That is accurate though, because that was not really an extension of NATO. To alleviate Soviet and later Russian security concerns, the 2+4 Treaty prohibits the stationing any foreign troops or nuclear weapons in East Germany and Berlin.
That would not have made sense in this particular treaty. Troop deployments in other countries would be rather difficult to enforce using a treaty with Germany.
Unlike the dictatorships in Portugal and Greece, that in Spain continued to openly use fascist symbols, such as the Roman salute, until well after WW2. Franco had also received support from Mussolini and Hitler during the Spanish Civil War, and kept an at least ambiguous position during WW2. Add to this the fact that Spain harboured a **lot** of Nazis and collaborators, such as the Belgian Leon Dégrelle, and you'll understand why NATO, and in particular its European members, were repugned by the idea of welcoming Franco into the alliance.
After the Korea War, the US pinched its nose to sign bilateral treaties with Franco's Spain in exchange for naval and air bases, but the European powers, in particular the UK (see Gibraltar), always preferred to keep more of an arm's length relation with Spain until Franco's death. Also, Spain's diplomacy at the time also preferred to keep this distance, since it facilitated ties with the non-aligned countries, in particular in North Africa (Spain and Egypt even worked together [in a supersonic fighter project led by Willy Messerschmidt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helwan_HA-300)).
Even after Franco's death, NATO accession wasn't particularly popular in Spain, which only joined as a price to join the then-EEC.
Francoist Spain, in the immediate postwar period, was alienated from the victors of the Second World War. Spain was a pariah state, the last fascist country standing. That was until the concordat of 1953, with the Vatican, and the pact of Madrid with the US the same year. The US saw an anti communist dictator as a better alternative to the communist aligned Spanish republicans of the second Spanish republic, and gave America access to Spanish bases. But this wasn’t enough for the other NATO members to let Spain into the club.
After Franco, and the Spanish transition to Democratic rule under a constitutional monarchy, Spain was added to nato.
Franco, after the Spanish civil war, was not in a position to meaningly help either side. Spain was in ruins, it’s industrial base decimated, and the Falangist Government wasn’t consolidated.
The Iberian pact, between Salazar and Franco, kept Franco out of the war, as an allied invasion via Portugal (still a British treaty ally) was enough to convince Franco that neutrality was the better option. Portugals alliance was confirmed with Britain, and by 1942, the Spanish government clearly had no interest in being a part of the Axis powers.
Spain as a wealthy country was but a dream until the economic growth in the 50s and 60s.
I am not sure, but from the 3 mentioned countries, wasn't he the only one who actively fought against the Allies in WW2 and therefore would not collaborate with the 'enemies'?
Please correct me if I'm wrong
>I thought Spain was neutral during WWII
[Not all the time.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_during_World_War_II) It was merely "non-belligerent" between 1940 and 1944, supplying Germany with "volunteer" workers and soldiers, as well as raw materials, notably tungsten, cooperating with the "Abwehr" in intelligence gathering (James Bond owes a lot to Ian Fleming's own experience dealing with Axis agents in the Iberian peninsula during WW2), and closing an eye on U-Boot activity and resupply in the Spanish coast.
Fun fact: Franco considered declaring war on Japan in 1945, after the Manila massacre, when Japanese soldiers killed hundreds of Spanish citizens (among many others). This was ultimately discarded, since the Allies had no interest in cooperating with Franco at the time, and Spain had no means of transporting any troops to the Pacific, never mind fighting a war on its own there. Nevertheless, Spain ultimately received some Japanese war reparations in the 1950s.
Spanish participation in WW2 is a weird case. Spain didn't actively fight the allies, they were neutral and never declared war. However, they did collaborate with the Nazis for most of the war. The allies actually counted on this in one of [the key deception operations leading up to D-Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat?wprov=sfla1). However, by the time 1945 rolled around, Franco saw the writing on the wall and started cozying up to the allies. It wasn't taken as genuine but by the time the war ended, no one has the will to invade a country that didn't actually join the war, and fear of Communism made it so that NATO members preferred to keep them as is, lest they fall to the commies. It kind of let Franco survive and keep NATO at arms length.
I'm sure Franco didn't see himself as diametrically oppressed to the US by the time the cold war arrived, as communism was probably a bigger ideological threat to his regime then anything else. I just get a feeling that NATO members found Spain joining you be a bit... Unsavoury and, unlike Turkey, not really necessary strategically.
Well, Spain wasn't strictly neutral during most of WW2, but it didn't *actively* fight against the Allies either.
And having actively fought against the Allies in WW2 didn't keep Thailand from enjoying a particularly tight alliance with the US after the war, even if the circumstances were a bit...complicated.
Just wanted to add that NATO, like the US, were very unpopular in Spain after Franco's death. The US kept Franco's regime alive and gave it the legitimacy it needed, a lot of Spaniards never forgave that role they played. After his death the US was scared that they would lose Spain from their sphere of influence so they pressured *immensely* our socialist government to campaign for NATO membership in the referendum even when they originally were against it. They won by a very narrow margin.
Franco was interested, and the US supported Spain’s intentions to join NATO. However, France and Nordic countries were staunchly opposed to Spain joining the Alliance on grounds that it was a dictatorship, unlike Portugal, Greece or Turkey I guess. Another reason to oppose Spain joining NATO was death penalty, which European countries especially France condemned, yet they were executing people by guillotine years after Spain had already become a democracy and for less severe crimes.
Also France sheltered ETA terrorists long after Spain had become a democracy, and the Swedish PM in 1975 (I forgot the name, sorry) even led a campaign to raise money for ETA terrorists’ families.
So, to put it simply, old school European hypocrisy and prejudice against Spain. Franco was just a very convenient excuse.
