4 ms·
A military alliance of liberal democracies certainly makes sense. Mainly to counter China and Russia. Whether Turkey should be in NATO is hard to say without h
by RivieraKid 6y ago
A military alliance of liberal democracies certainly makes sense. Mainly to counter China and Russia.
Whether Turkey should be in NATO is hard to say without having a deep understanding of the situation. Turkey staying in NATO has pros and cons.
- schuke 6y agoI think a more useful NATO against China would be something like a NATO for free-speech. Norway gets punished economically for awarding a Nobel prize to a Chinese dissident. It really can't fight back unless all free-speech loving countries retaliate together.
- DetroitThrow 6y agoThere should be a political union of liberal democratic countries that favors trade deals and military alliances with one another - there's not a great counter against the slow rise of authoritarianism abroad. A less US centered axis centered around the G7 could be a good start, though developing democracies should certainly get a seat at the table and be rewarded for protecting democratic values.
- nradov 6y agoNice idea but even the liberal democracies have huge political differences on sensitive issues like fishing rights, oil drilling, and agricultural subsidies.
- DetroitThrow 6y agoSure, but the overall security of liberal democracy and the rights/freedoms commonly enshrined themselves are probably a fundamental shared interest, yes? While an economic union similar to the EU with common treaties you describe is likely non-viable across all liberal democracies, there are trade interests between them and certainly security/defense interests.
- bilbo0s 6y agoThe reason this doesn't happen, is because there are not a lot of free speech loving nations out there. You going to exclude Germany, and have them align with China instead? It doesn't make much sense at the geopolitical scale. (I know that some would even say there are no nations who believe in free speech. It's just that the subjects that cause police and military in each nation to clamp down on speech are different depending on the society.) The lines are just very difficult to draw. If you exclude Germany on principle, would other EU nations still cooperate with you? It just gets messy.
- tpush 6y agoI think you overestimate how much 'free speech' is an ideal shared by all NATO countries.
- silicon2401 6y agounfortunately free speech is losing support rapidly these days.
- calvinmorrison 6y agoYeah - it's a location of US nukes.
- petre 6y agoThe US should probably move the Turkush nukes to Greece, since moving them to Romania and/or Poland would piss off Russia and mark the beginning of the next cold war. These countries are much more reliable partners than Turkey. Moving them to insular Greece (if the Greeks accept them of course) would also send a very clear message to Edrogan.
- croes 6y agoThat's like Russia placing rockets in Cuba. Wait a minute...
- bilbo0s 6y agoRomania and Poland are militarily stupid places to put your nuclear assets. Turkey offers blindingly obvious geographically advantageous benefits. That's the reason NATO needs Turkey. That would change if Russia is not your enemy, but the entire raison d'etre of NATO is to prevent war with Russia.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mrec 6y agoIt also controls the Bosphorus, hence cutting off the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Mediterranean, and is a handy staging point for operations in the Middle East. Nobody else can do the first, and alternatives for the second are less palatable.
- petre 6y ago> Nobody else can do the first, and alternatives for the second are less palatable. A submarine blockade can, like the one employed by Germany in WW2.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoShared interests have little to do with whether countries share the same type of political regime. Russia and, certainly, China, would still be 'adversaries' if they became liberal democracies because that would not change the geopolitics, diverging interests, and views. Likewise for Turkey. The key is that it is currently pursuing a policy of assertiveness as a regional power that clashes with the interests of other NATO members.
- runarberg 6y agoMilitary alliance never makes sense unless you want war. In my opinion all military alliances should be banned by the UN.
- nradov 6y agoThe UN has no authority to enact such a ban or any power to back it up. The UN is a forum for diplomacy, not a world government.
- runarberg 6y agoWell, issue a deceleration for the non-proliferation and the eventual abolition of military alliances between member states then.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> The UN has no authority to enact such a ban Sure it does: as with most UN “legislation” it would be adopted by the GA adopting treaty text and member states signing and ratifying the treaty. > or any power to back it up. That is the more relevant problem, especially since most of the UN’s power comes through...military alliances supportive of UN goals.
- SllX 6y agoThe UN is more akin to a discussion table. You can get whichever two or more nations in the world you want to denounce NATO and “ban” it, but three out of five permanent UNSC seat holders are NATO members and the only three nations in the world with a blue-water Navy worth a damn. A UN with teeth wouldn’t be a very good discussion table.
- SllX 6y agoUN doesn’t have that capability.
- Juliate 6y agoUnless you _provision for_ war. Which is not _exactly_ the same thing as _want_. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum