10 ms·

But NATO can't choose because getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance Not really. It does if one does this after they’re invaded, to evade mutual defence commitments. But acknowledging that there are no longer shared values and providing an off ramp is perfectly fine. Strengthening, even, as it shows heightened resolve to take the commitment seriously.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  If any member gets booted out because of ideological differences, no matter the circumstances, other members will necessarily fear the same. This is extremely hard to avoid...
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > member gets booted out because of ideological differences, no matter the circumstances, other members will necessarily fear the same Ejection is a serious thing. Even its deliberation will have the effect you describe. But anyone pretending NATO is immortal or immutable or above political alignment is naïve. If a member behaves radically differently from the others, will it be politically feasible to send one’s soldiers to their aid in a time of need? If the answer to that question isn’t predictably an unambiguous yes, the treaty should be modified. Leaving Russia to guess whether Estonia is a Britain member or a Hungary member undermines the alliance's deterrence. These treaties were forged by our parents and grandparents. They’re stronger as living documents than relics.
- FunnyBadger 4y ago
  That's not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written. Maybe you should read it first.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written Most treaties have termination clauses. The North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 13 provides for voluntary exit [1]. (One could argue Ankara’s SS-4 purchase constitutes an Article 8 violation, though this would be petry.) Treaties are about mutual understanding. If Americans and Czechs would find it unseemly to fight for Turkey’s defence in case of invasion, it does more harm to pretend they’re under collective defence than to amend the treaty to make it extremely clear whom one can invade without getting nuked and whom one cannot. All this said, I think Turkey should remain a NATO member. They have shown themselves by arming Ukraine and denouncing Putin. They are a founding member. And their position remains strategically critical. [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      It doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about and I have no idea what an "SS-4" is.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about Okay? > no idea what an "SS-4" is Sorry, pre coffee. S-400.
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        okay how would Turkey's s400 purchase be an article 8 violation?
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > how would Turkey's s400 purchase be an article 8 violation? This has been covered in the American refusal to sell Ankara F-35s and ensuing sanctioning of it under CAATSA [1]. In short, no detection system is perfect. And no modern military system is sold without servicing. Letting Russia service an air defence system with the privilege of painting NATO jets, arms and missile defences is a breach of trust. It could be considered, again, pettily, though good luck to those who claims the law is often anything but, “an international engagement in conflict with” Turkey’s NATO obligations. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mepo.12628 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mepo.12628
alkonaut 4y ago
NATO has no provisions for evicting a member. It would need to form a separate alliance and all the others would join that one and leave NATO. And about the only reason that would conceivably ever happen is if a member grossly violated the values of all the others. Turkey despite being mostly non-democratic isn’t even close I’d imagine.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Formal eviction is not the only option to get rid of someone. The other member states might create circumstances (sanctions...) where Turkey would have to leave NATO "voluntarily". Another option is if a member state were to commit genocide. In that case the alliance might dissolve and the other members might instead band together and attack that member. Hypothetically speaking.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance Not really. It does if one does this after they’re invaded, to evade mutual defence commitments. But acknowledging that there are no longer shared values and providing an off ramp is perfectly fine. Strengthening, even, as it shows heightened resolve to take the commitment seriously.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
If any member gets booted out because of ideological differences, no matter the circumstances, other members will necessarily fear the same. This is extremely hard to avoid...
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > member gets booted out because of ideological differences, no matter the circumstances, other members will necessarily fear the same Ejection is a serious thing. Even its deliberation will have the effect you describe. But anyone pretending NATO is immortal or immutable or above political alignment is naïve. If a member behaves radically differently from the others, will it be politically feasible to send one’s soldiers to their aid in a time of need? If the answer to that question isn’t predictably an unambiguous yes, the treaty should be modified. Leaving Russia to guess whether Estonia is a Britain member or a Hungary member undermines the alliance's deterrence. These treaties were forged by our parents and grandparents. They’re stronger as living documents than relics.
FunnyBadger 4y ago
That's not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written. Maybe you should read it first.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written Most treaties have termination clauses. The North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 13 provides for voluntary exit [1]. (One could argue Ankara’s SS-4 purchase constitutes an Article 8 violation, though this would be petry.) Treaties are about mutual understanding. If Americans and Czechs would find it unseemly to fight for Turkey’s defence in case of invasion, it does more harm to pretend they’re under collective defence than to amend the treaty to make it extremely clear whom one can invade without getting nuked and whom one cannot. All this said, I think Turkey should remain a NATO member. They have shown themselves by arming Ukraine and denouncing Putin. They are a founding member. And their position remains strategically critical. [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    It doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about and I have no idea what an "SS-4" is.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > doesn't sound like you know what you are talking about Okay? > no idea what an "SS-4" is Sorry, pre coffee. S-400.
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        okay how would Turkey's s400 purchase be an article 8 violation?
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > how would Turkey's s400 purchase be an article 8 violation? This has been covered in the American refusal to sell Ankara F-35s and ensuing sanctioning of it under CAATSA [1]. In short, no detection system is perfect. And no modern military system is sold without servicing. Letting Russia service an air defence system with the privilege of painting NATO jets, arms and missile defences is a breach of trust. It could be considered, again, pettily, though good luck to those who claims the law is often anything but, “an international engagement in conflict with” Turkey’s NATO obligations. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mepo.12628 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mepo.12628

alkonaut 4y ago

NATO has no provisions for evicting a member. It would need to form a separate alliance and all the others would join that one and leave NATO. And about the only reason that would conceivably ever happen is if a member grossly violated the values of all the others. Turkey despite being mostly non-democratic isn’t even close I’d imagine.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Formal eviction is not the only option to get rid of someone. The other member states might create circumstances (sanctions...) where Turkey would have to leave NATO "voluntarily". Another option is if a member state were to commit genocide. In that case the alliance might dissolve and the other members might instead band together and attack that member. Hypothetically speaking.