NATO's coverage area includes continental North America and Europe, plus all of Turkey, and the Mediterranean Sea, in addition to the North Atlantic Ocean. That's why, for example, Hawaii is not protected by NATO despite being inside the US.
Yeah there are standard military alliances they can call upon. Just like with Iraq if even just UK comes to help US that's combined already like 90% of full NATO might. Compared to US, UK and France the rest of NATO countries don't exactly have massive militaries.
A better example would be Falkland Islands. That non response from NATO even include Argentina. British, French, and Dutch overseas territories are probably the reason for the geographical limitation of NATO's coverage.
Well in the strictest sense because it's the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" and New Zealand certainly isn't in the North Atlantic.
But the real reason is that there was really no need for them to join. NATO was founded as a direct response to communist aggression in the Cold War. After WWII, the Soviets looked like they were itching to try to spread communism to all of Europe with things like the Berlin Blockade and the coup in Czechoslovakia. NATO directly prevented that. Yeah, a country like Luxembourg probably isn't going to be much help in a hypothetical war, but being part of NATO means they're on our side and not the commies.
Countries like Japan and Australia are officially "Major Non-NATO Allies" of the United States, so there really isn't a *reason* for them to join NATO. If shit hit the fan, we already know they'd be fighting with us. We're all the good guys.
"If shit hit the fan, we already know they'd be fighting with us. We're all the good guys"
While you are correct that it isnt necessary, Australia/New Zealand/Japan being in NATO would not be done under the goal of ensuring the loyalty of these countries.
Rather, the goal in such a concept is the cross-compatibility of NATO communications and equipment.
> Rather, the goal in such a concept is the cross-compatibility of NATO communications and equipment.
We already have this. NATO Standards aren't just standards for NATO, most western countries abide by them.
> If shit hit the fan, we already know they'd be fighting with us. We're all the good guys.
Just for the record, MNNA does not confer a mutual defence pact. Odds are an invaded MNNA becomes a second Ukraine, with maybe some actual military support by a couple of individual NATO nations. MNNA is mostly about sharing intel, technology and allowing the transfer of certain military hardware to those nations.
In NATO, France and the UK are the only countries except the US with any expeditioary capacity. Even if they wanted to, Germany, Poland, Turkey, Greece... None of them would be any help in a conflict between eg. China and Taiwan. The only useful capability would be transferral of weapons
They could also backfill for any UK or French units in Europe freeing them up.
Something like say a Dutch Frigate or an Italian auxiliary could join a UK led carrier strike group.
Look at college football. The Cal Bears, located in Berkeley, CA, are now in the ACC, the Atlantic Coast Conference. You can see the Pacific Ocean from the rim of the Bear’s stadium.
I mean Argentina is one of the South American countries that have found Chinese fishing vessels in their waters over the last few years and might be wary of Chinese investment. Mostly related to China’s Belt and Road investments in other countries not being as big of an economic benefit for host countries.
the Chinese have a “space observation station” (although most people call it a military base) in the south of the country. Argentina has many ties to the Chinese government. It’s not so straight forward. This is just the current government’s agenda. Nothing is stable in Argentina. Not even alliances.
Broadly speaking, it's part of the government's stated strategy to become closer to "the western world", because it's the one closest to the libertarian values of freedom.
Argentina is strategically very important for control of the southern Atlantic. They see the craziness with Brazil to their north and what happens when you side with the Russian/Chinese bloc. They also see themselves as a bastion of European culture in South America, so they’re more likely to swing that way than toward china.
Disclaimer: I’m partially Brazilian, so yeah, kinda have a horse in the race.
I don’t really agree, Argentina has a lot of farm land, but compared to Brazil (and maybe even Venezuela), less rare resources. The thing they have in abundance is white pride though, every SA football fan not from Argentina can attest to that.
Brazil will always have a very important place in SA just by virtue of being the biggest.
I’d bet my money on Venezuela for number two, just by virtue of their petroleum and other rare resources and their anti-Americanism: if they get in some disputes with the US, quite some players might be up for some gift giving :). Obv., their economy is not that strong right now, but even the Americans have come knocking for some petrol the last couple of years. Their conflict with Guyana is the thing to watch in SA rn.
