This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Removed the following text from a position immediately under the Structure heading.
If this is true, it needs rewording, sourcing, and relocation to the Military Structure subheading. Rklawton 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Georgia has a IPAP (i... partnership action plan) and wants to get full MAP (membership action plan) this year...
At what point did Turkey figure in to the geographic definition of the "North Atlantic"????? Heck, why not invite Japan, South Africa, Argentina, New Zealand?
No one in its right mind can think of Finland joining the NATO, since Russia would launch nuclear war immediately, otherwise its Kola peninsula would become undefendable, which would be the end of Russia, since that massive granite formation hosts the majority of its elite air force, naval and missile troops. It would be like Mexico becoming part of communist China, unthinkable to accept.
One interesting question is about colonies: - Are NATO members required by treaty to give military help to France in case of a Guyana natives' liberation fight and participate in exterminating the aboriginal indian population? - Are NATO members required to aid britain to hold the Falkland-Malvinas in war against Argentine? - Are NATO members required by treaty to send troops to help the british army quell a native irishmen revolution meant to unite the Irish Island under a free republic? - If Cuba invaded Puerto Rico to drive off US occupiers and establish an independent native government just to humiliate America, would NATO members need to offer troops to USA to help reconquer the island?
I would not like my country Hungary do such terrible things to benefit the imperialist powers against the natural right of aboriginals to self-government. I hope NATO obligations only cover continental territories. 195.70.32.136 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi,. I just read this article and the wording of the article in some parts is impossible. Hence, i have added the wikify tag. I will wikify it myself later, I just have limited time now so I have put the tag on to remind me. Thanks. David P. A. Hunter 02:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I decided to remove the following paragraphs;
Headline text krc nezinau lopai yra ir as istryniau viska :((((
and
Nu ir karocia niekas nezino kaip ten tie zydai supisti gyvena hahaha
Ill be keeping a close eye on this page but can someone get this translatted
anyone know the basics for nato funding during the cold war? nato website says funding currently: "the agreed cost sharing formulae which determine each member country's contributions” is called their "'ability to pay' "However the basis for the formulae applied is as much political as it is economic. The formulae applied to the Civil and Military Budgets and to the NATO Security Investment Programme were originally negotiated in the early 1950s. They have subsequently been adapted, largely proportionally, to reflect new membership and differing degrees of participation in the integrated command arrangements. Their relationship to current measurements of relative economic capacity such as GDP or purchasing power parities is consequently imprecise."
sooo its changed from 1949, but how? anyone got a source showing individual member funding during different years? thanks, writing a term paper.
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 07:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation → NATO – … Rationale: This is a concept known almost entirely by its acronym, so to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), the acronym should be the page name. This is similar to NASA, CERN, SETI etc. The page was always at NATO until recently when someone moved it, and now it can't be unmoved. — SteveRwanda 13:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If Google is any indication:
E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
217.67.19.67 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:NATO expansion.png is slightly inaccurate. The state of Saarland reunited with Germany in 1957, two years after Germany became a NATO member state.
In NATO#Cooperation with non-member states it lists Sweden as both a socialist and capitalist country during the Cold War. Is this right or an error? - Rudykog 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The article says that, "the provision was invoked for the first time in the treaty's history on 12 September 2001, in response to the September 11 attacks on the United States the day before." However, I believe that Article V was first invoked at the beginning of the Kosovo War, in 1999. Since I only have this from memory (news reports at the time), I'd like someone to verify it first. arj 08:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a Good Article, but could be a great article. It currently has a number of structural weaknesses along with too much detail in some areas, and gaps in others. Its an article that needs to find its direction. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How does NATO get it's funding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.219.164 ( talk)
Is there a template which can be used to display an icon of the NATO flag? Thanks! Intangible 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why no mention of Sweden here? Its an issue in Sweden too (besides the secret agreements during the Cold War). Possible Swedish membership is also an issue in the Finnish debate. 82.181.150.151 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made decision to write about government campaign in Croatia about benefits of entry in NATO. Govenment has published benefits points and I want to put them on wikipedia with answer which are supported with resources. Because user:Sijo Ripa think that this is not for Wikipedia I want to hear your answers. For now this page is possible to find on my user page. Rjecina 7:20, 25 February 2007 (FED)
I would also like to see some list or summary of the benefits and disadvantages of Nato membership. Perhaps the application of 'capture theory' or other critical analysis of the finer political mechanisms.