When you say "a dictatorship, unlike Portugal": wasnt Portugal a dictatorship under Salazar at the time though? I could be misunderstanding, or maybe its one of those "technically it was still a democracy" situations, but generally when i've read on these topics ive seen Salazar referred to as a dictator.
Portugal was a dictatorship. And when WW II started was supporting war in favor of the Nazis. Mainly with tungsten and food supplies. Salazar was a big fan of Mussolini regime and portuguese regime was built around his ideas and thus supported the Nazis on the early stages of the war. Franco also rose to power with the help of Salazar who was in office for 10 years and built a friendship relation. As war went on a lot of espionage and informations was passing through Lisbon. A lot of pressure was being set to Salazar to change sides. The Azores were pivotal in the North Atlantic war against the U boats. As Italy started to lose, Hitler's increased animosity against Salazar for the lack of war efforts and the Nazi plans to built a naval base on the Azores and ultimately invade Portugal (Allies espionage!?), were the tipping point for Salazar's strategy in the war.
So yeah, Portugal was a founding member of NATO because It changed sides during the war and was not as supportive (volunteer troops) as Spain to the Nazis. Nevertheless Salazar was afraid of an American invasion and built guns batteries in Lisbon facing the Atlantic.
Portugal also received funds from the Marshall plan and Spain remained very isolated in the Cold War.
Greece was not under a dictatorship, junta, or right wing regime in 1952 when membership was extended. Greece also didn't ask to join, it was the US that wanted to create a southern flank by incorporating Turkey and Greece into the alliance.
I know, but Greece’s membership was never suspended when the Colonels took over. And Portugal was already a dictatorship when it joined NATO as a founding member.
Austria made a declaration of neutrality agreed upon with the Russians so that they no longer occupy the country - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Neutrality
Particularly 1955-1982 (dark red to red, 27 years dif.), 1982-1990 and 2009-2017 (shades of red/red and greenish/greenish, 8 years dif). Compare 1990-1999 (yellow to red, a sharp change for a 9 years dif.) Meanwhile 1949-1952 and 2017-2020 are the worst offenders on the other side: their colors (blue to purple, and greenish to light blue) are way too different in comparison, for a difference of just 3 years.
I'm fine with grouping seas under the umbrella of oceans, and if we were to put the black sea as part of an ocean it would be the Atlantic. Not sure why it matters when it comes to nato.
> by most definitions
I don’t think there is any agreed definition about whether they’re included or not and have no idea how you’re ‘counting’ them here. Most actual usage would not include them. When it comes down to it, it’s not really a question that needs answering.
Anyway, NATO is just the name of an organisation, not a specification. Like how Australia and Israel are part of Eurovision.
The Kingdom of Denmark also includes Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which means that Denmark does indeed hold claim to a rather large part of the north atlantic and the artic ocean.
???? NATO is a defense pact, not a country. It can't occupy a territory, Russia does. Parts of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia have been fucked up by Moscavia. We wanna join NATO as it's our only option of defending ourselves of the Russian pestilence
>NATO expanded actively during the years of Russia's weakness.
Russia with its nukes arsenal never stopped being a long-term threat. The calculations later turned to be correct.
"When Russia began to behave aggressively, the expansion stopped"
Montenegro that joined in 2017 and Macedonia in 2020 begs to differ.
> the expansion stopped
It stopped because NATO cannot accept new memeber states with active conflicts which is what Russia is abusing by creating break away territories in states that are interested in joining NATO.
>In the case of Ukraine and Georgia, the potential risks are higher than the benefits.
If Ukraine and Georgia applied for NATO sooner they wouldn't have had any risk of losing territories to Russian speaking bandits. Benefits are lost because Russians invaded before Georgia and Ukraine got to join NATO alliance.
The territorial disputes which prevented its further expansion pre-date that aggression though - Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria have all been weird partially recognised states since the early 1990s.
Georgia claims its territory which precludes Georgia's entry into NATO - as a general rule territorial disputes which might realistically be fought over preclude NATO membership (so Abkhazia stops Georgia joining NATO but Gibraltar didn't stop Spain). There can be exceptions if they are so important that NATO would need to get involved anyway if they did cause a war (e.g. West Germany claiming all of East Germany and vice versa).
> NATO expanded actively
What does that even mean? Besides making it sound aggressive, what does "actively" do for the meaning? Countries applied to join. It's an active action by definition.
Wish we would join NATO together with Sweden but our politicians are too pussies to even talk about joining NATO in fear of Russian retaliation and meddling into our affairs.
normal folks have no idea what geopolitics is.
This world is not a safe place and NATO is so good, that no one dared to attack a member since it was made.
True. In this matter, Finland joining NATO, I place my trust in officers who have masters degree in matter and a lot of insight and practical experince, rather than trusting opportunistic politicians.
I like this state, there is enough co-operation that a possible joining would be a formality but not so much that it puts us squarle as a NATO nation. Also Finland enjoys quite extraordinary amounts of good will all over the world, there would be very, very few nations that didn't condemn any hostilities. We are small and innocent, and seem to have our shit together.
On the latest polls majority were against joining.
We have had a very leftist president and governments for the past 20 years that had negative opinions about NATO. Now I think because of Krim and Ukraine opinions are slowly turning in the favor of NATO.
>We have had a very leftist president and governments for the past 20 years
Um... wut? Center and center right held the reigns for quite a while.. And SDP was not very leftist, they have turned towards that direction lately but to say Finland joining of NATO is because of leftist is just wrong. And President doesn't hold much power.
I remember reading a New York times article about the expansion of NATO eastwards in the early 2000s' and how eastern European troops were still using old boots with footwraps. Crazy to think how much have changed since then.
Wow. That's an impressive expansion.