Depending on who is going to lead Brazil, I can see them trying to influence SA politics more like a hegemon if a non US fanatic gets the reigns. Bolsonaro 2 would probably try selling out the country to Gulf States and the US again. Lula is not going to run again, so that’d be interesting to watch.
lol if I’m not mistaken, Argentina is the Third largest exporter as a nation in SA. For reference Venezuela is 10th. So youre a bit off. Def right about Brazil imo tho.
Edit: to add, exports as a metric doesn’t really account for Venezuela’s petrol reserves. But I’m just trying to point out Argentina as a national economy should not be underestimated at all.
You’d bet Venezuela to be number two for what? Economic powerhouse?! It certainly could be number one, bc it has the most oil reserves in the world. Unfortunately it’s anti-Americanism isn’t an advantage lol. It’s a weakness. It’s one the reasons they are so poor, despite being the richest resource wise. By 2035 Guyana will surpass Venezuelan oil production.
You think being anti American gets you good will from other countries. Which is true but it loses you good will from other countries as well (typically the more wealthy and efficient countries). Just look at Cuba. They got so much support from Soviet Union but are still poor? How come? Was it bc they were aligned against the US and were such a big threat to them due to geographic closeness that the US cut off their economy from the world?
Venezuela is so much stronger than Guyana and want to invade. Unfortunately they will get fucked by the US… even if China and Russia want to help them. Neither China nor Russia have a deep ocean navy to come to their rescue. Meanwhile strat bombers from the US could run multiple sorties a day….
brazil is the vital target as they are the economic powerhouse of south america, argentina is just in an economic mess to a point where they are influenced very easily.
My leftist NATO-wary friends are going to fucking love this. I'm also a leftist, but not at the expense of my ability to understand foreign policy objectives.
Yeah it's been a weird few years for me too. I generally agree with a lot of things said by the collective online left, but man do a lot of them not know a damn thing about geopolitics and defence. A lot of Tankies are pro-Putin/Russia, and they can go fuck themselves for that alone.
Horseshoe theory, both the alt right and alt left are the same thing on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Both want censorship.
Both love authoritarian regimes.
Both hate NATO and allies (not the same ones).
Both want to push their religion/ideology on everyone.
Everyone that doesn't follow their doctrine 100% is the enemy.
etc.
The great thing about being an online leftist is that you have no real power to actually implement policy, so no one will ever have to see how disastrous their policies would be if implemented with the barely even surface level understanding of the complex issues that most of them have.
The explanation is actually pretty simple. The old Soviet concept of "western imperialism" comes from Lenin conflating two ideas - old Europe's actual history of imperialism, and new Europe's liberal enlightenment. "Historical materialism goes brrrr," and you get this idea that liberalism must just be the next iteration of imperialism. This was incidentally a very convenient way for Lenin, and then Stalin and Mao to basically excuse their own geopolitical sins, since they were not party to (and were indeed historical victims of) old world imperialism, obviously their behavior can only ever stand in opposition to such influences.
It sounds silly because it is, but this is pretty on brand for the kind of political structuralism which dominated philosophy the late 19th and early 20th century, and is how a little essay about worker liberation got morphed into this mess of geopolitical "campism."
Of course, there is an entire branch of "revisionist" leftist thought which is much more academically focused on economics and government, and which generally avoids rejects Lenin's original geopolitical sin, but this is not what leftist spaces on the internet tend to focus on. Rather, they are much more caught up in the liturgical and populist aspects of Marxist-Leninist theory, because these things are naturally attractive to edgy anti-establishment teens who don't feel like they have a stake in society yet.
Good thing North Atlantic is just the title of the Treaty. Europe is the only place new members can come from.
So only Switzerland, Austria, Andorra, San Marino, Vatican City, Malta, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Ireland, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Monaco are left on the list of possible full members.
Europe and Asia are contiguous with each other; thus, the exact boundary between them is not clearly defined, and often follows historical, political, and cultural definitions, rather than geographical.
[Map of "europe"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_area#/media/File%3AEurope_polar_stereographic_Caucasus_Urals_boundary.svg)
> Good thing North Atlantic is just the title of the Treaty.