121.45.236.19
06:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As this is English Wiki I do not see why the French title OTAN should be included; and if alternative abbreviation are included the Dutch NAVO (Noord Atlantische Verdrags Organisatie) shuuld also be mentioned. Most other countries seem indeed to use NATO, regardless of national language, but Dutch does not; and there may be others. Arnoutf 13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As native Ukrainian, I endorse (Though without letter of ruling, of course, as I know that original research is not properly a form of referencing in Wikipedia) the validity and apparent truthiness on about the reasoning for the past decided means on being NATO or turning NATO unity holding the people being Ukrainian. Take meaning, that I make a severe point (I think to communicate, I italicised apparent for emphasis of literal thinking) when describing the truthiness in the statement apparent, by which I truly intend, thinking, it with others has been seemly but is not necessarily, or in actuality, true in literal thinking. The reason for this is because, having stayed with many various nationhoods, I understand that (People often know this, but are less to understand it, thinking in literal meaning.) that there are differences concerning, among things being other, the people-government relationship between various cultures and nations.
However, I turn away. I am beginning to make this post look like an amount of propaganda this may be taken for dishonesty; considering that I am depatriated, I can assure the reader that this is not my deliberate cause of action. I presently am, in singular, trying to give context to my question, which is the target in actual on keying of my post: Can anyone find or have an English in language source concerning the honesty of the Ukrainian government's reasoning, and perhaps having or finding some reliable statistics on why the Ukrainian people feel this way? I would presently present a lesser amount consisting with native documents that suit the needs of this particular dilemma, though with context excepting this. They, being native, are in Ukrainian language and Russian language, as spoken in there. Presently I am possessing none versions in English language, unless Wikipedia is not obligated in negative, as to trusting my competency to translate English language away from what language presently is two Slav languages.
==After reading your post I'm afraid I, for one, would have to say a polite 'no thank you' to your offer of translation (as a direct edit to the article, anyway) of the sources you mentioned. However, I wouldn't be adverse to assisting you on a separate 'sandbox' page, for instance, once you've finished your initial translation in order to help with syntax, grammar, etc., and then presenting it for approval for addition to the article CanadianMist 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As a native Ukrainian, you do not represent all of Ukraine. 76.70.116.77 ( talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Ireland's reasons for not joining be mentioned? As far as I know, Ireland didn't join as the government of the time didn't want to ally with Great Britain. They did however offer to make a separate alliance with the US. As an alliance with the US would have rendered Ireland non-neutral, it wasn't neutrality but an alliance with Great Britain which stopped Ireland joining NATO. The current stance is more than likely just the maintenance of neutrality however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Everytime ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2007
And let's face it, Ireland would be pretty useless as an ally anyway. What would it do to an enemy? throw potatoes at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 ( talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You should stop spouting about your everyone is inferior to your nationality mr. IP, you've made quite a few posts disreguarding other peoples nations for fictional reasons. Bretonnia ( talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I Agree. Cillmore ( talk) 18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Article 29.2 of the Irish Constitution reads 'Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.' While this does not necessarily preclude a military alliance, it does make it unlikely that Ireland would enter an alliance as it would either (at least nominally) violate the Constitution, or put Ireland in a position where it would not be able honor an agreed upon treaty. Cillmore ( talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC).
I feel it should be pointed out that while Ireland never ratified an alliance to join NATO they have, because the British Army is open to Republican members, practically joined with all the military might at there disposal. Ireland may never have joined but her soldiers certainly did. Jackamo ( talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying people From the Republic of Ireland are allowed to join the British army or that Republicans from Northern Ireland (Whether or not they have ROI passports) can join? I was under the impression that ROI didn't join for the reasons given above and it has nothing to do with their relationships with any members. The whole thing about NI sounds rubbish to me as NATO has no real say over UK home affairs and the UK was and is very important to NATO and the addition of Ireland wouldn't make up for alienating the UK, though thats my thoughts rather than fact.( 86.31.187.246 ( talk) 00:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC))
Armenia and Azerbaijan were previously listed as countries who declared NATO membership as a goal, but now they are not, did something change or was there an error? QZXA2 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently, I wrote the 2004 Istanbul Summit and it's striking that several important parts of recent NATO history aren't added yet on this page: the SFOR mission (which lasted about 9 years), the Iraq troop training, the tensions between NATO and Russia about the non-ratification of the adapted CFE treaty, the roots for the current missile crisis, the reasons why Eastern European states joined NATO (mostly fear of Russia), the fact that NATO now also focusses on for instance drug and human traficking, etc. No mention is also made of NATO support for the African Union's mission in Darfur. Sijo Ripa 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
My points is that NATO do not fight drug and human traficking. You want sources about prostitution ? You are having them:
Do you need more. There is no problem for finding sources for that. NATO soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo have never go to court because they are having imunity for all crimes. Only home country can put them in prison (not Bosnia or Kosovo). Stop dreaming how good is NATO. Think more about why there have not been referendum for NATO entry in any country which has entered NATO in 21 century (and NATO protect democracy ???). Simple NATO is not popular in Europe. Rjecina 10:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
1 more source. In last few years this has become must known source about soldiers from NATO countries and sex slaves in Bosnia: [ [4]] , [5]. Please do not speak that this is story about U.N. because it is story about NATO soldiers in U.N. peace mission Rjecina 15:20, 22 May 2007 (CET)
I came to this page to learn abot NATO/EU military integration planning (or the possible lack of it.) Raggz 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we agree on something like this ?
