7 ms·

They 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-

They 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 ago
Doubtful.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Stranger 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 ago
AFAIK 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 ago
  Short 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    The 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.
    - ajrbyers 4y ago
      This argument goes both ways though, I suppose. NATO has your back and you have to have NATO's back. If Hungary start dicking about then things wont go well for them, I think.
    - hemreldop 4y ago
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > 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 None of that is violated by kicking someone out before they are attacked.
      - mcv 4y ago
        Kicking someone out who is really counting on NATO would make them incredibly vulnerable, though.
  - medstrom 4y ago
    You're arguing that it would be sensible to have, and therefore they have it? But not every entity has been created with perfect foresight.
  - simonh 4y ago
    That's true, but NATO isn't the be-all and end-all of European mutual defence, for example there's also the Northern Group of countries, which even includes Sweden and Finland. NATO is the ultimate fallback defence pact, but being in NATO in no way prevent countries, in or out of it, from forming their own independent defence arrangements. Just this week Britain's prime minister very publicly guaranteed Britain's commitment to defend both Sweden and Finland. I have to wonder to what extent the development of these alliances might have been influenced by the concern you raise though, you raise a good point.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Nukes from America Treaty Obligation Article 5 is the shield that drastically decreases the amount of nuclear weapons European nations need to deploy, because USSR / Russian inventories are balanced out by American inventories, if it comes to all-out war. Consequently, the world as a whole is a lot safer because {flight time Russia-US} >> {flight time Europe-Russia}, which allows for additional fail-safe guarantees on weapons that there wouldn't otherwise be a time budget for.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > Consequently, the world as a whole is a lot safer because {flight time Russia-US} >> {flight time Europe-Russia}, The US stations some of its nukes in Europe, so the flight time is less than you think. Also, it is widely believed that the US has an “understanding” with certain European countries that in extreme circumstances (aka World War III) the US will hand those nukes over to the host countries, and then the host country governments will decide for themselves what use to make of them. In part, this helps discourage nuclear proliferation-Germany or the Netherlands don’t need to make their own nuclear weapons because they know if they ever really need them, Uncle Sam will help them acquire them real real fast (“here’s the keys to the safe, good luck”)
        pintxo 4y ago
        Those are all aircraft based, so not the fastest mode of deployment.
- skissane 4y ago
  NATO has really benefited from having Turkey as a member in this war (which is essentially a proxy war between Russia and NATO)-Turkey exercised its right to close the Bosporus to military ships not based there, which prevents Russia from reinforcing its Black Sea fleet. An ex-NATO Turkey might have taken Russia’s side and left the straits open. Closing them disadvantaged Russia far more than anyone else, since Ukraine really doesn’t have a navy any more, and other major naval powers were never likely to directly intervene on Ukraine’s side.
  - NicoJuicy 4y ago
    Turkeye is balancing things. They also closed it for NATO and did it after Russian ships arrived.
    - skissane 4y ago
      Turkey does have some recent history of "balancing" with Russia, but I'm not convinced its decisions on the Straits are an example of that. My understanding is that under the Montreux Convention, Turkey closes it for everybody involved in the war or nobody, I don't believe it allows Turkey to block one side of a conflict's ships but not the other, unless it is a conflict in which Turkey itself is directly involved. (In a direct war between Russia and NATO, Turkey would probably just tear up the Convention anyway–but doing so in peacetime would likely be considered by Russia to be an act of war.) In practice, however, closing the Straits has a much more negative impact on Russia than NATO, since the major NATO naval powers (US, UK, France) were never likely to send ships near Ukraine anyway, and as non-Black Sea states the Montreux Convention subjects them to special limits to which Black Sea states are not subject. In fact (according to some sources), the Straits are still officially open for the US/UK/French/etc navies, so long as they don't directly join the conflict – although I imagine they'd be rather hesitant to exercise that right at the moment, due to the risk Russia might interpret such an act as hostile. If it is true they allowed some Russian ships through before closing it–that could have been simply the slowness of government decision making, plus the legal complexities involved, rather than a deliberate "balancing" act. If anything, I think this conflict has caused Turkey to turn away from the "balancing" and move more firmly into the NATO column. Reminding NATO of their value helps silence the ongoing "can we expel Turkey?" debate, refusing to do so would have given it more steam. Turkey has been selling its TB2 drones to Ukraine, which Ukraine has been using to great effect against Russia – not a very good example of "balancing". Ukraine's successful use of Turkish drones is very helpful to Turkey, because it gives them more information on how they perform in an actual conflict (which they already had to some extent with the Syrian civil war, the KPP, etc, but Russia is a very different kind of adversary from the Syrian government or the Kurds), and also helps attract potential buyers.
- koolba 4y ago
  Not just difficult, it impossible. There’s no provisions for removal. The closest thing to kicking someone out of NATO would be all the other countries simultaneously withdrawing and forming NATO 2.0.
  - causi 4y ago
    That would also open the door to make the new alliance less Europe-centric.
  - philistine 4y ago
    The no-Hungaries Alliance.
  - pc86 4y ago
    There is a big difference between "there are no provisions for removal of a member state" and "removal of a member state is explicitly prohibited."
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    The EU was on the verge of doing that not too long ago over the Lissabon accords.