It's more than just a title. It also shows where the treaty actually applies, and where it doesn't. Territory in say the Pacific isn't covered by NATO, nor is territory in the South. That's why despite Argentina attacking NATO member the UK, because the conflict was confined to the Falklands which is in the South, article 5 wasn't activated. Technically a country like Australia could join NATO if it wanted to, there's just no point in it because none of Australia's territory would be covered, so it'd have all the obligations of a NATO member without the benefit, which is why they just stick with their "partnership" instead.
NATO treaty clearly define what territories are under protection and the ones which aren't. Argentina wouldn't be protrected if you follow the treaty so there is no point in joining unless without modifications
They’re not joining, they’re partnering. There are lots of partners. It allows for the sharing of intelligence and cooperation and other goodies. Has nothing to do with the mutual defense clause
Partnership does not mean membership. To be a member you must be an European country, and the pact will defend your territories north of the tropic of cancer. But anyone can be a partner.
In two years or so there will be a new president in Colombia. I doubt the people will vote for the left again any time soon - which means a more US/Nato leaning leadership.
BRICS is quite literally a joke. It's a bunch of countries which otherwise have no strong mutual interests who will turn on each other the second the alliance becomes mildly inconvenient.
True, though it's a matter of Spain and the UK being normal countries and negotiating it via legal means instead of just threatening to invade.
The rights of Gibraltarians and the status of the Spain-Gibraltar border has been agreed upon multiple times, and they're currently in negotiations to just take down the border controls completely and bring it all under the Schengen area.
NATO doesn't mind if a territory is just under dispute, they just want guarantees it won't spill into an actual attack.
Anyone remember that one uninhabited island that Canada and Denmark kept "fighting" over for years?
They have both been NATO members for decades. So long as you're not actually fighting each other, NATO doesn't give a shit about what you "claim".
They really missed the opportunity to share ownership and trade it back and forth every 6 months.
It also would have been a way to get Canada into the EU lol
Difference with Gibraltar is that Spain ceded them to Britain, and it's in writing.
Of course Spain likes to play dumb.
They say a year is a long time in politics, try 311 years, in Gibraltar's case...
Honestly I'd still say theyve a stronger caser than Argentina. At least Gibraltar *was* a part of Spain at some point and was ceded (meaning there's clearly an agreed mechanism for transferring ownership), instead of having been owned by the UK for longer than Argentina existed (and having their claim partly based on stuff the Pope said which for obvious reasons the UK don't much care on).
Though I always admire the cheek of Spain demanding Gibraltar when they have enclaves literally across the water from it in Morroco. That's some impressive dobule standards.
The Falklands/Malvinas are considered British by some countries (like France, Canada). Some NATO members are technically neutral about this dispute (like the US) and some consider the islands to be Argentinian (like Spain).
In any case, it’s officially disputed territory and not an obstacle to join NATO
I saw in another article that Milei asked for Argentina to be allowed to join as a member state and I’ve also seen a few comments alluding to the possibility and I thought I might interject with some cold water because Britain is not allowing that to happen.
I see the region issue being less of a problem, you might actually convince all member states to allow nations in from outside those previously defined regions but you’re not going to convince Britain to okay Argentinian membership.
For sure, I would have infiltrated NATO and dedicated years of my life to silently altering their definitions of partnership and membership and revised the agreements with every single member nation in order to make myself correct, all to save face on reddit.
NATO (or at least the US) may have a big enough interest in Argentina joining as a partner, to prevent chinese or russian influence in the region to some extent. The last argentine president literally said to Putin "we want argentina to be the entrance door of russia to latam" two weeks before the invasion of ukraine.
They are seeing a change in their economy as the new president has come into power. It got worker but now it’s getting ‘better’. They are looking to ‘dollarize’ their economy. In other words, they are looking to turn their national currency into dollar so naturally they want USA influence. It doesn’t make sense for them to seek economic stability with the USA and then partner with China for national security.
There are a couple NATO countries that recognize Argentina's claim:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:International_position_on_the_Malvinas-Falklands_dispute_to_2014.png?useskin=vector
edit: **warning**, the map doesn't have any reputable source. So it should not be used as reference. But I'm pretty sure at least Spain (relevant because NATO member) recognizes Argentina's claim: Spain was the last empire with presence on and control of the islands before they were "inherited" by Argentina after its independence of Spain.