In last years of Taliban regime there has been drop in production of drugs. After Taliban fall there has been short break-up of central goverment in which there have been raise in drug production. Now there is ulmost every year 30 - 50 % raise of production which is creating problems world wide. If NATO forces are really trying or not stop this production is very hard to say because of 2 problems. In words NATO in Afganistan is fighting against drugs but population of this country is working in drugs production for last 20 years and it is very hard to make them stop. Simple this has become fact of living. In situation where NATO soldiers are destroying drugs fields local population is becoming hostile to NATO and start more to support Talibans. It is ulmost not possibile for NATO to make war against Taliban and drugs so we have today this situation.
For that (sex slaves,pedophilia) I have given you enough source so there no need for me to say anything. Last problem about NATO and Balcans is Leukemia of soldiers which has been in territory where US has used "low radiation bullets". I will give you 1 source for that [6]. There is many more on internet if you put in google words Leukemia Italian soldiers Kosovo. All low radiation bullets (bombs) which has not been used in war operation has been droped to Croatian sea before planes has returned to Aviano. This is 1 of reasons why we do not like NATO !
About this we must agree that must important is timeline (words and statements are not important). Timeline is going like this: November 1999 NATO and Russia has signed adapted version of the treaty from time of SSSR. November 1999 Russia and Georgia has written deal about Russian soldiers which are in Georgia. November 1999 Russia and Moldova has written deal that at Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty in 2001 this problem will be solved. 2000 Russia has ratified agreement. 2001 Until Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty in 2001 not 1 NATO state has ratified agreement so he is de facto dead. Guilty for this is NATO which has not ratified agreement not Russia. 2007 Russian president Putin is declaring that this agreement is dead because NATO has not ratified and Russia can raise number of soldiers 2007 NATO countries demand of Russia to not raise number of soldiers and to take Russian soldiers home from Moldova and Georgia before they will ratified this agreement. This demand is against agreement of 1999 so again NATO is problem !
Rjecina 9:15, 23 May 2007 (CET)
Please add below the significant gaps that exist in this article:
Just wondering, why is it that every supreme commander so far seems to be from the U.S army fo Air Force? do they have a much larger comitment or somthing? or am i massivly confuesed... -- Climax Void 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems a bit over the top, shouldnt it realy be selected from the country with the most seasoned Generals. As it gives the U.S a tramendas advantage if the United States can control the bulk of the militery forces, and i wouldnt feel to happy not haveing a choice about who controled my countrys fighting forces abroad on NATO duty -- Climax Void 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The last sentance of the second para of the introduction states that NATO's member states agree to ..."promote liberty around the world". Is this really the case - I thought that NATO was a defensive alliance and member countries were free to opt out out other activites conducted by NATO if they didn't agree with the majority decision to approve these activities. -- Nick Dowling 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The article currently says "A 2006 poll showed that the majority of Swedes remain opposed to joining NATO (46% are against, 22% are in favor, ±5% error margin)." I think it goes without saying that 46% is not, in fact, a "majority". — Red XIV ( talk) 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
They changed the s to a z! I never thought that we would make this edit! [7] Reginmund 05:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Xelas211 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)i am not sure if this npov. there is no it is mostly membership applying topics
As the membership section continues to expand, I would like to make a separate article about NATO enlargement, similar to the Enlargement of the EU, but less OR than that page. Sijo Ripa 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Something struck me as I was reading through these - the titles are surely incorrect? Armies, Air Forces, and Navies are surely being used possessively, and as such need a terminal apostrophe. (eg. Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies' Officers instead of Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers). I take it that there is no reason that that the apostrophe is omitted except through error?
