What do you think of the latest NATO enlargement ?

[Yndy]

Given yesterday's announcement regarding further enlargement of NATO I'd like to know some American opinion on the issue (others welcome too).

Comments are appreciated too.

FYI the countries that were invited to join NATO were Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, SLovenia.

 

[Greadius]

Most of the replying posters won't be American, so don't base the results on that

I think it is a good thing: NATO is low maintenance and helps regional security, essentially reducing any inter-NATO dispute to the 'major' powers discretion and any dispute between a NATO and non-NATO member to, well, the NATO members get their way.

I'm a little concerned about the wealth disparity, particularly in Bulgaria and Romania, that may make it difficult for them to maintain the quality and level of military spending to be less of a protectorate and more of a partner.
I'm also a little worried that some of the countries may 'backslide' in their development towards democracy and capitalism. I think a self-styled dictator, real or de-facto, in any of these countries could create a difficult position. Democracies can take decades to secure their ways, so though these countries have done well, not all of them are out of the woods (and some aren't doing too fantastic).

Overall, I think it is a good thing. Hopefully, the NATO moniker will become a relic, and instead be replaced by a global combination of like-minded state with a willingness to defend one another's continguity.

 

[Heffalump]

Mostly a good thing.

Mutual-defence pacts don't mean much once your enemy throws in his cards. At this point NATO is a tool rather than something meaningful in and of itself.

How it gets used is what matters.

 

[nixon]

Overall, a pretty wise decision. What we have to make sure, in this time of great peril aimed at us, is to invite the "non-aligned" countries into NATO, eventhough their contribution is indeed symbolic. They will, most likely not contribute to the war effort with military material, but sticking together in an alliance is very important, because slowly eliminating weak spots in the world will inevitably make us stronger and make it harder for the terrorists and evildoers to strike.

 

[Richard III]

I'm a little nervous that we are all committed to defend the territorial integrity of places like Estonia; I don't mind countries like Romania and Slovenia which have earned it in my view, but the Baltic States are going a bit too far, nyet?

 

[Greadius]

The baltic states are actually quite a success story. I'd agree with you for a country like Belarus, but as far as their culture and history is concerned they've always been contigious states under the thumb of some outside force. As far as former Soviet Republics go, the baltic states are some of the best and quickest success stories.

Those were actually the three I felt the most comfortable admitting. Granted, Russia could roll tanks in there and have all three of them in a few days, but its the deterence factor that makes NATO so effective.

 

[tonberry]

I vote Nato is useless after the cold war. More or less troops won't matter anymore.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I welcome them, and I bet they are eiger to join as well.

I wonder if the EU will admit all those states, as they all are in Europe.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Richard III
I'm a little nervous that we are all committed to defend the territorial integrity of places like Estonia; I don't mind countries like Romania and Slovenia which have earned it in my view, but the Baltic States are going a bit too far, nyet?

Totally concur. It is the Swedish and Danish governments who have pressured for including the Baltic countries into Nato. Of course these two countries together with Germany were the one's who would have bourne the brunt of of a Warsaw-Pact spoiling-attack back during the Cold War. Sweden was not part of Nato then but had an underhand agreement with Nato to join the fray.
Sweden have down-sized their standing army considerably, but still wields a lot of high-tech weaponry, particularily their navy which I believe is presently the strongest in the Baltic Sea. So in that case they have a big say when it comes to Nato's northern flank.
The Danish military has pretty much kept its forces at the same level as during the Cold War. The fact that the Danish Government support every American foreign policy whole-heartedly and the fact that its trade-fleet plays an important part in supporting the American military logistically lends them Washingtons ear.
The partyline is that they have pressured for the inclusion of the Baltic countries for 'historical reasons'. Although, rumour has it that there is oil in Estonia.

 

[ejday]

I voted "It increases regional and global security."
It has some disparate elements to it, obviously, but it's another forum, another level for diplomacy where the talk doesn't have to involve all the peacock posturing necessary in the UN. It would almost be ironic -- but Russia is feeling the heat. That's why Bush swung through Russia after the NATO summit: to let Putin reassert that Russia isn't "irrelevant" either (afterall, weren't these NATO candidates former "partners" in the Soviet Bloc -- if that ain't a diplomatic slap in the face, I don't know what is).

 

[Toasty]

I don't like NATO very much, as one comedian has described, 'America isn't a bully. We've got NATO--we're the mob!" My general sentiments to the alliance is that its outdated and regardless of this there should not have been an addition of the formor Soviet bloc. Why? They are shaky, still unstable Capitalist states that haven't entirely got their act together. While Estonia, for example, might be a "success story," 5 years ago their army amounted to a grand total of 5,000 troops. That's about as many who attend my high school.