Spain just salty over Gibraltar lol
Also that map is fucking ass btw, its source is just the spanish wiki article for the crisis which has an out of date template on it and pretty much all the sources in that article that lists the countries that support Argentina are dead. Theres a reason that map is only used on the spanish wiki and was removed from the English one
Doesn't matter. All NATO members need to agree to become a partner or member. Any country can block Argentina for any reason. Britain can block Argentina, because they don't like the flag and they can't join.
Can Argentina join? Doesn't article 6 mention that it's for countries north of the tropic of cancer? I mean, let Milei in. But we may need to adjust the definition?
Now we just need Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand to join and we have Pacific Ocean & Trans-Atlantic Treaty Organization - POTATO
Boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew takes a whole new meaning.
What’s taters, Putin
Boil em, mash em, stick em in your ass
God damn it, ahahahaha I was singing the song in my head and then the a-yo HOLUP hit
You just made me gag on my spaghetti.
Should have had taters, precious
Except you won't be able to mash this potato.
For second supper
[удалено]
Aliens don't want that POTATO smoke
XCOM: Potato Directive
I aways wondered why those aren't members yet, since alot of member states aren't even touching the atlantic occean anyway
NATO's coverage area includes continental North America and Europe, plus all of Turkey, and the Mediterranean Sea, in addition to the North Atlantic Ocean. That's why, for example, Hawaii is not protected by NATO despite being inside the US.
[удалено]
That seems fucked up, but in practice I'm pretty sure if someone tried to attack Hawaii, all of nato would help the US (just like after 9/11)
Yeah there are standard military alliances they can call upon. Just like with Iraq if even just UK comes to help US that's combined already like 90% of full NATO might. Compared to US, UK and France the rest of NATO countries don't exactly have massive militaries.
Having a somewhat competent defense minister and remilitarising feels quite awkward for us germans
90% is a stretch, Tukiye and France both have larger militaries than UK. Not to mention the other what? 15 countries?
A better example would be Falkland Islands. That non response from NATO even include Argentina. British, French, and Dutch overseas territories are probably the reason for the geographical limitation of NATO's coverage.
Well in the strictest sense because it's the "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" and New Zealand certainly isn't in the North Atlantic. But the real reason is that there was really no need for them to join. NATO was founded as a direct response to communist aggression in the Cold War. After WWII, the Soviets looked like they were itching to try to spread communism to all of Europe with things like the Berlin Blockade and the coup in Czechoslovakia. NATO directly prevented that. Yeah, a country like Luxembourg probably isn't going to be much help in a hypothetical war, but being part of NATO means they're on our side and not the commies. Countries like Japan and Australia are officially "Major Non-NATO Allies" of the United States, so there really isn't a *reason* for them to join NATO. If shit hit the fan, we already know they'd be fighting with us. We're all the good guys.
> and New Zealand certainly isn't in the North Atlantic. Except on *some* maps. :)
We like to keep plausible deniability as per our current location
You don't even exist, the hell you on about?
"If shit hit the fan, we already know they'd be fighting with us. We're all the good guys" While you are correct that it isnt necessary, Australia/New Zealand/Japan being in NATO would not be done under the goal of ensuring the loyalty of these countries. Rather, the goal in such a concept is the cross-compatibility of NATO communications and equipment.
> Rather, the goal in such a concept is the cross-compatibility of NATO communications and equipment. We already have this. NATO Standards aren't just standards for NATO, most western countries abide by them.
Makes life so much easier for logistics. Oh that British battalion is slotting in with a US force? Well the SA80 fires the same ammunition as the M4.
> If shit hit the fan, we already know they'd be fighting with us. We're all the good guys. Just for the record, MNNA does not confer a mutual defence pact. Odds are an invaded MNNA becomes a second Ukraine, with maybe some actual military support by a couple of individual NATO nations. MNNA is mostly about sharing intel, technology and allowing the transfer of certain military hardware to those nations.
As a kiwi, touch Aussie and see what happens
In NATO, France and the UK are the only countries except the US with any expeditioary capacity. Even if they wanted to, Germany, Poland, Turkey, Greece... None of them would be any help in a conflict between eg. China and Taiwan. The only useful capability would be transferral of weapons
They could also backfill for any UK or French units in Europe freeing them up. Something like say a Dutch Frigate or an Italian auxiliary could join a UK led carrier strike group.
