Talk:NATO/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Links to aspiring members

Are the links to the Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine as the recognized aspiring members intentionally excluded? As a reader, I would have found them convenient. Junghyeon Park (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Fixed!—Anita5192 (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at c:File talk:History of NATO enlargement.svg about color scheme.

Just notifying that a discussion about the color scheme of c:File:History of NATO enlargement.svg is being done at c:File talk:History of NATO enlargement.svg Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hawaii

Based on this article - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/29/us/nato-treaty-hawaii-intl-hnk-ml-dst/index.html, Hawaii is not part of NATO, so at the map Hawaii should be grey.

Dasomm (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hawaii is a state of the United States, which is a NATO member. This is why it is shown in blue. According to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, members are only obligated in the event of an attack on a member state's territory in Europe or North America. The fact that Hawaii is not included in the NATO treaty zones does not change this. By strict reading of the treaty, an attack on Hawaii does not require a response from the other NATO members, while an attack on Florida would. This condition applies equally to other NATO member territories outside the treaty zone, including the Asian portion of Turkey, French Guiana,and the Falkland Islands. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There are two different ideas here that we can talk about how to discuss on the article and illustrate on the maps like this one. All of the United States, including Hawaii, is in NATO. Hawaii is outside of the area that signers of the North Atlantic Treaty agree to respond to an armed attack as an attack on all. That area is loosely defined by Article 6 as "in Europe or North America." As the CNN article you link to mentions, Hawaii however would be included in the language in Article 4, which allows for discussion with possible action to respond to threats to the "territorial integrity" of members.

I don't think this article or the maps on it should be exclusively limited to the Article 6 area and ignore the Article 4 area or the area of the countries that participate in NATO. Hawaiians elect representatives who then appoint NATO ambassadors and NATO parliamentary members, and approve NATO leadership. And Hawaiians serve in the military who would be called upon to respond to an Article 5 level attack. They are in NATO even if not covered by the language in Article 6. And obviously replace "Hawaii" with "French Guiana" or "Caribbean Netherlands" etc in this comment. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 13:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to correct this: all of Turkey is indeed covered by Article 6, not just the European portion. An attack on the Asian part of Turkey is certainly eligible for an Article 5 response. Separately, yes, Hawaii is part of NATO, even if not covered by the Article 6 geographic limitations. CAVincent (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2024

185.12.14.2 (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to make the text in this article clearer and more presentable to read.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

New Secretary-General

Mark Rutte has been appointed as the new Secretary General 62.166.212.160 (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't assume office until October 2nd. Sisuvia (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section

There should absolutely be a criticism (or similar) section here. This is done for other major bodies like the EU, the UN, BRICS, etc. JDiala (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, assuming that it is actually substantial, relevant criticism that doesn't constitute undue weight or represent fringe beliefs, (for instance, criticisms that are not promulgated as part of the Russian information warfare campaign against NATO). For instance, we probably should have more criticism about NATO members failing to meet their defense expenditure expectations, as that has been a major point of contention between the U.S. and European allies for the past like 30 years, and the current section doesn't adequately address it. Similarly, non-disinformation-oriented criticisms of NATO expansion (plenty of which pre-date the Ukraine war) should also be there. (e.g. [1] ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking Mearsheimer, for starters. JDiala (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically discourages criticism sections, instead, factual, well sourced statements should be integrated into existing sections. Articles should be neutral and not give undue weight to opinions, and I agree that adding a criticism section here would be a magnet for just such opinions, as well as fringe ideas and Russian troll farms. If you are a fan of the theories of John Mearsheimer, like his idea that Ukraine was asking to be bombed by, you know, being democratic, I would suggest avoiding his opinion pieces and seeing if he lists his sources, and integrating those where appropriate.