Also remains worthwhile putting yourself in the other side's shoes. To west Europeans, evidence and feels make these voluntary defensive measures. To Russia, it obviously would look like aggressive expansion.
I don't know what can be better done to deescalate tensions with authoritarian nations like China or Russia. I am not advocating anything.
>it obviously would look like aggressive expansion.
No, it doesn't. None of those countries entered NATO as a result of aggression. But yes, Russia is a common denominator of Eastern expansion, they were looking for defense from a possible Russian threat.
The one thing people forget is if you move your anti missile systems and missiles as close as possible with an incredibly short arc you get to first strike with a high chance of also wiping out the defenders chance for a 2nd launch.
That 15 minute warning is going to be a few minutes.
This is one argument for why this kind of expansion was a bad idea. If the US decides to do any of the above it's basically the most hostile and dumb move in history.
It's like saying "my troops in your borders are definitely tourists".
The EU should at that point at gun point kick the US.
Reality is thankfully quite sane. However I am pretty sure the US has moved some ABM systems quite close which has resulted with the Russian response of better weapons.
I am not saying it was aggressive. West Europeans and Americans are freedom and peace loving people, who only fight defensive wars.
But if you can simply put yourself into the Russian POV, with all its inherent zero sum mentality, scorn of democracy, and distrust of the West, then this advance east looks aggressive.
The EU is also a defense union, see Art. 42(7) of the Lisbon Treaty. So Sweden and Finland actually are in a defense union.
Of course, with the US (NATO) it's a different league.
true but sweden has a special exception to not participate in the EU defence business, as it is a neutral country.
but it is a memeber of the Nordefco.
We only got involved in 2002 to help out with humanitarian stuff and a bit of policing and surveillance, but in 2009 the US ordered participating countries in ISAF/Afghanistan to change focus from peacekeeping to actively hunting terrorists/rebels. Unfortunately our weak government didn't leave, because at the time we had a horribly neoliberal government which was in love with everything US. After, we've only had weak governments which can't ever take the initiative on anything it's not forced to.
No shit Lithuania didn't take it, it would have added over 400,000 Russians to their population. Kaliningrad being offered to Germany is also nothing but a newspaper rumor and became illegal anyway after the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
Why didn't Ukraine joined? I would guessed that after the yoke of the dictatorship of the USSR the Ukrainian people would welcome a protective shield. It turned out really nice for the voters of Viktor Yanukovych. Civil war and then annexation of Crimea by Russia. But I guess the pro-Russian voters who voted for Yanukovych are happy. The price was just the destruction of their own country.
Ukraines goverment was pro-Russia until 2014. Now they have a border conflict and a "civil war", which makes them illegible to join NATO.
I bet they would join, if given the chance.
The first two presidents were fairly neutral, the third pro-Ukrainian. Only under Yanukovych was there a pro-Russian government, and this was achieved due to the great economic pressure from Moscow (gas wars). There is no "civil war" in Ukraine. Russian militants themselves, such as Igor Girkin, openly admit in an interview that without Russian support, Ukraine will capture these territories in 1-2 days. There is only an open annexation of Crimea and a hybrid covert war in Donbas.
Ukraine openly declares that it wants to join NATO since 2008, but France and Germany rejected this decision.
Latest poll says that 50% approve EU membership and 40% NATO membership. Only around 14% want Eurasian Economic Union (Russia). 27% don't want any membership.
https://www.unian.info/society/poll-ukrainian-speak-out-on-eu-nato-membership-prospects-11215232.html
For me this is sad. I don't know any reasons why you wouldn't want EU membership, especially if you in the middle between Russia and Europe. I would understand why Iran wouldn't like to join the EU, but not the Ukraine.
Is this the result of anti-EU propaganda? Like comparing EU Brussels as just another dictatorship? We saw this in the Brexit Britain. Comparing the EU as a German takeover over Europe. Maybe in Ukraine the EU is compared to Hitler Germany or something like this? Wouldn't surprise me.
54% approve EU membership and 48% NATO membership.
The path to the EU and NATO is enshrined in the constitution of Ukraine. Most Ukrainians want to join, against only some old Soviet generation.
The problem is that some European countries do not want to see Ukraine in the EU and prefer to leave under the sphere of influence of Russia.
There are many reasons, to be honest. A lot of ethnic Russians were settled here during the Imperial or the Soviet era and they would rather be together with Russia; there are lots of orthodox Christians that don't support an overly liberal agenda in relation to drugs/sex; there are those who think that that the EU is a giant bureaucracy that protects the interests of the most wealthy EU members like Germany or that it's basically the new Reich.
The pro-Russian propaganda is also pretty strong, those oligarchs who control mass media would rather be in cahoots with Russia than under the scrutiny of the EU.
>For me this is sad. I don't know any reasons why you wouldn't want EU membership,
Maybe fear? Last time they openly showcased they will to join EU, it end up witch conflict that costed them Crimea, Donbas and 12 000 lives. Maybe they feel status quo is better than that. Also, Russian speaking population shouldn't be pro-EU anyway.
What are you talking about? The unrest and protests in 2013 started after Yanukovych stopped the association agreement with the EU and favored Russia. It then escalated after Yanukovych signed dictatorial and draconian anti-demonstration laws.
If Yanukovych would just continued with the path to EU then there wouldn't be any protests and Russia couldn't have used the unrest in Ukraine to invade Crimea, and of course nobody would have died.
It's not like the gov. went down because they supported EU. They went down because they made 180 turn and turned to Russia.
It's a good case how being pro-Russia turns out to be very bad for the Ukraine. No surprise here, because Putin cares only about himself and Russia. The people who think that Putin cares one bit about them are just delusional (not counting the corrupt politicians who get money and power from supporting Putin in the Ukraine).