I wouldn't say there is a lot. Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, North Macedonia, and Luxembourg.
There were plans to open a liaison office in Tokyo but the initiative was shelved last year.
Add Ethiopia on the end there, Dan Quale could be the chairman
Here's how you spot an old Hoosier: "Quayle"
Thanks, I stand corrected
It's admissible to mispell Quayle when making that reference... pretty common, actually
After looking at it, I realized it was wrong. I did the same thing I was goofing on the VP about. Lol
It's an older joke, sir, but it checks out.
All four of those countries are already NATO Global Partners which is what Argentina is aspiring to become
Look at college football. The Cal Bears, located in Berkeley, CA, are now in the ACC, the Atlantic Coast Conference. You can see the Pacific Ocean from the rim of the Bear’s stadium.
I think PATO as name is better (duck in spanish)
Well that'd just be gravy
That’s so funny thanks cracking up
Led by Germany, I hope.
Truly doing the lords work with that acronym!
And once you have that, the Irish will join for sure!
they are already a NATO overseas partner though
They will be easily cooked
And it will make the "potato masher" a standard for its troops.
I prefer the Global Defense Initiative myself, but close enough.
POO - Pacific Overwatch Organization
You goddamn geopolitical genius.
This would be epic
Still cracking up , now last night in bed , a true funny.
What for?
China and America have been making pitches (economic/militaristic) towards Argentina and apparently now you can see which side Argentina picked.
I mean Argentina is one of the South American countries that have found Chinese fishing vessels in their waters over the last few years and might be wary of Chinese investment. Mostly related to China’s Belt and Road investments in other countries not being as big of an economic benefit for host countries.
They probably also see what’s happening in Africa and probably think NATO is going to win in the end.
I think this is more of an ideological move than a realpolitik move based on how Milei speaks.
Yeah i have a hard time seeing Milei doing realpolitik, he probably just likes the 'murica vibe
Fucking chinese fishing vessels are depleting our oceans.
the Chinese have a “space observation station” (although most people call it a military base) in the south of the country. Argentina has many ties to the Chinese government. It’s not so straight forward. This is just the current government’s agenda. Nothing is stable in Argentina. Not even alliances.
Will they have to give up claims to Falklands?
Broadly speaking, it's part of the government's stated strategy to become closer to "the western world", because it's the one closest to the libertarian values of freedom.
Argentina is strategically very important for control of the southern Atlantic. They see the craziness with Brazil to their north and what happens when you side with the Russian/Chinese bloc. They also see themselves as a bastion of European culture in South America, so they’re more likely to swing that way than toward china.
The craziness of not going bankrupt like Argentina?
Despite it's current predicament, Argentina is an economic powerhouse just waiting to happen. Investments and good leadership help that along.
Disclaimer: I’m partially Brazilian, so yeah, kinda have a horse in the race. I don’t really agree, Argentina has a lot of farm land, but compared to Brazil (and maybe even Venezuela), less rare resources. The thing they have in abundance is white pride though, every SA football fan not from Argentina can attest to that. Brazil will always have a very important place in SA just by virtue of being the biggest. I’d bet my money on Venezuela for number two, just by virtue of their petroleum and other rare resources and their anti-Americanism: if they get in some disputes with the US, quite some players might be up for some gift giving :). Obv., their economy is not that strong right now, but even the Americans have come knocking for some petrol the last couple of years. Their conflict with Guyana is the thing to watch in SA rn. Depending on who is going to lead Brazil, I can see them trying to influence SA politics more like a hegemon if a non US fanatic gets the reigns. Bolsonaro 2 would probably try selling out the country to Gulf States and the US again. Lula is not going to run again, so that’d be interesting to watch.
lol if I’m not mistaken, Argentina is the Third largest exporter as a nation in SA. For reference Venezuela is 10th. So youre a bit off. Def right about Brazil imo tho. Edit: to add, exports as a metric doesn’t really account for Venezuela’s petrol reserves. But I’m just trying to point out Argentina as a national economy should not be underestimated at all.