I might further suggest that much of this "criticism" is not exactly to do with the organization that is this article's subject. It's not like "NATO should function differently", but instead has to do with a larger philosophy of postwar international relations. So I might also suggest that better places do exist on Wikipedia, such as John Mearsheimer's own article, International relations since 1989, or History of United States foreign policy. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your points generally, particularly with regard to Mearsheimer and whether this is the right page for his views, but I'd caveat that WP:CSECTION is an essay, and the policy it's based on, WP:NPOV is much more ambiguous about criticism sections; it states that Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. with the footnote that Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template. IMO it's probably inaccurate to say that "Wikipedia specifically discourages criticism sections", and more accurate to say that "Wikipedia does not disallow criticism sections if they can be written in an NPOV manner without an unencyclopedic structure." It is of course ideal to integrate the content inline somewhere else; but that may not always be feasible.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Not one inch to the east" revisited

Under the heading "History: 20th century", the final sentence of the fourth paragraph makes this assertion: "In 1990, several Western leaders gave assurances to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand further east, as revealed by memoranda of private conversations." This gives too definitive of a characterization, eliding the multiplicity of interpretations of what was, or wasn't said. Even Mikhail Gorbachev himself gave contradictory claims -- in 2008 he claimed that US Secretary of State James Baker made such assurances, but then he reversed himself in 2014 when, being directly asked by a German newspaper to clarify, he said that the assurances given only pertained to East Germany, and that the resulting agreement was upheld by NATO. His top aid, Eduard Shevardnadze confirmed this, saying that the question of NATO expansion was never even raised during the alleged conversations. Indeed, as far as I am aware, no one who was party to those discussions around which the promises were allegedly made, has made the claim that they were indeed made; they all come from people who were not there.
Furthermore, there are at least five nonsensical elements to this puzzle, the first being that a US Secretary of State in no way has the authority to declare what NATO -- a coalition of 15 different nations (at that time) -- would or would not do. So even if Baker did give the Russians such an assurance, it could not possibly be considered binding. It would be like say, Belarus making a promise to another country as to what the CSTO would, or would not do. All parties involved would understand that Belarus lacked the authority to set policy for all CSTO member-states.
Second, it defies all logic to claim that a promise of such potential import would remain verbal. After all, at that very same time the US, UK and France were hashing-out and signing an official agreement with the USSR and Germany (the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany), and that being just one in a series of dozens of official documents of agreement between one or more of these parties. But a verbal promise is supposed to be sufficient to carry the force of law?! There is an old saying: "Good fences make good neighbors". In other words, no matter how good two neighbors' intentions might be, and no matter how unnecessary it might seem to build a fence on the border between their properties, building the fence anyway removes any ambiguity and helps prevent problems. All of the parties involved knew very well how important it was to draft and sign formal agreements, to prevent potential conflicts, rather than leaving them verbal. Nothing verbal could possibly be binding, as all parties knew.
Third, those making the assertion that such verbal promises were made rely largely upon memoranda, notes, etc. In legal terms these would constitute weak evidence, carrying even less weight than say, an affidavit sworn by someone who was a party to such discussions. There is nothing that can guarantee that memoranda, notes, etc., are accurate, complete or authoritative. It is a misleading overstatement to refer to these as "proofs". In a court of law they would be considered hearsay -- possibly true or possibly false, but dependent upon corroboration from other evidence. Such evidence has never been found or presented.
Fourth, "to the east" is nonsensical due to its very ambiguity. Looking at east and west along lines of longitude, parts of Italy and all of Greece (both already NATO members by that time) lay "to the east" of Germany. And "to the east" of the newly-reunified Germany in Europe, there lay about a dozen countries, but most of them were, at that time, members of the Warsaw Pact, and they would continue to garrison hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops for at least another year (at the time, for all anyone knew, they would remain for decades). So why would anyone think that it would make sense to declare that "NATO won't expand any further to the east" into Warsaw Pact countries, when that would have been impossible anyway? The Warsaw Pact was, in many ways, an alternative to NATO. None of its members could possibly belong to it and to NATO simultaneously, so the entire point was moot.
And fifth, in 2000, newly-installed Russian president Vladimir Putin himself was interested in having Russia join NATO. How could this have even been a possibility if NATO had promised to not expand further to the east? Apparently that "fact" was not a problem for Putin. Waiting, however, was; he made it clear that Russia should not be required to submit to the same process that every other aspirant is required to undergo. When he was told that there could not be an exception made for Russia's accession, he effectively said "Fine; I didn't want to join your smelly old club anyway".
In summation, due to these and other reasons, I would argue that the statement should be changed to reflect the fact that there are conflicting accounts of what happened, and that there are reasons to doubt the validity of any such claims, when applying logical standards. Bricology (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Such assurances were not included in the signed treaties, and this could be added to that sentence as context. While it seems to me all sources discuss only verbal assurances, do you have a source that all such assurances during negotiation were made only verbal? HudecEmil (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)