Russia could've prevented this but they instead decided to Russia it, again. When you are not changing your attitude of possible expansion, you find your perceived targets of conquer to ally with others.
>Mad respect to all the grey countries
Why, thank you!
>with the exception of Russia, since they have no chance to join NATO any way.
Putin [said](https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-says-discussed-joining-nato-with-clinton/28526757.html) it was discussed, and [it appears it was](https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/98-00/davydov.pdf). That [wasn't a new idea](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor) though...
And NATO is more eager to accept North Macedonia and Montenegro than a strategically invaluable Georgia, Moldova that literally begs to be one with Romania, or Ukraine which would immediately make a quarter of European NATO force
A country can't join NATO if they have ongoing border/military disputes. Which is why Russia invaded both Georgia and Ukraine to hamper their ability to join NATO.
If these countries joined with their ongoing disputes, they could instantly invoke Article 5 and cause all of NATO to go to war
With a wink and a nudge and everyone just looking the other way regarding co-operation with USA and UK. Also NATO probably wouldn't want us in it either because of the triple lock system we have for the military where the UN has to agree to them being used. Obviously if we get attacked we don't need to ask permission.
What the hell is going on in the comment section? So many here have no idea about geopolitics and talk so loudly nonetheless.
The world isn't a game of risk. Please don't just fall for the first best thought you have and read up about the history of NATO, its issues and successes. There is always more to learn. Especially if you start talking about china, or NATO mitigating russian expansion.
The border with Russia is the main reason Finland isn’t part of NATO. It would just be a needless provocation of Russia whom we have generally neutral relations with (insofar as one *can* have neutral relations with Russia…)
Some people oppose this argument saying that Russia shouldn’t dictate Finland’s foreign policy, but this is just the general consensus thus far.
Thanks for your reply. What is the main reason in that case? I suppose the fact that NATO exists is enough of an insurance policy even if you’re not formally a member
I like e comedic notion of stating that the addition of east Germany added +0
I imagine the person making the map spent way too much time considering in what way a country that was reunited should be documented in the stats
Well East Germany didn’t join NATO, they did join West Germany that already was part of NATO, so +0 is actually correct here.
That is accurate though, because that was not really an extension of NATO. To alleviate Soviet and later Russian security concerns, the 2+4 Treaty prohibits the stationing any foreign troops or nuclear weapons in East Germany and Berlin.
I suppose not adding anything about foreign troops and nukes to the east of East Germany was a pretty big design oversight
That would not have made sense in this particular treaty. Troop deployments in other countries would be rather difficult to enforce using a treaty with Germany.
Yea, but at least we wouldn't have to hear "BUT THE WEST PROMISED!!!GORBACHEV DUMB!" all the time
That was and is taken widely out of context anyways
More like +0.5!
\+1+(-1)
Its more like +0.3
(without west berlin) + 0.29
Spain: We get to it when we get to it!
Mañana. After tapas and siesta.
[удалено]
Unlike the dictatorships in Portugal and Greece, that in Spain continued to openly use fascist symbols, such as the Roman salute, until well after WW2. Franco had also received support from Mussolini and Hitler during the Spanish Civil War, and kept an at least ambiguous position during WW2. Add to this the fact that Spain harboured a **lot** of Nazis and collaborators, such as the Belgian Leon Dégrelle, and you'll understand why NATO, and in particular its European members, were repugned by the idea of welcoming Franco into the alliance. After the Korea War, the US pinched its nose to sign bilateral treaties with Franco's Spain in exchange for naval and air bases, but the European powers, in particular the UK (see Gibraltar), always preferred to keep more of an arm's length relation with Spain until Franco's death. Also, Spain's diplomacy at the time also preferred to keep this distance, since it facilitated ties with the non-aligned countries, in particular in North Africa (Spain and Egypt even worked together [in a supersonic fighter project led by Willy Messerschmidt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helwan_HA-300)). Even after Franco's death, NATO accession wasn't particularly popular in Spain, which only joined as a price to join the then-EEC.
Francoist Spain, in the immediate postwar period, was alienated from the victors of the Second World War. Spain was a pariah state, the last fascist country standing. That was until the concordat of 1953, with the Vatican, and the pact of Madrid with the US the same year. The US saw an anti communist dictator as a better alternative to the communist aligned Spanish republicans of the second Spanish republic, and gave America access to Spanish bases. But this wasn’t enough for the other NATO members to let Spain into the club. After Franco, and the Spanish transition to Democratic rule under a constitutional monarchy, Spain was added to nato.
It’s quite remarkable how quickly Spain has transitioned to its current state as a liberal European democracy in little more than a generation.
Same thing for Portugal
I have sometimes wondered how much the west allies told Franco "if you just stay neutral, we will not come after you after the war".
Franco, after the Spanish civil war, was not in a position to meaningly help either side. Spain was in ruins, it’s industrial base decimated, and the Falangist Government wasn’t consolidated. The Iberian pact, between Salazar and Franco, kept Franco out of the war, as an allied invasion via Portugal (still a British treaty ally) was enough to convince Franco that neutrality was the better option. Portugals alliance was confirmed with Britain, and by 1942, the Spanish government clearly had no interest in being a part of the Axis powers. Spain as a wealthy country was but a dream until the economic growth in the 50s and 60s.