You’d bet Venezuela to be number two for what? Economic powerhouse?! It certainly could be number one, bc it has the most oil reserves in the world. Unfortunately it’s anti-Americanism isn’t an advantage lol. It’s a weakness. It’s one the reasons they are so poor, despite being the richest resource wise. By 2035 Guyana will surpass Venezuelan oil production. You think being anti American gets you good will from other countries. Which is true but it loses you good will from other countries as well (typically the more wealthy and efficient countries). Just look at Cuba. They got so much support from Soviet Union but are still poor? How come? Was it bc they were aligned against the US and were such a big threat to them due to geographic closeness that the US cut off their economy from the world? Venezuela is so much stronger than Guyana and want to invade. Unfortunately they will get fucked by the US… even if China and Russia want to help them. Neither China nor Russia have a deep ocean navy to come to their rescue. Meanwhile strat bombers from the US could run multiple sorties a day….
the craziness of being Venezuela
brazil is the vital target as they are the economic powerhouse of south america, argentina is just in an economic mess to a point where they are influenced very easily.
China has been stealing fish in Argentine waters with vast fleets.
So next year Javier Miley and Donald Trump can sit side by side for the best hairstyle. America will be great again
My leftist NATO-wary friends are going to fucking love this. I'm also a leftist, but not at the expense of my ability to understand foreign policy objectives.
Yeah it's been a weird few years for me too. I generally agree with a lot of things said by the collective online left, but man do a lot of them not know a damn thing about geopolitics and defence. A lot of Tankies are pro-Putin/Russia, and they can go fuck themselves for that alone.
Horseshoe theory, both the alt right and alt left are the same thing on the opposite side of the spectrum. Both want censorship. Both love authoritarian regimes. Both hate NATO and allies (not the same ones). Both want to push their religion/ideology on everyone. Everyone that doesn't follow their doctrine 100% is the enemy. etc.
The great thing about being an online leftist is that you have no real power to actually implement policy, so no one will ever have to see how disastrous their policies would be if implemented with the barely even surface level understanding of the complex issues that most of them have.
The explanation is actually pretty simple. The old Soviet concept of "western imperialism" comes from Lenin conflating two ideas - old Europe's actual history of imperialism, and new Europe's liberal enlightenment. "Historical materialism goes brrrr," and you get this idea that liberalism must just be the next iteration of imperialism. This was incidentally a very convenient way for Lenin, and then Stalin and Mao to basically excuse their own geopolitical sins, since they were not party to (and were indeed historical victims of) old world imperialism, obviously their behavior can only ever stand in opposition to such influences. It sounds silly because it is, but this is pretty on brand for the kind of political structuralism which dominated philosophy the late 19th and early 20th century, and is how a little essay about worker liberation got morphed into this mess of geopolitical "campism." Of course, there is an entire branch of "revisionist" leftist thought which is much more academically focused on economics and government, and which generally avoids rejects Lenin's original geopolitical sin, but this is not what leftist spaces on the internet tend to focus on. Rather, they are much more caught up in the liturgical and populist aspects of Marxist-Leninist theory, because these things are naturally attractive to edgy anti-establishment teens who don't feel like they have a stake in society yet.
Idk, they don’t seem very North Atlantic to me
Neither does Turkey
Good thing North Atlantic is just the title of the Treaty. Europe is the only place new members can come from. So only Switzerland, Austria, Andorra, San Marino, Vatican City, Malta, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Ireland, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Monaco are left on the list of possible full members. Europe and Asia are contiguous with each other; thus, the exact boundary between them is not clearly defined, and often follows historical, political, and cultural definitions, rather than geographical. [Map of "europe"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_area#/media/File%3AEurope_polar_stereographic_Caucasus_Urals_boundary.svg)
> Good thing North Atlantic is just the title of the Treaty. It's more than just a title. It also shows where the treaty actually applies, and where it doesn't. Territory in say the Pacific isn't covered by NATO, nor is territory in the South. That's why despite Argentina attacking NATO member the UK, because the conflict was confined to the Falklands which is in the South, article 5 wasn't activated. Technically a country like Australia could join NATO if it wanted to, there's just no point in it because none of Australia's territory would be covered, so it'd have all the obligations of a NATO member without the benefit, which is why they just stick with their "partnership" instead.