The addition is going to cost more for very little benefit and will probably hurt some relations between Western Europe/U.S. and Russia, until and if Russia is admitted to NATO itself. Ironically, however, I think then NATO will have REALLY outlived its usefulness .

 

[Switch625]

I don't forsee Russia ever joining NATO. NATO is a wheel which spins on an American axle. Without the American military, NATO is nothing. Russia will not submit to being a junior partner in an alliance with the United States. That would be too big a slap to their national pride. Neither the Russian people nor the Russian military would stand for it.

The danger inherent in admitting the Baltic states is two-fold:

First: Russia tends to see it's neighbors as a buffer between them and the rest of the world. They like to have control over those buffers. NOW, NATO is sitting right in their front yard; on former Soviet soil, no less! No matter how calm they seem to be, you can bet there are a lot of Russian military and political types who are hopping about this. It's a loss of control over their surroundings that is almost as significant as the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

Second: They will be a drain on resources. They have nothing to offer militarily, and precious little to offer economically. The economic part will probably change in time, but I don't see those little countries ever amounting to much militarily.

Having said all that, I am still in favor of their admission to NATO.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Switch625
NATO is a wheel which spins on an American axle. Without the American military, NATO is nothing.

Hm... I wonder if this American military hasn't been talked up as much as the stock-market has?

 

[Pillager]

IIRC, 66% of NATO military spending is from the US.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Maybe, but talking strictly in terms of defense against Russian revanchism surely Europeans will add the lions share in terms of manpower - I mean they still have the draft in Germany. And now when the French have gone over to a smaller profesional army, the Germans are toying with the idea of drafting women.

 

[willemvanoranje]

most inhabitants of NATO countries don't seem too fond of participating in a war either...

 

[stormerne]

Where's the "it's irrelevant" option?

 

[klazlo]

As a Hungarian let me express two points:

1. I think that the NATO politics in Europe is related to the EU enlargement process. In the forst round of NATO enlargement they offered membership to those countries who were considered as the best candidates to EU membership (Czech R., Poland, Hungary). From these countries only Poland can contribute to the NATO in a military way, Hungary doesn't even have a common border with any other NATO countries (since Austria is neutral). The second round has the residual Eastern European countries and the Baltic states - again it is very well adjusted to the EU enlargement. (No wonder that the Baltic states are the only ones from the former Soviet Union, they were the last to swallow and the first to leave.)

2. The NATO enlargement has another effect and it's the consolidation of the member countries' armies. There are certain requirements, there's some control so these armies at least had to meet some level of quality. That's the theory of course, but I hardly can name any armies that are really at NATO quality: Hungary for instance has a "joke army", I don't think we can ever contribute anything to the NATO power except as being members stop messing outside.

Anyway I think the new ones are welcome also. On the other hand I guess the NATO will seriously think about letting any other former SU states (not mentioning other former YU states) so I guess the enlargement with this second round is pretty much over for some time.
:soldier:

 

[EdwardTking]

Originally posted by Switch625

Russia tends to see it's neighbors as a buffer between them and the rest of the world.

Most countries see their smaller neighbors that way.

They like to have control over those buffers.

Maybe Russia prefer control but content with Neutrality.
(Remember Austria, Finland and Yugoslavia during cold war.)


Frankly I don't see much point in them joining NATO.

Providing they treat ethnic Russians fairly; a democratic
Russia is never going to bother them again any way.

The only possible attraction is access to US high technology;
but if the US gives it to everyone in NATO; the US could
just as well save money by publishing it all on the Internet.

Joining NATO seems a bit like going to a football
ground after the game is over. Besides if everyone
joins NATO; I am sure the US will go ex directory;
or is that what Bush II is already doing with IRAQ?

 

[Kennelly]

NATO is certainly a military alliance and it was founded for that reason.But to a great extent it's also a community of nations sharing basic values and considering this Estonia,Latvia or Lithuania belong to NATO more than Romania or Bulgaria do.These two nations are also the only future NATO members I see a quite good chance of turning back to totalitarism and oppression,for what I see no chance at all in Estonia or Slovenia for exmaple.
And about the military help,that's of course true but Luxemburg has about 800 soldiers and Iceland has none at all.

Now,of the democratic nations of Europe,only 1 hasn't been invited yet,Croatia.Till President Tudjmans death,they were quite authorian and failed to throw Tudjman away (like Slovakia did with Meciar).Croatia has to prove its democracy for a few more years,but I think basically they should join too.

After this,I see no Eastern European country joining in a foreseeable future,unless only for political reasons,i.e. USA wanting Georgia (which has applied,I think) in to protect their interests in Caucasus.