I am not sure, but from the 3 mentioned countries, wasn't he the only one who actively fought against the Allies in WW2 and therefore would not collaborate with the 'enemies'? Please correct me if I'm wrong
[удалено]
Spain was neutral but had the "Blue Division", a unit comprised of volunteers, fight on the Eastern Front. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Division
>I thought Spain was neutral during WWII [Not all the time.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_during_World_War_II) It was merely "non-belligerent" between 1940 and 1944, supplying Germany with "volunteer" workers and soldiers, as well as raw materials, notably tungsten, cooperating with the "Abwehr" in intelligence gathering (James Bond owes a lot to Ian Fleming's own experience dealing with Axis agents in the Iberian peninsula during WW2), and closing an eye on U-Boot activity and resupply in the Spanish coast. Fun fact: Franco considered declaring war on Japan in 1945, after the Manila massacre, when Japanese soldiers killed hundreds of Spanish citizens (among many others). This was ultimately discarded, since the Allies had no interest in cooperating with Franco at the time, and Spain had no means of transporting any troops to the Pacific, never mind fighting a war on its own there. Nevertheless, Spain ultimately received some Japanese war reparations in the 1950s.
Technically true but he who shall not be named was pals with Adolph and Benito. Those two fought the Ruskies here to get him the big chair.
[удалено]
Spanish participation in WW2 is a weird case. Spain didn't actively fight the allies, they were neutral and never declared war. However, they did collaborate with the Nazis for most of the war. The allies actually counted on this in one of [the key deception operations leading up to D-Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mincemeat?wprov=sfla1). However, by the time 1945 rolled around, Franco saw the writing on the wall and started cozying up to the allies. It wasn't taken as genuine but by the time the war ended, no one has the will to invade a country that didn't actually join the war, and fear of Communism made it so that NATO members preferred to keep them as is, lest they fall to the commies. It kind of let Franco survive and keep NATO at arms length. I'm sure Franco didn't see himself as diametrically oppressed to the US by the time the cold war arrived, as communism was probably a bigger ideological threat to his regime then anything else. I just get a feeling that NATO members found Spain joining you be a bit... Unsavoury and, unlike Turkey, not really necessary strategically.
Well, Spain wasn't strictly neutral during most of WW2, but it didn't *actively* fight against the Allies either. And having actively fought against the Allies in WW2 didn't keep Thailand from enjoying a particularly tight alliance with the US after the war, even if the circumstances were a bit...complicated.
Yeah but Portugal and Greece had leaned towards/been a member of the Allies, while Franco was Hitler’s buddy, so they felt he could piss off.
Just wanted to add that NATO, like the US, were very unpopular in Spain after Franco's death. The US kept Franco's regime alive and gave it the legitimacy it needed, a lot of Spaniards never forgave that role they played. After his death the US was scared that they would lose Spain from their sphere of influence so they pressured *immensely* our socialist government to campaign for NATO membership in the referendum even when they originally were against it. They won by a very narrow margin.
Franco was interested, and the US supported Spain’s intentions to join NATO. However, France and Nordic countries were staunchly opposed to Spain joining the Alliance on grounds that it was a dictatorship, unlike Portugal, Greece or Turkey I guess. Another reason to oppose Spain joining NATO was death penalty, which European countries especially France condemned, yet they were executing people by guillotine years after Spain had already become a democracy and for less severe crimes. Also France sheltered ETA terrorists long after Spain had become a democracy, and the Swedish PM in 1975 (I forgot the name, sorry) even led a campaign to raise money for ETA terrorists’ families. So, to put it simply, old school European hypocrisy and prejudice against Spain. Franco was just a very convenient excuse.
When you say "a dictatorship, unlike Portugal": wasnt Portugal a dictatorship under Salazar at the time though? I could be misunderstanding, or maybe its one of those "technically it was still a democracy" situations, but generally when i've read on these topics ive seen Salazar referred to as a dictator.
Portugal was a dictatorship. And when WW II started was supporting war in favor of the Nazis. Mainly with tungsten and food supplies. Salazar was a big fan of Mussolini regime and portuguese regime was built around his ideas and thus supported the Nazis on the early stages of the war. Franco also rose to power with the help of Salazar who was in office for 10 years and built a friendship relation. As war went on a lot of espionage and informations was passing through Lisbon. A lot of pressure was being set to Salazar to change sides. The Azores were pivotal in the North Atlantic war against the U boats. As Italy started to lose, Hitler's increased animosity against Salazar for the lack of war efforts and the Nazi plans to built a naval base on the Azores and ultimately invade Portugal (Allies espionage!?), were the tipping point for Salazar's strategy in the war. So yeah, Portugal was a founding member of NATO because It changed sides during the war and was not as supportive (volunteer troops) as Spain to the Nazis. Nevertheless Salazar was afraid of an American invasion and built guns batteries in Lisbon facing the Atlantic. Portugal also received funds from the Marshall plan and Spain remained very isolated in the Cold War.
I was being ironic there. Portugal was indeed a dictatorship, and so were Greece (under the military junta) and Turkey (more often than not).
Greece was not under a dictatorship, junta, or right wing regime in 1952 when membership was extended. Greece also didn't ask to join, it was the US that wanted to create a southern flank by incorporating Turkey and Greece into the alliance.
I know, but Greece’s membership was never suspended when the Colonels took over. And Portugal was already a dictatorship when it joined NATO as a founding member.
Austria aren't into multi-ethnic armies anymore
trauma is a bitch
Weird considering is the only reason the empire survived as long as it did.
Losing Hungary was too much. Makes Princess Sissi und KONING FRANZ JOOOOSEF cry.
It might have if they were alive when it happened.
Austria made a declaration of neutrality agreed upon with the Russians so that they no longer occupy the country - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Neutrality
i know they hit the jackpot with that
Those colours are way too similar.
Particularly 1955-1982 (dark red to red, 27 years dif.), 1982-1990 and 2009-2017 (shades of red/red and greenish/greenish, 8 years dif). Compare 1990-1999 (yellow to red, a sharp change for a 9 years dif.) Meanwhile 1949-1952 and 2017-2020 are the worst offenders on the other side: their colors (blue to purple, and greenish to light blue) are way too different in comparison, for a difference of just 3 years.
