45 ms·
>However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing. I highly doubt that any of NATO
by M2Ys4U 4y ago
>However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing.
I highly doubt that any of NATO's members will veto an application from Finland (or Sweden).
- andruby 4y agoHow about Hungary and it's seemingly pro-Russian leader, Orban? They could vote against.
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
- is_true 4y agoYou don't need NATO because you are already a member. Ask Ukrainian civilians whether they would prefer to be part of NATO right now.
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
- ericmay 4y agoThey would be sleeping just as terribly now, given Putin’s reason for invading Ukraine has very little to do with NATO and the EU.
- jansen555 4y ago
- macintux 4y agoRussia under Putin didn't need an excuse.
- myko 4y agoJoining NATO is literally in the Ukrainian constitution. It is not optional, attempting to join is a requirement of the government of Ukraine and not working toward that end would be unconstitutional.
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
- danaris 4y agoI Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People
- Intermernet 4y agoDo you know why everyone hates Nazis? I mean the real Nazis, not the wannabe Nazis that exist in pretty much every European nation right now including Russia. It's because they dehumanized their opponents. You're doing the same thing with your statement. You're not alone, and what you do is common, and people's reaction to it seems to be full of double standards, but that's what you're doing. Humans are humans. Right now I really worry about the people in Ukraine. I really worry about the people in Russia. I really worry about the people in every other area of conflict. This is called empathy. A lack of it is pretty much the only reason these conflicts gain traction. Try to be empathetic to the other humans you share the planet with.
- lnxg33k1 4y agoThe war which is coming Is not the first one. There were Other wars before it. When the last one came to an end There were conquerors and conquered. Among the conquered the common people Starved. Among the conquerors The common people starved too. Brecht I worry about people and US does not otherwise they wouldn’t be feeding it with free weapons, it’s a matter of power and influence, don’t tell me you care about The people when US killed kids in Iraq and jailed journalists reporting it, fuck US
- netsharc 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- is_true 4y agoI guess you already chose your side in this. Have a nice day. Try not to vote. ty
- lnxg33k1 4y agoBut allowing or wishing that only the smart ones like you would vote would nullify the benefit of a democracy and create a place where only one idea is represented and it would be absolutist no? In democracy also the interests of the idiots like me need to be represented because I also live in the society no? We have tried aristocracy and it didn’t work?
- zoomablemind 4y agoIt's too easy to sleep happily in oblivion. Yet the russia's war against Ukraine effectively started 8 years ago in 2014 with annexation of Crimea and invasion of Donbas region. No NATO mentions were anywhere at the time, it was the Budapest memorandum that supposedly was 'reassuring' safeties for Ukraine and was also signed by russia... Land and resources grab is what drives russia's objectives. Has been like that since the empire times - this state is stuck in the obsolete colonialization mindset but now even without ideology to offer (no one can sanely consider the 'russification' aka 'russian world' as ideology). The whole Western world has not been sleeping happily since the start of Cold war - the russia's nukes have not been detargeted, and now are being openly used for strike intimidation once again. It only points out that russia simply is unable to integrate into the modern world, neither politically nor economically. The only choice (barring its own implosion) is containment, thus NATO is relevant again, as so far there are no viable options especially for the neigboring states, just as for Finland and Sweden.
- tigershark 4y agoIt’s absolutely false. Proof: Putin already invaded Crimea 8 years ago. It’s shameful how some Italians are bamboozled by Putin online propaganda.
- lnxg33k1 4y agoInvaded crimea 8 years ago when Ukraine started getting closer to eu and nato
- popcube 4y agothis is the only purpose of North Atlantic Treaty Organization...
- sharken 4y agoRecent events suggest that Turkey will be the major obstacle to Finlands NATO membership. But with zero reasonable arguments for blocking the membership, Turkeys position doesn't seem to be sustainable.
- martimarkov 4y agoThey can also be kicked out ;) Edit: Here is some thoughts one it: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/28337/on-what-grounds-can-nato-remove-a-member-state-from-the-organisation https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/28337/on-what-g...
- DSingularity 4y agoDoubtful.
- jacquesm 4y agoStranger things have happened in the last five years, but I don't think Orban will be stupid enough to act so openly to Russia's benefit. Plausible deniability seems to be the game so far.
- rocqua 4y agoAFAIK kicking someone out of NATO is very difficult. Otherwise I suspect that about 5 years ago Turkey would have been at risk of being removed.