DSingularity 4y ago

Doubtful.

jacquesm 4y ago
Stranger 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 ago

AFAIK 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 ago
Short 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 ago
It 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 ago
  The 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.
  - ajrbyers 4y ago
    This argument goes both ways though, I suppose. NATO has your back and you have to have NATO's back. If Hungary start dicking about then things wont go well for them, I think.
  - hemreldop 4y ago
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > 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 None of that is violated by kicking someone out before they are attacked.
    - mcv 4y ago
      Kicking someone out who is really counting on NATO would make them incredibly vulnerable, though.
- medstrom 4y ago
  You're arguing that it would be sensible to have, and therefore they have it? But not every entity has been created with perfect foresight.
- simonh 4y ago
  That's true, but NATO isn't the be-all and end-all of European mutual defence, for example there's also the Northern Group of countries, which even includes Sweden and Finland. NATO is the ultimate fallback defence pact, but being in NATO in no way prevent countries, in or out of it, from forming their own independent defence arrangements. Just this week Britain's prime minister very publicly guaranteed Britain's commitment to defend both Sweden and Finland. I have to wonder to what extent the development of these alliances might have been influenced by the concern you raise though, you raise a good point.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Nukes from America Treaty Obligation Article 5 is the shield that drastically decreases the amount of nuclear weapons European nations need to deploy, because USSR / Russian inventories are balanced out by American inventories, if it comes to all-out war. Consequently, the world as a whole is a lot safer because {flight time Russia-US} >> {flight time Europe-Russia}, which allows for additional fail-safe guarantees on weapons that there wouldn't otherwise be a time budget for.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > Consequently, the world as a whole is a lot safer because {flight time Russia-US} >> {flight time Europe-Russia}, The US stations some of its nukes in Europe, so the flight time is less than you think. Also, it is widely believed that the US has an “understanding” with certain European countries that in extreme circumstances (aka World War III) the US will hand those nukes over to the host countries, and then the host country governments will decide for themselves what use to make of them. In part, this helps discourage nuclear proliferation-Germany or the Netherlands don’t need to make their own nuclear weapons because they know if they ever really need them, Uncle Sam will help them acquire them real real fast (“here’s the keys to the safe, good luck”)
      - pintxo 4y ago
        Those are all aircraft based, so not the fastest mode of deployment.
skissane 4y ago
NATO has really benefited from having Turkey as a member in this war (which is essentially a proxy war between Russia and NATO)-Turkey exercised its right to close the Bosporus to military ships not based there, which prevents Russia from reinforcing its Black Sea fleet. An ex-NATO Turkey might have taken Russia’s side and left the straits open. Closing them disadvantaged Russia far more than anyone else, since Ukraine really doesn’t have a navy any more, and other major naval powers were never likely to directly intervene on Ukraine’s side.
- NicoJuicy 4y ago
  Turkeye is balancing things. They also closed it for NATO and did it after Russian ships arrived.
  - skissane 4y ago
    Turkey does have some recent history of "balancing" with Russia, but I'm not convinced its decisions on the Straits are an example of that. My understanding is that under the Montreux Convention, Turkey closes it for everybody involved in the war or nobody, I don't believe it allows Turkey to block one side of a conflict's ships but not the other, unless it is a conflict in which Turkey itself is directly involved. (In a direct war between Russia and NATO, Turkey would probably just tear up the Convention anyway–but doing so in peacetime would likely be considered by Russia to be an act of war.) In practice, however, closing the Straits has a much more negative impact on Russia than NATO, since the major NATO naval powers (US, UK, France) were never likely to send ships near Ukraine anyway, and as non-Black Sea states the Montreux Convention subjects them to special limits to which Black Sea states are not subject. In fact (according to some sources), the Straits are still officially open for the US/UK/French/etc navies, so long as they don't directly join the conflict – although I imagine they'd be rather hesitant to exercise that right at the moment, due to the risk Russia might interpret such an act as hostile. If it is true they allowed some Russian ships through before closing it–that could have been simply the slowness of government decision making, plus the legal complexities involved, rather than a deliberate "balancing" act. If anything, I think this conflict has caused Turkey to turn away from the "balancing" and move more firmly into the NATO column. Reminding NATO of their value helps silence the ongoing "can we expel Turkey?" debate, refusing to do so would have given it more steam. Turkey has been selling its TB2 drones to Ukraine, which Ukraine has been using to great effect against Russia – not a very good example of "balancing". Ukraine's successful use of Turkish drones is very helpful to Turkey, because it gives them more information on how they perform in an actual conflict (which they already had to some extent with the Syrian civil war, the KPP, etc, but Russia is a very different kind of adversary from the Syrian government or the Kurds), and also helps attract potential buyers.
koolba 4y ago
Not just difficult, it impossible. There’s no provisions for removal. The closest thing to kicking someone out of NATO would be all the other countries simultaneously withdrawing and forming NATO 2.0.
- causi 4y ago
  That would also open the door to make the new alliance less Europe-centric.
- philistine 4y ago
  The no-Hungaries Alliance.
- pc86 4y ago
  There is a big difference between "there are no provisions for removal of a member state" and "removal of a member state is explicitly prohibited."
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  The EU was on the verge of doing that not too long ago over the Lissabon accords.