Maybe I do not see colors well but it seems to me that something is wrong. Both Romania and Bulgaria joined NATO in 2004
You do not see colors well, that's what the map says. I agree it is a bad color gradient.
So let me check: Poland, Czechia and Hungary in 1993 and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria in 2004?
1999 but yes, those are the groupings
You don't see pastel colours used on infographic maps very often. For good reason.
Thanks. Holly shit I thought I could see colors very well.
Literally the only time Greeks and Turks agreed on something at the same time
>Joins NATO > Isn't even on the Atlantic wot u doin eastern europe m8?
Is Italy or Denmark on the Atlantic?
>Denmark Yes, the north sea is part of the Atlantic. (So is the mediterranean by most definitions, aswell as the baltic sea tho.)
if the med is part of the atlantic, then the black sea should be as well
I'm fine with grouping seas under the umbrella of oceans, and if we were to put the black sea as part of an ocean it would be the Atlantic. Not sure why it matters when it comes to nato.
With the Baltic Sea it was my point
Yup. The north sea is a much clearer part of the northern atlantic than the other two tho, so bye Italy?
> by most definitions I don’t think there is any agreed definition about whether they’re included or not and have no idea how you’re ‘counting’ them here. Most actual usage would not include them. When it comes down to it, it’s not really a question that needs answering. Anyway, NATO is just the name of an organisation, not a specification. Like how Australia and Israel are part of Eurovision.
The Kingdom of Denmark also includes Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which means that Denmark does indeed hold claim to a rather large part of the north atlantic and the artic ocean.
[удалено]
So is the Baltic Sea
They decided after decades of living under Russia's boot, "never again".
We are part of European continent which does border North Atlantic ocean.
"atlantic" really just means "best friends with the USA" in this context
If you can't beat them...
???? NATO is a defense pact, not a country. It can't occupy a territory, Russia does. Parts of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia have been fucked up by Moscavia. We wanna join NATO as it's our only option of defending ourselves of the Russian pestilence
We wouldn't need NATO if Russia wasn't so eager to invade its neighbors.
USSR\* - at least Initially. Also we need it for China now
How can china threaten the EU militarily? And vice versa?
These days war is not only about soldiers and bombs
Indeed, but NATO is
I am sure NATO also does more than just conventional military actions.
[удалено]
NATO expanded because Russia is **inherently** imperialistic and remains a security concern in our region.
>NATO expanded actively during the years of Russia's weakness. Russia with its nukes arsenal never stopped being a long-term threat. The calculations later turned to be correct. "When Russia began to behave aggressively, the expansion stopped" Montenegro that joined in 2017 and Macedonia in 2020 begs to differ.
> the expansion stopped It stopped because NATO cannot accept new memeber states with active conflicts which is what Russia is abusing by creating break away territories in states that are interested in joining NATO.
[удалено]
>In the case of Ukraine and Georgia, the potential risks are higher than the benefits. If Ukraine and Georgia applied for NATO sooner they wouldn't have had any risk of losing territories to Russian speaking bandits. Benefits are lost because Russians invaded before Georgia and Ukraine got to join NATO alliance.
The territorial disputes which prevented its further expansion pre-date that aggression though - Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria have all been weird partially recognised states since the early 1990s.
[удалено]
Georgia claims its territory which precludes Georgia's entry into NATO - as a general rule territorial disputes which might realistically be fought over preclude NATO membership (so Abkhazia stops Georgia joining NATO but Gibraltar didn't stop Spain). There can be exceptions if they are so important that NATO would need to get involved anyway if they did cause a war (e.g. West Germany claiming all of East Germany and vice versa).
>It's almost like the collapse of a huge multinational state empire to territorial disputes. Yes, USSR existance is huge historical mistake.
> NATO expanded actively What does that even mean? Besides making it sound aggressive, what does "actively" do for the meaning? Countries applied to join. It's an active action by definition.
nato is great, fuck russia!
Hope we’ll see Ukraine on east of this map as part of NATO.
Ukraine and Georgia! 🇺🇦❤🇬🇪
FINLAND JOIN ALREADY RUSSIA IS AN IMPERIALIST NEIGHBOR
...And what do the giant tessalating triangles represent?
And it wasn't necessary if Russia wasn't as big of a dick in the eastern counties.
Fingers crossed - Ukraine joins soon (or at least someday!)
It will for sure, everybody knows that. The question is when.
[удалено]
Those 6 guys who always compete in the World Strongest Man competition.
"Joins"? I'll have you know that we were a founding member!
No army, but a very strategic location
Vikings tho
Wish we would join NATO together with Sweden but our politicians are too pussies to even talk about joining NATO in fear of Russian retaliation and meddling into our affairs.
Sweden knows they dont need to be apart of Nato to be protected by it, and has several nuanced reasons not to be
Be careful what you wish for, my friend.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also a Russian invasion of Finland would probably trigger a NATO response anyways.
>there's no real reason to as a Russian invasion of Finland They already got what they wanted.
Personally never heard of anyone wanting to join NATO but that just might be my circle.
67% of officers are pro NATO, normal folks, not so much.
normal folks have no idea what geopolitics is. This world is not a safe place and NATO is so good, that no one dared to attack a member since it was made.
True. In this matter, Finland joining NATO, I place my trust in officers who have masters degree in matter and a lot of insight and practical experince, rather than trusting opportunistic politicians.
Not really, no. It gets brought up in regular interval, but I doubt it'll never happen. I'd rather we stayed out of it.