- paganel 4y agoShort of Turkey committing some highly-publicised genocide its NATO membership is secured, the country's geo-strategic position is too important to just let it go to "the enemy's side".
- mcv 4y agoIt would be a serious problem for NATO if a pro-Russian Hungary could basically act as a fifth column and cripple NATO by vetoing everything. There simply has to be a process to kick out insincere members.
- stoltzmann 4y agoThe issue with kicking out members is that it starts a precedent. The idea is that NATO got your back if you're in, you won't get kicked out if your membership starts being inconvenient, and that the other members will act when Article 5 is invoked.
- blibble 4y agothey already said they wouldn't
- mihaaly 4y agoThey also said that russian energy ties are harmful. They also said that Russian energy ties are essential. They also said that they want Euro for the Hungarian economy. They also said that switching to Euro is no good for the Hungarian economy. They said that the EU membership is important to Hungary. They also said that Brussels is the enemy. They stated that liberalism is a core value for them. They also stated that they are illiberal. They said that the rule of law is a core value in Hungary. Thay also said that the definition of rule of law is undetermined. Mr Orban also said that 'do not listen to what I say, watch only what I'm doing'.
- zx85wes 4y agoI looked for sources for the last and 'illiberal' quotes. Can you provide them?
- vitus 4y agoRe: illiberalism: https://budapestbeacon.com/full-text-of-viktor-orbans-speech-at-baile-tusnad-tusnadfurdo-of-26-july-2014/ https://budapestbeacon.com/full-text-of-viktor-orbans-speech... "in this sense, the new state that we are building is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state. It does not deny foundational values of liberalism, as freedom, etc.. But it does not make this ideology a central element of state organization, but applies a specific, national, particular approach in its stead." https://miniszterelnok.hu/prime-minister-viktor-orbans-speech-at-the-29th-balvanyos-summer-open-university-and-student-camp/ https://miniszterelnok.hu/prime-minister-viktor-orbans-speec... "Let us confidently declare that Christian democracy is not liberal. Liberal democracy is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal: it is, if you like, illiberal." (Orban then stands that up on three pillars: prioritizing Christian culture, being anti-immigration, and the Christian family model.) (There are almost assuredly more speeches.)
- weberer 4y agoHe is certainly not on Russia's side in this conflict. https://hungarytoday.hu/orban-hungary-ukraine-conflict-eu/ https://hungarytoday.hu/orban-hungary-ukraine-conflict-eu/
- watwut 4y agoHe is as close to it as politically possible.
- cdot2 4y agoso he's not?
- pastacacioepepe 4y agoMaybe he is just doing his nation interests? Why accept sanctions that would cripple your nation?
- catchmilk 4y agoThis is an old article (22/2). Ever since, he has several times refused to back the EU on sanctions and instead adopted a very selfish/nationalist stance. He went as far as to declare Zelensky an opponent after winning the election[0]. Hungary is on the wrong side of the conflict at this point in history. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60977917 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60977917
- weberer 4y agoHungary has backed all sanctions against Russia except oil, which Hungary relies too heavily on. So far, Hungary has accepted 700,000 refugees from Ukraine. There's really no evidence that he supports Russia's invasion, or that he would veto Finland and Sweden's application to NATO. It really seems like some people here don't like him due to unrelated policy reasons and just want to drum up negative sentiment.
- agapon 4y ago
- NicoJuicy 4y agoHungary has said they will not oppose.
- tiborsaas 4y agoOrbán's opinion changes as the wind blows. He can't be trusted with anything.
- rich_sasha 4y agoVetos are somewhat overrated. Agents may have the right to veto, but might not have the power to deal with the consequences. Russia has a UN veto and uses it, because they can weather the consequences. Could Hungary piss off all of its allies, trade partners, basically everyone but Russia? Doubtful. Hungary is playing a skillful, if somewhat devious, game of balancing between Russia and the West. But an outright FU to a (clearly) US-sponsored NATO expansion? I can't see them weathering this. Signalling a veto is often rather a negotiation step.
- pastacacioepepe 4y agoAnd yet Ungary alone is stopping the 6th round of Russia sanctions from the EU. They are not afraid to veto to protect their interests, like any nation should do. It's not a coincidence that von der leyen wants to change the voting system from hunanimity to majority. They don't like to lose, and the rules are fine only as long as they can do what they want. So vetoes have more power than you would let us think.