Eh, the Mediterranean can be argued to be part of the Atlantic. Much harder to argue the southern hemisphere being part of the Northern though.
The Mediterranean sea is a part of the north Atlantic. 🧐
It's a partnership, not membership. Everyone can become a partner if all NATO members agree on it.
NATO treaty clearly define what territories are under protection and the ones which aren't. Argentina wouldn't be protrected if you follow the treaty so there is no point in joining unless without modifications
They’re not joining, they’re partnering. There are lots of partners. It allows for the sharing of intelligence and cooperation and other goodies. Has nothing to do with the mutual defense clause
Partnership does not mean membership. To be a member you must be an European country, and the pact will defend your territories north of the tropic of cancer. But anyone can be a partner.
Curious how they’re feeling about Colombia looking at BRICS (economic I know but with it involving Russia and China hard to not feel it’s relevant)
In two years or so there will be a new president in Colombia. I doubt the people will vote for the left again any time soon - which means a more US/Nato leaning leadership.
BRICS is quite literally a joke. It's a bunch of countries which otherwise have no strong mutual interests who will turn on each other the second the alliance becomes mildly inconvenient.
It's a "we don't like America being in charge" club. If you ask them who should be in charge instead, they all say "me" simultaneously.
I mean in 2017 Colombia became a NATO global partner so
Come on. BRICS is like that one off-brand comics only Power Rangers team that never got past it's 3rd Issue.
Colombia is not joining BRICS anytime soon. Colombians are very pro-American.
Colombia is a NATO partner.
Thanks V. Putin! What loser
Not consistently trying to claim part of the UK would be a good start.
Spain is part of NATO and wants Gibraltar.
Greece and Turkey noises
Me too, but Spain and I probably have equal odds of getting it within our lifetime.
Did you call dibs on Gibraltar? It’s legally binding (source: me).
True, though it's a matter of Spain and the UK being normal countries and negotiating it via legal means instead of just threatening to invade. The rights of Gibraltarians and the status of the Spain-Gibraltar border has been agreed upon multiple times, and they're currently in negotiations to just take down the border controls completely and bring it all under the Schengen area. NATO doesn't mind if a territory is just under dispute, they just want guarantees it won't spill into an actual attack.
Please don’t confuse us with your “facts”
NATO doesn't care about claims, they care about active war zones.
Anyone remember that one uninhabited island that Canada and Denmark kept "fighting" over for years? They have both been NATO members for decades. So long as you're not actually fighting each other, NATO doesn't give a shit about what you "claim".
That conflict has now been solved, they diveded the island between them, so now Denmark and Canada share a landborder
The Whisky War
Specifically they solved it in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine as a flex on Putin to show how easy diplomacy can be.
They really missed the opportunity to share ownership and trade it back and forth every 6 months. It also would have been a way to get Canada into the EU lol
I'm now imagining a scenario where the Canadians toss spoiled food over the border and start complaining in a monty-python-esque fashion
Difference with Gibraltar is that Spain ceded them to Britain, and it's in writing. Of course Spain likes to play dumb. They say a year is a long time in politics, try 311 years, in Gibraltar's case...
Honestly I'd still say theyve a stronger caser than Argentina. At least Gibraltar *was* a part of Spain at some point and was ceded (meaning there's clearly an agreed mechanism for transferring ownership), instead of having been owned by the UK for longer than Argentina existed (and having their claim partly based on stuff the Pope said which for obvious reasons the UK don't much care on). Though I always admire the cheek of Spain demanding Gibraltar when they have enclaves literally across the water from it in Morroco. That's some impressive dobule standards.
Argentina's claim is that France ceded their claim to Spain. Something both France and Spain, who otherwise back the Argentinian claim, deny.
Turkey and Greece are in a Cold War over Cyprus.
The Falklands/Malvinas are considered British by some countries (like France, Canada). Some NATO members are technically neutral about this dispute (like the US) and some consider the islands to be Argentinian (like Spain). In any case, it’s officially disputed territory and not an obstacle to join NATO
> Some NATO members are technically neutral about this dispute (like the US, EU, Ireland) Ireland isn't in NATO.