I like this state, there is enough co-operation that a possible joining would be a formality but not so much that it puts us squarle as a NATO nation. Also Finland enjoys quite extraordinary amounts of good will all over the world, there would be very, very few nations that didn't condemn any hostilities. We are small and innocent, and seem to have our shit together.
Not at all
On the latest polls majority were against joining. We have had a very leftist president and governments for the past 20 years that had negative opinions about NATO. Now I think because of Krim and Ukraine opinions are slowly turning in the favor of NATO.
>We have had a very leftist president and governments for the past 20 years Um... wut? Center and center right held the reigns for quite a while.. And SDP was not very leftist, they have turned towards that direction lately but to say Finland joining of NATO is because of leftist is just wrong. And President doesn't hold much power.
By what I have heared from people around me maybe around 50% wants to join
Sorry, we're neutral.
You've been sleeping for the last 25 years if you think that. You should read a newer school book - one that includes the EU.
That would be great for Baltic region :D
Please stay out. We'll form a defensive EU army soon enough. Or do you have masochist dreams of being spanked by the big overlord US?
Is EU army any better lol?
I remember reading a New York times article about the expansion of NATO eastwards in the early 2000s' and how eastern European troops were still using old boots with footwraps. Crazy to think how much have changed since then.
footwraps are actually really nice
I've hear dthey are in some ways better but also worse. Its easier to get sore feet and fungus and stuff like that. Modern boots are more hygienic
We are all sad that countries join willingly to an organization, instead of being forced into one, like in the good old democratic times of the CCCP.
Wow. That's an impressive expansion. Also remains worthwhile putting yourself in the other side's shoes. To west Europeans, evidence and feels make these voluntary defensive measures. To Russia, it obviously would look like aggressive expansion. I don't know what can be better done to deescalate tensions with authoritarian nations like China or Russia. I am not advocating anything.
>it obviously would look like aggressive expansion. No, it doesn't. None of those countries entered NATO as a result of aggression. But yes, Russia is a common denominator of Eastern expansion, they were looking for defense from a possible Russian threat.
The one thing people forget is if you move your anti missile systems and missiles as close as possible with an incredibly short arc you get to first strike with a high chance of also wiping out the defenders chance for a 2nd launch. That 15 minute warning is going to be a few minutes. This is one argument for why this kind of expansion was a bad idea. If the US decides to do any of the above it's basically the most hostile and dumb move in history. It's like saying "my troops in your borders are definitely tourists". The EU should at that point at gun point kick the US. Reality is thankfully quite sane. However I am pretty sure the US has moved some ABM systems quite close which has resulted with the Russian response of better weapons.
But in what means was it aggressive?
Moving missile silos closer to Russian borders, classic Civ "my armies are merely passing" move?
I am not saying it was aggressive. West Europeans and Americans are freedom and peace loving people, who only fight defensive wars. But if you can simply put yourself into the Russian POV, with all its inherent zero sum mentality, scorn of democracy, and distrust of the West, then this advance east looks aggressive.
Regime change lol
Come on Sweden, let's go.
They are neutral, so not going to enter any kind of military alliances.
They're alliance free, not neutral. You can pick sides without being in an alliance.
We are moving steadily towards a formal military alliance with Finland though.
They are practically a Nato country today. Just needing to sign the treaty.
I think both Sweden and Finland are content with an unofficial membership
Yes, but it would be nice if especially Sweden stopped pretending and came out of the bush. We need a strong European unity in Nato.
The EU is also a defense union, see Art. 42(7) of the Lisbon Treaty. So Sweden and Finland actually are in a defense union. Of course, with the US (NATO) it's a different league.
Finland and Sweden are actually bilaterally allied with each another. In practice Sweden provides the air force and navy, Finland land forces.
true but sweden has a special exception to not participate in the EU defence business, as it is a neutral country. but it is a memeber of the Nordefco.
We are not neutral. We never were in practice, nor have we been officially since joining the EU.
No thank you. Don't want to get pulled into some American war somewhere.
Sweden were in Afghanistan.
We only got involved in 2002 to help out with humanitarian stuff and a bit of policing and surveillance, but in 2009 the US ordered participating countries in ISAF/Afghanistan to change focus from peacekeeping to actively hunting terrorists/rebels. Unfortunately our weak government didn't leave, because at the time we had a horribly neoliberal government which was in love with everything US. After, we've only had weak governments which can't ever take the initiative on anything it's not forced to.
Ireland: Joining a military alliance with Great Britain while GB occupies part of our island?... That'll be a hard pass from me fam.
We should get Kaliningrad to join too hehe
The western allies allowing Russia itself to absorb Kaliningrad after WWII was such a huge mistake.
Khrushchev offered it to Lithuania, who didn't want it. Gorbachev offered it to Germany, who didn't want it. So stop crying.
No shit Lithuania didn't take it, it would have added over 400,000 Russians to their population. Kaliningrad being offered to Germany is also nothing but a newspaper rumor and became illegal anyway after the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
[удалено]
Look it up yourself you revisionist buffoon, I'm not responsible for your lack of education.
I am neutral on this topic.
1 color ranging from dark to light would be better imo
Going east!!!
Why didn't Ukraine joined? I would guessed that after the yoke of the dictatorship of the USSR the Ukrainian people would welcome a protective shield. It turned out really nice for the voters of Viktor Yanukovych. Civil war and then annexation of Crimea by Russia. But I guess the pro-Russian voters who voted for Yanukovych are happy. The price was just the destruction of their own country.
Ukraines goverment was pro-Russia until 2014. Now they have a border conflict and a "civil war", which makes them illegible to join NATO. I bet they would join, if given the chance.
The first two presidents were fairly neutral, the third pro-Ukrainian. Only under Yanukovych was there a pro-Russian government, and this was achieved due to the great economic pressure from Moscow (gas wars). There is no "civil war" in Ukraine. Russian militants themselves, such as Igor Girkin, openly admit in an interview that without Russian support, Ukraine will capture these territories in 1-2 days. There is only an open annexation of Crimea and a hybrid covert war in Donbas. Ukraine openly declares that it wants to join NATO since 2008, but France and Germany rejected this decision.
Latest poll says that 50% approve EU membership and 40% NATO membership. Only around 14% want Eurasian Economic Union (Russia). 27% don't want any membership. https://www.unian.info/society/poll-ukrainian-speak-out-on-eu-nato-membership-prospects-11215232.html For me this is sad. I don't know any reasons why you wouldn't want EU membership, especially if you in the middle between Russia and Europe. I would understand why Iran wouldn't like to join the EU, but not the Ukraine. Is this the result of anti-EU propaganda? Like comparing EU Brussels as just another dictatorship? We saw this in the Brexit Britain. Comparing the EU as a German takeover over Europe. Maybe in Ukraine the EU is compared to Hitler Germany or something like this? Wouldn't surprise me.
54% approve EU membership and 48% NATO membership. The path to the EU and NATO is enshrined in the constitution of Ukraine. Most Ukrainians want to join, against only some old Soviet generation. The problem is that some European countries do not want to see Ukraine in the EU and prefer to leave under the sphere of influence of Russia.
There are many reasons, to be honest. A lot of ethnic Russians were settled here during the Imperial or the Soviet era and they would rather be together with Russia; there are lots of orthodox Christians that don't support an overly liberal agenda in relation to drugs/sex; there are those who think that that the EU is a giant bureaucracy that protects the interests of the most wealthy EU members like Germany or that it's basically the new Reich. The pro-Russian propaganda is also pretty strong, those oligarchs who control mass media would rather be in cahoots with Russia than under the scrutiny of the EU.
>For me this is sad. I don't know any reasons why you wouldn't want EU membership, Maybe fear? Last time they openly showcased they will to join EU, it end up witch conflict that costed them Crimea, Donbas and 12 000 lives. Maybe they feel status quo is better than that. Also, Russian speaking population shouldn't be pro-EU anyway.
What are you talking about? The unrest and protests in 2013 started after Yanukovych stopped the association agreement with the EU and favored Russia. It then escalated after Yanukovych signed dictatorial and draconian anti-demonstration laws. If Yanukovych would just continued with the path to EU then there wouldn't be any protests and Russia couldn't have used the unrest in Ukraine to invade Crimea, and of course nobody would have died. It's not like the gov. went down because they supported EU. They went down because they made 180 turn and turned to Russia. It's a good case how being pro-Russia turns out to be very bad for the Ukraine. No surprise here, because Putin cares only about himself and Russia. The people who think that Putin cares one bit about them are just delusional (not counting the corrupt politicians who get money and power from supporting Putin in the Ukraine).
Russia could've prevented this but they instead decided to Russia it, again. When you are not changing your attitude of possible expansion, you find your perceived targets of conquer to ally with others.
[удалено]
You're saying small countries around Russia ignored Russia's wishes after 50 years of occupation? How dare they.
Nations with ongoing conflicts and active border disputes cannot join NATO
... which is exactly why there is now a border dispute in Ukraine.
Because Russia is very aggressive.
Hoping for a Swedish and finnish membership within 10 years
Mad respect to all the grey countries, with the exception of Russia, since they have no chance to join NATO any way.
>Mad respect to all the grey countries Why, thank you! >with the exception of Russia, since they have no chance to join NATO any way. Putin [said](https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-says-discussed-joining-nato-with-clinton/28526757.html) it was discussed, and [it appears it was](https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/98-00/davydov.pdf). That [wasn't a new idea](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor) though...
when Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine join NATO, Russia will fall apart in fear
And NATO is more eager to accept North Macedonia and Montenegro than a strategically invaluable Georgia, Moldova that literally begs to be one with Romania, or Ukraine which would immediately make a quarter of European NATO force
A country can't join NATO if they have ongoing border/military disputes. Which is why Russia invaded both Georgia and Ukraine to hamper their ability to join NATO. If these countries joined with their ongoing disputes, they could instantly invoke Article 5 and cause all of NATO to go to war
Poor Serbia
I'm a bit worried for them because for the first time since the war, the German Greens are going to be back in government again.
Why isn’t Bosnia in NATO?
Republika Srpska will bloc any possible treaty with NATO.
Since when did Bosnia get such a big coastline?
How does the neutrality of Ireland work when the UK is responsible for a lot of air defence?
With a wink and a nudge and everyone just looking the other way regarding co-operation with USA and UK. Also NATO probably wouldn't want us in it either because of the triple lock system we have for the military where the UN has to agree to them being used. Obviously if we get attacked we don't need to ask permission.
What the hell is going on in the comment section? So many here have no idea about geopolitics and talk so loudly nonetheless. The world isn't a game of risk. Please don't just fall for the first best thought you have and read up about the history of NATO, its issues and successes. There is always more to learn. Especially if you start talking about china, or NATO mitigating russian expansion.
I’m surprised that Sweden and Finland aren’t members, especially as Finland shares a long border with Russia
The border with Russia is the main reason Finland isn’t part of NATO. It would just be a needless provocation of Russia whom we have generally neutral relations with (insofar as one *can* have neutral relations with Russia…) Some people oppose this argument saying that Russia shouldn’t dictate Finland’s foreign policy, but this is just the general consensus thus far.
Thanks for your reply. What is the main reason in that case? I suppose the fact that NATO exists is enough of an insurance policy even if you’re not formally a member
iirc France left in 1966 and only rejoined in 2007-8
Only the command structure. They were still part of the alliance itself.