- rich_sasha 4y agoI think it's been convenient to blame Hungary, but the truth is, plenty of countries are unhappy about banning Russian hydrocarbons, with Germany leading the list. They can weather the consequences of their veto, because there isn't much will to make it happen anyway - i.e. there are no consequences. I can imagine Finland/Sweden being very different. Who benefits/loses from Finland/Sweden joining? These countries are very well-armed, with large, well-trained armies, so they are a welcome addition for most. Baltic states must be delighted. Germany must be realising that hugging Russia for decades hasn't paid off, but it is in a clinch; its army has had decades of peacetime budgets, while they find themselves on the gas/oil hook. Hungary's own immediate neighbours, Romania and Slovakia at least, are quite wary of Russian threat and will welcome at least a diffusion of Russian targets in the area. Would there be consequences to ruining the plans of US, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia and Romania, and many other countries? No doubt, and beyond what Hungary is prepared to pay. But then what do I know? I'm an armchair strategist.
- throwawaymanbot 4y ago
- arisAlexis 4y agoTurkey too
- arisAlexis 4y agoYou heard it here first
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y agoHungary has already signaled they won't veto.
- antupis 4y agoHungary already gave greenlight. I think Turkey is now that might use Veto.
- Bud 4y agoOrban knows he doesn't have the juice to go all pro-Russia in this environment.
- donthellbanme 4y ago
- klibertp 4y agoThis post was dead when I stumbled upon it. I don't agree with it, for the obvious reasons, including the fact that I'm not American. Yet, my understanding is that this kind of opinion is shared by a large number of US citizens. I don't believe censoring it is the correct way to deal with it - it's not even off-topic as we discuss NATO membership in the first place.
- watwut 4y agoDo large amount of Americans think that " We all know Russia will win."? Also, Finland builds its army? As in, NATO seems to be so eager on Finland joining cause they think they will gain something too.
- klibertp 4y agoI don't know, I'm not American, and don't care that much. I was referring to this part: > I'm just tired of the USA paying for everything when we don't have the money. Which seems to be one of the things that made the previous President the President.
- suture 4y agoI’m an American. For many decades the idea that the U.S. props up the rest of world at the expense of focusing on our people has been a strong one. It was very strong going into the 80s but has becomes less so since then. It is still used from time to time galvanize right leaning people. There is a strong isolationist bent within the U.S. too. I do believe Trump was correct to criticize the lack of defense spending by many NATO countries and I too think Europeans should largely defend themselves. Personally I favor a multi polar world and would like the U.S. to retreat so to speak.
- 4y ago
- shimonabi 4y agoThe Croat president has publicly said he will veto new members if the status of the Croat minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not improved legally. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/croat-president-vows-to-veto-sweden-finland-nato-accession-if-he-can/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/croat-p...
- myko 4y agoThis is coming up a lot lately but folks don't seem to realize (as noted by others) that the Croat president has no power here, it is up to the legislature. I do not understand how so fundamental a point is lost regarding this.
- ceejayoz 4y agoDoes that actually mean anything? As the “if he can” in the headline suggests, it doesn’t seem to be up to him.
- CRConrad 4y agoAnd almost immediately thereafter the Prime Minister of Croatia said "That's not in the hands of the President, Parliament decides that, and we ain't gonna veto". And presumably he has a majority in Parliament, or he wouldn't have that job. (Sorry, no source -- TV news the same or next day, IIRC.) I mean, from TFA: > Croatian President Zoran Milanović on Tuesday said he would block the admission of Sweden and Finland at the NATO summit in Madrid if he is the one representing Croatia If he is representing Croatia, and the country's decisions are made by Parliament (the President "has a say" in foreign policy), then isn't his job there only to re-present what Parliament has decided?
- senko 4y agoThe Croatian president is stupid (as is the Prime Minister, fwiw), with little actual power, and spewing things left and right to make himself more relevant. Thankfully, Croatia doesn't have any real influence in NATO so nobody will be obliged to listen to that stupidity. Source: I live in Croatia.
- 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- imtemplain 4y ago
- nxmnxm99 4y agoTurkey.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> I highly doubt that any of NATO's members will veto an application from Finland (or Sweden). The big questions are over Hungary and Turkey; Hungary because Orbán is somewhat pro-Russian and has opposed some EU and NATO moves already wrt Ukraine, and Erdogan for somewhat similar reasons, and because he has publicly stated that he is not in favor of Sweden and Finland joining. OTOH, I think the general expectation is that those are surmountable issues.