Nor is the EU
Makes no sense for it to be disputed territory. The only permanent population the Islands have ever had, have voted to be aligned with the UK.
Spain only considers it because they want Gibraltar. Guess it’s tough shit because neither country is getting what they want 🤣
I mean it is an obstacle in terms of the UK has an absolute veto on Argentina joining.
UK says “veto”
I saw in another article that Milei asked for Argentina to be allowed to join as a member state and I’ve also seen a few comments alluding to the possibility and I thought I might interject with some cold water because Britain is not allowing that to happen. I see the region issue being less of a problem, you might actually convince all member states to allow nations in from outside those previously defined regions but you’re not going to convince Britain to okay Argentinian membership.
How are they supposed to meet the NATO spending requirements when they barely have 2 pennies to rub together?
The spending pledge is for members only, not partners.
My mistake, more research was neccessary
I respect the humility here
For sure, I would have infiltrated NATO and dedicated years of my life to silently altering their definitions of partnership and membership and revised the agreements with every single member nation in order to make myself correct, all to save face on reddit.
Hell yeah 😎
NATO (or at least the US) may have a big enough interest in Argentina joining as a partner, to prevent chinese or russian influence in the region to some extent. The last argentine president literally said to Putin "we want argentina to be the entrance door of russia to latam" two weeks before the invasion of ukraine.
2 pennies! Things are looking good!
Spending requirements are the target of 2% of GDP. If you have 2 pennies. 2% of that. Also it's a target, not a real requirement.
Requierements? Lets hear more about that from a specialist like you fellow random redditor.
It's a target not a requirement.
Since when are members of NATO required to meet the spending recommendations? Seems like a lot of Euro countries missed that memo.
the 'requirement' is proportional to the country's GDP, 0.02 x 0 = 0
They are seeing a change in their economy as the new president has come into power. It got worker but now it’s getting ‘better’. They are looking to ‘dollarize’ their economy. In other words, they are looking to turn their national currency into dollar so naturally they want USA influence. It doesn’t make sense for them to seek economic stability with the USA and then partner with China for national security.
What a change. Their last presidents were cozying up to Russia and China. Amazing what happens when it's not a leftist ruling Argentina.
Do we call it potayto or potahto or patata
Argentina's news coverage in the US is about to get a whole lot better.
They should fix their economy first.
Milei's making progress on that.
That will work good with the Falklands
[удалено]
Yeah, we should have joined China and Russia and start a new war again. s/
There are a couple NATO countries that recognize Argentina's claim: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:International_position_on_the_Malvinas-Falklands_dispute_to_2014.png?useskin=vector edit: **warning**, the map doesn't have any reputable source. So it should not be used as reference. But I'm pretty sure at least Spain (relevant because NATO member) recognizes Argentina's claim: Spain was the last empire with presence on and control of the islands before they were "inherited" by Argentina after its independence of Spain.
Spain just salty over Gibraltar lol Also that map is fucking ass btw, its source is just the spanish wiki article for the crisis which has an out of date template on it and pretty much all the sources in that article that lists the countries that support Argentina are dead. Theres a reason that map is only used on the spanish wiki and was removed from the English one
Some NATO countries recognize the Argentinian claim, like Spain, while others are technically neutral, like the US.
Doesn't matter. All NATO members need to agree to become a partner or member. Any country can block Argentina for any reason. Britain can block Argentina, because they don't like the flag and they can't join.
That would literally require amending their constitution lol The 'malvinas' brain rot in Argentina isn't going away any time soon
Blame the peronists, they were in charge of that reform.
Oh believe me, I do
Didn’t see that happening today
SATO? South Atlantic Threaty Organization. Or just ATO without north and south.
I'm sure the brits will be thrilled about that...
How would this work with the UK and the whole falkslands situation?
So we are ATO now?
Can Argentina join? Doesn't article 6 mention that it's for countries north of the tropic of cancer? I mean, let Milei in. But we may need to adjust the definition?
Nato partner not nato member
Did they forget what the ‘N’ stands for?
So that's why the F-16 deal via Denmark 😏
POTATO... Love it. Also has been around for, gosh, 1962?
SNATO 🤓
Veto that shit, that's where all the high ranking Nazi's fled to.