression should never be allowed in any situation.