Xdamr talk 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have found a few news reports:
It looks to me like Azerbaijan wants into NATO! Read them, it's all there. And I also found these: [11] [12]
I am not saying that it is official, but it is at least worth mentioning, I don't think they would conform to NATO standards for no reason. This needs to be further looked into and be factored into the article somehow. Contralya 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sure there are more sources out there that also confirm. I think the article should be changed. Contralya ( talk) 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I find it quite incredible how the history of NATO can be told without ever mentioning the Berlin Blockade. Is this a case of collective amnesia? The more I dig around Wikipedia, the more I'm surprised/disappointed by the absence of consistent quality. -- Vyyjpkmi 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
cause it has nothing to do with NATO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.218.90 ( talk) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is criticism? 168.103.80.6 ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am starting a current positions of nato heading - please do not bite as first it will be under populated/not a rounded section. Chendy ( talk) 12:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
NATO is a military alliance, not a ceremonial one. I reverted an edit that changed it to "ceremonial", but would welcome feedback if anyone were to disagree. -- Mukk 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
We have two possible images- we have the flag of NATO, as seen here, and we have a logo that NATO uses on its website, here. The question is which sould be used in the infobox. I personally believe that the flag is a better image, as the consensus seems to be on articles on organisations like this that we use the flag, rather than the logo that they put on their letter heads. Comments/opinions? J Milburn ( talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
..why is Russia not in talks to join it? I'm looking for a reference in the article that would answer that simple question. This is not a forum but this is information that is vital on the subject. If the whole existence of NATO is not anymore part of a cold war, then that should be established in the article. -- Leladax ( talk) 11:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is regularly being vandalized, and should be locked up to prevent that. DWolf2k2 ( talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
At the Nato summit in Bucharest those two countries were invited to start accession talks, but political procedures will take some time. A&C will join at the earliest in January 2009. Gugganij ( talk) 12:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[17] Kosova2008 ( talk) 13:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't see this mentioned, so I'll ask. Why, in the last few years, have news organisations started using Nato instead of NATO? If you look at the bottom of the article page you'll see the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph using Nato. NATO itself uses all capitals (see http://www.nato.int), so what's happening? Poor quality of sub-editors?-- ML5 ( talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox, NATO apparently has "14 Major Allies", yet this point is never developed within the article. Who are these allies? What makes them "major"? 68.187.82.117 ( talk) 06:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As per user:Sijo Ripa above and in line with cutting down on non-core things that are not actually part of NATO, I propose to split the 'dialogue about new members' page into an Enlargement of NATO page with a short summary here. Comments appreciated. Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if mention should be made of countries that are not members of NATO per se, but whose defense is the responsibility of NATO members. (eg, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City) In some ways, this is not all that different from the status of Iceland --the only de jure member with no standing Army.
Also, I was wondering if the article should mention whether this de facto NATO membership would extend to every EU member, should the Treaty of Lisbon be ratified; and if so, to what degree.
Please let me know if any of this is relevant to the topic. Pine ( talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is one blank and the other red? -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I know this discussion in now months old, but I just saw it and as the maker of the map in question I wanted to respond. The line between "NATO membership not a goal" (red) and "Undeclared intent" (a slight tan color) is a fuzzy one. It is easy to say that for a country not currently in the process of joining then "membership is not a goal." Arguably Serbia has taken more steps toward NATO membership than any of the countries marked as undeclared. Yet marking these all as red left out subtly and prospects in NATO's relationship with Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Kosovo. None of these four are by definition neutral, like Ireland/Switzerland/Austria, and while none of these red and tan countries have begun Intensified Dialogue, Serbia, like have Finland and Sweden, has (so far) rejected the offer. In all, the map was just a summary of information on the Enlargement of NATO page, so having it on this page might not be a great idea as it takes the map out of context and away from further explanation.-- Patrick «» 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This article does not include anywhere a concise listing of the orginal founding member countries of NATO in 1949. Actually, it is essential for understanding the deep history and nature of any organization to know at a glance what its original members were, and which ones joined soon therafter.
For example, to understand the United States, it is necessary to know what its original members were: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Rhode Island (the last of the 13 to join). Without knowing about this, one does not really understand much about the United States and its history at all.
98.67.175.127 (
talk)
01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The map includes France, which is not a NATO member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.25.21 ( talk) 02:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
France returned to NATO military command structure in April 2009. Its nuclear force was left separate. The first paragraph should mention this as of now it only mentions the 1966 withdraw. 7o62x39 ( talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The map showing EU and NATO membership incorrectly indicates that Switzerland is an EU member, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.81.210 ( talk) 02:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The map of NATO countries needs updated to reflect Albania and Croatia's membership. SpudHawg948 ( talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I know the map of Europe and North America were mashed together to make the map image look better (without a giant ocean between)... by why on Earth does Alaska appear to be as large as 50% of the continental USA?? Alaska may be our biggest state here in the USA, but it is not that huge! Who the heck made this map??
The article states that " the former Warsaw Pact states - except Albania - joining the alliance in 1999 and 2004", are we forgeting the de facto leader of the Warsaw Pact, Russia? While Latvia and Estonia are NATO members (and Georgia and Ukraine will likely become members); Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and other fmr Soviet Republics are not currently members of NATO. LCpl ( talk) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Two maps within the article disagree on whether there is an independent state of Kosovo, or there is no. Also please consider the South Ossetia and Abkhazia with the same legal state as Kosovo (i.e. recognized by part of UN members). AFAIK, part of NATO members recognize K. as independent, part does not, and none of them recognizes A. and S.O. as independent. Here are the maps in question: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/NATO_expansion.png and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Location_NATO.svg . FeelSunny ( talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the situation in South Ossentia and Abkhazia should be reflected. Wiki should be about conveying information - not as a forum for political and legal arguments. There can be an honest debate on how to label these realities but the information should be presented. The move of Georgia into the NATO structure under whatever term of art that relationship is identified with makes the fact that Russia and Russian backed indiginous forces control these territories very relevant. For the same reason, Kosovo and Transnistria should be shown too. 7o62x39 ( talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
It would be really nice if we could have a picture of that statue of the NATO logo, the one with iron beams sticking out from it. It's a really impressive piece of industrial art, shame not to have any pictures of it here. Nastykermit ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC).
This needs to be updated. Alessandro Minuto Rizzo has been replaced in 2007 by Claudio Bisogniero, who helds this post up to date. ( Sebecq ( talk) 14:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC))
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please, since the appropriate page has been created in Wikipedia, I would kindly ask to redirect the links (both of tehm) of the:
paragraph 7 Organizations and Agencies Third to last bullet - the Research and Technology Agency (RTA),[57] reporting to the NATO Research and Technology Organization (RTO);
to the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Research_and_Technology_Organisation
Also, as according to the offical definition, I would suggest to change the spelling (in teh above mentioned lines and in the relevant reference at number 57) so to reduce ambiguity.
Thank you. ABwiki 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: There is a missing citation for Ukraine and Georgia having been "promised" NATO membership under the "Membership" heading. Suggest footnote to George/Teigen in European Security 2008 (DOI: 10.1080/09662830802642512, page 346), which is probative on the matter. Fizzspethwerk ( talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
France has re-entered NATO's military command, so everything relating to it's withdrawal needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.45.67 ( talk) 12:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The same way as the OECD was first established between Europe and America and later extended to Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Mexico (Chile, Russia and Israel are candidates) it is expected for NATO to do the same including Australia, Japan, South Korea and probably Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.150.22 ( talk) 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what is being said here.
Australia & New Zealand are officially a NATO "partner" through the Contact Country (CC) structure. Australia and NZ is also "linked" to NATO by virtue of the ANZUS and the FPDA treaties and US MNNA status. The NZ withdraw from ANZUS over nuclear weapons on US ships did not severe the Australian-NZ commitment. The USA has recently made statements that the schism with NZ is over. NZ special forces are in Afghanistan. This reality for example is recognized in France's Strategic White Paper completed in 2008 - http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/134828/1175142/version/1/file/LivreBlancGB.pdf
Japan is a sui generis situation. Its Constitution precludes any military alliance other than the USA-Japan mutual defense treaty (MDT). But it is officially a NATO "partner" through the Contact Country structure. Like Australia it too is linked to NATO by virtue of the Japan-USA MDT. Japan sent naval forces to the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghan war effort, which pushed very much at the edge of its constitutional limits.
Mexico is not part of any western alliance. It withdrew from the Rio Treaty due to the USA support of the UK in the Falkland War. The UK could have enacted Article 5 but chose not to allow the USA to avoid direct war with its ally and fellow Americans - Argentina. The USA does equip and train the Mexican military but Mexico is unlikely to pursue tighter bonds unless Communists in El Savador, Venezuela and Nicaragua arm up, deploy foreign forces, or arm large insurgencies into Southern Mexico like they have in Peru and Columbia.
Chile is linked to NATO by virtue of its MNNA status with the USA, its active participation in RIMPAC and its deployment of forces under NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo. Chile is specifically listed on NATO's website as a contact country (aka Global partner). Its relationship to NATO is close to that of Japan, Australia, NZ and Korea. If the Rio Treaty completely breaks down over a Bolivian or Honduran civil war, war between Venezuela and the other communist South American states and allies of the West: Columbia, Chile, Peru, Panama, etc then it is likely that some institution will emerge in South America to formalize the democratic alliance there. If Cuba and Venezuela get their way and turn ALBA into a 21st Century Warsaw Pact of Communist states, NATO's eyes will turn to South America to an even greater degree. French Guiana in South America is a NATO and EU member as a part of France. The USA is now building a massive new military base in Surinam and has reactivated the 4th Fleet.
Korea is a "Partner" of NATO in the CC structure. It is linked to NATO via the US-Korea MDT. Korean forces have operated under NATO command in Afghanistan. The Cold War NATO we knew, came into existence due in part to the allied joint operations during the Korean War. Then non-NATO Turkey contributed significantly to the allied Korean War effort, and was later brought into the alliance. France maintains a One Korea Policy which recognizes the Republic of Korea as the sole legitimate government of the Korean people. The precident created by the PRC's demands on the world for One China and tossing the Republic of China (Taiwan) from the UN and the Security Council has implications for the ultimate fate of the North Korean regime and the eventual reunification of Korea.
Israel is a "Partner" of NATO through the Med Dialogue. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is specifically NOT in NATO's scope of concern. NATO is working with numerous countries in the region to prepare for any NATO peacekeeping role supporting any some future comprehensive peace. NATO works with the Palestinian Authority as well and they could be brought into the Med Dialogue officially in the future. Jordan and Egypt also carry the Palestinian cause within NATO via their partnership status.
Russia is a "Partner" of NATO through the Partnership for Peace and other European institutions. This relationship is strained but official. Russia was brought into this relationship partly as a solution to the conflict created by the eastern EU and NATO expansions which from Russia's point of view violated understandings they had from the West. In June 2009 NATO and Russia announced a new initiative to return to a commitment to partnership and working through security issues. Obviously, the hope in the future is for a stable, liberal, democratic Russia that could come into the West's institutions as an allied member. The situation in Georgia is dangerous and both sides are seekign a mechanism to reduce tensions and risks. 7o62x39 ( talk) 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
Hi there, I've recently proposed a NATO Wikiproject to cover all things NATO. If you'd be interested in helping get one started, head over to the nomination page and voice your support. Cool3 ( talk) 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a notice "citation needed" for the following sentence:
Other potential candidate countries include Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina.
I have found two links on NATO official web site to support this claim:
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-montenegro/index.html
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-bosnia-herzegovina/index.html
Ravenlord ( talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The word should be "appease" rather than "appeatise". This sentence could be a bit more formally written too and a citation would be good re the claim for Francee and other "big" countries.
Ozeye 10:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In this section Bosnia and Herzgegovina, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia (all as part of Yugoslavia) were not "Other Cold War socialist economies" but "Militarily neutral Cold War socialist economies" because Yugoslavia was the founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement and never a part of the Eastern Bloc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.16.218 ( talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking the History section is long enough could be split into a History of NATO article, with a new, perhaps simpler and more chronological, three to five paragraph summary of events used on this page. Thoughts? Anyone interested in creating this summary? I added an official Split Section Template. I also think this would help maintain Good Article status.-- Patrick «» 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Interfax/BNS/Postimees, 58% of Russians have a negative attitude towards NATO. Interestingly, at the same time, NATO's nature is not well known in Russia: for example, 31% of the population thinks NATO's mission consists of "aggressive actions towards other countries". 34% have no idea what NATO is.
Source: Postimees 3 April 2009 13:56: Venelased ei salli NATOt, kuigi ei tea, mis see on. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I see bits and pieces of this throughout the article, but there should be a section dealing with the criticism of NATO and enlargement. Most of the article is to the point of being boistrous. MPA 146.235.130.52 ( talk) 14:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I see the article has gone over to US spelling. Considering NATO was set up by the British and itself uses UK spelling this is rather puzzling, especially as the article itself was originally in UK English. Presumably there'll by no objection if I now change US spelling to UK ones in any articles I come across.
Please add the British English pronunciation /'neɪ.toʊ/ as an alternative to the US pronunciation given. Andrewgdotcom ( talk) 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The following sentence is garbled:
This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily.
There appears to be a chunk of text missing - could someone trawl the history and restore it? Thanks. Andrewgdotcom ( talk) 11:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My reassessment can be found here. I find the article to still meet the GA criteria and I have kept it as GA. H1nkles ( talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
When NATO goes on a mission, is it similar to a UN mission? Or are countries independently represented by soldiers? Unlike the blue helmets of the UN. I hope that was an English sentence :) Mallerd ( talk) 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The initial part of the article should mention NATO's position in the Cold War, that being its founding and fundamental position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.241.190 ( talk) 11:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The article should include a discussion of the evolution of post Cold War NATO from a defend Europe/Turkey against the USSR/Warsaw Pact alliance to what it is today ... the primary organization within a spider web of multi-lateral and bi-lateral security agreements among the world's democracies which is replacing/substituting for the UN Security Council (blocked by Russia and China). NATO in 2009 is a global military alliance. There are 42 nations operating in Afghanistan under NATO-ISAF being joined this year by Mongolia (a NATO Partnership for Peace member actively seeking closer security ties to the "West"), Columbia a NATO associate by virtue of its bilateral military relationship with the USA and it active participation in RIMPAC and connections to the Pacific security spider web ANZUS/FPDA/NATO-CC/the USA Mutual Defense Agreements (Japan, Korea, Philippines, and the Pacific Island nations), and India (nuclear tech pact with France and the USA).
Consider Chile - "Chile's integration into a worldwide military network led by the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, however, is not limited to weapons purchases. The nation was one of only five non-NATO states to provide troops for the first-ever NATO out-of-area military deployment, Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia, in 1995 .... It has since participated in regular military exercises under the command of the United States and its NATO allies. ...
It participates in the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) military exercises led by the United States and Britain, ... In 2008 the RIMPAC exercise included 35 ships, six submarines, over 150 aircraft and 20,000 troops from Chile, the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, South Korea and Singapore, a NATO/Asia Pacific NATO/Latin American NATO nexus in embryo." - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13788
7o62x39 ( talk) 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
Here are the non-NATO countries that have sent forces under NATO command to the three major operation NATO has conducted outside of the original NATO defense and operating area:
SFOR - Bosnia - 1998-2004 Australia Austria Argentina Chile Egypt Finland Ireland Malaysia Morocco New Zealand Russia Sweden
KFOR - Kosovo - 1999-Present Argentina Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Bosnia Chile Finland Georgia Ghana India Ireland Malaysia Mongolia Morocco Philippines Sweden Switzerland UAE
ISAF - Afghanistan - 2001-Present Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain (Naval) Bosnia Columbia Finland Georgia India Ireland Japan (Naval) Jordan Korea (Rep.) Macedonia Mongolia New Zealand Serbia Singapore Sweden Switzerland UAE Ukraine
Note that the four larger non-NATO member (although they are formally NATO "partners") EU states - Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden have sent forces to all three recent NATO operations. 7o62x39 ( talk) 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
Please see the debate above about AmE vesus BrE spelling in the article. To enlarge on it slightly here, the spelling in this article should be BrE, for the reasons I've noted above. At the moment it's a mixture and looks bad. So I intend to standardise on BrE (including z in organization). However, there may be instances in the article; direct quotations etc. where AmE should be used; hopefully I'll spot them all. If there's any doubt about NATO laguage usage please see their website. Mister Flash ( talk)
The ICI is a formal dialogue and partnering program with the same status within NATO as the PfP, the Contact Countries (aka Global Partners: Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand) and the Med dialogue. The ICI includes the six states of the GCC/PS - four of which have formally joined (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE) and two are preparing to do so (Saudi Arabia and Oman). NATO discusses this initiative carefully and it includes a potential role for NATO and the GCC working together through the ICI should a comprehensive peace be achieved between Israel and Palestine. NATO is careful to include the Palestinian Authority as a recognized entitiy with whom dialogue is occuring. NATO is preparing for security options that it may support should the UN authorize such a role in conjunction with a comprehensive peace. At present, NATO is clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself is not something that is part of NATO's scope. 66.182.3.61 ( talk) 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
Can somebody add some info on that to the main article. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.86.52 ( talk) 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Pakistan has no formal relationship with NATO. I find no indication of Pakistani forces operating in Afghanistan under ISAF (although interestingly India is sending forces to Afghanistan under NATO command in 2009). However NATO-ISAF in Afghanistan does communicate and coordinate on various operational and intelligence matters relating to both Afghanistan and Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Region. This "cooperation" is a poker game with both sides having mixed motives.
Pakistan was a member of the Cold War era CENTO which was something like NATO operating in South Asia, but has since been dissolved. Pakistan is an idiosyncratic nation whose foreign policy and geopolitical strategy is complex. Pakistan has two major focuses which are unique to itself; the rivalry with India, both over the disputed region of Kashmir and as the protector of India's significant Muslim minority, and Afghanistan which itself is a complex mix of various ethnic groups the largest of which is virtually identical to many of the peoples of Pakistan's west. Pakistan also seeks influence in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) as a Muslim nation which helps it counter India strategically. (India has effectively countered this desire with its actions dating back before the Pakistani Civil War).
During the Cold War, Pakistan sided with the West, while India (although officially non-aligned) tilted towards the USSR. Pakistan's relationship with NATO happens indirectly by virtue of the USA-Pakistani relationship which itself is a marriage by necessity and circumstance. At the end of the Cold War, Pakistan was the conduit through which the USA, Saudi Arabia and others (including Pakistan) funneled resources to the Muslim Afghan resistance against the USSR backed Afghan communists. These forces also conducted offensive special operations inside the bordering Muslim republics of the former USSR. If Afghanistan was payback to the USSR for Vietnam, these ops were payback for El Salvador and USSR/Communist aggression in Central America during the 1980s. Pakistan knew well that the USSR's only strategic interest in Afghanistan was as a launching point to breakup or take over Pakistan (or Iran) and fulfill the USSR/Russian centuries old desire for access to a warm and open water port for its Navy. After the Soviet withdraw and the fall of the Afghan communists, the USA lost interest in the nation and Pakistan was left with the mess to manage. The Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan took place in this period. Pakistan has long sought to transform Afghanistan into a de facto Pakistani vassal through support of the Pashtun ethnic group which is common to both countries. The Pashtuns comprised a significant element of the Taliban. The so called "moderate" Taliban which the Obama administration is seeking to split off and come to terms with is to a large extent, that element of the Taliban that Pakistan can control or at least influence.
Pakistan's 2009 offensive against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operating in western Pakistan required the USA to seek Indian cooperation. India recently announced it was removing troops from the Pakistani boarder and Kashmir, thus allowing Pakistan to send forces from the Indian border to the west.
Pakistan's need to counter the Indian nuclear capability and missile gap, created an alliance of convenience with North Korea. Pakistani nuke tech got exchanged for North Korean missile tech. Pakistani cooperation with North Korea has probably ceased since Pakistan now has sufficient tech in missiles and the cost to play with North Korea in terms of Pakistan's relationship with the West is high.
Pakistan also has a complex relationship with other Central Asian nations and China. Pakistan saw China as a second ally to the USA via the India-China rivalry (an enemy of my enemy is my friend). But this is complicated as both the Taliban and before that the USA/Saudi backed Muslim forces have links to the Muslim and Turkic Uighur peoples of Western China. Pakistani fingerprints are found on Uighur insurgencies inside China. At various times in the past, the USA has lent covert support to the Uighurs as a card to play when the Chinese acted elsewhere in support of communist insurgencies. (No doubt India as well is none too pleased with Chinese fingerprints on Indian Communist insurgencies and their overt support of the Nepalese Maoists). The July 2009 Uighur riots highlight the tensions inside China with respect to its Muslim minorities. Most probably the USA has ceased any support of the Uighurs as it seeks Chinese cooperation on North Korea and the USA's War on Terrorism (although Uighurs captured in Taliban camps and sent to Gitmo were subsequently released to Palau and Bermuda rather than returned to China). The USA also considers support of the Uighurs as a very high risk game given the implications of the vastly more critical Sino-American relationship.
The Korean situation also impacts Pakistan. China's North Korean gambit is very high risk and reckless. North Korea is the prime element of the Chinese game of talking peace and covertly promoting whatever chaos in the world drains the USA and the West (inclusive of Japan and the Republic of Korea). This all works to China's advantage to the extent they keep a lid on it. But the North Koreans are lunatics. Regardless, China made its choice and from the USA/Korea/Japanese point of view, China will be held responsible for North Korea, period. If the Korean situation gets out of control, the CIA will be talking to the Pakistanis about the Uighurs. If a North Korean nuke goes off anywhere outside a North Korean cave, USA nuke, missile (and more anti-missile) tech goes to Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and India (especially if Pakistan balks on arming the Uighurs, given that a good portion of the North Korean nuke tech came from Pakistan. The USA and France's civilian nuke tech pacts with India was among many other things a card played on China and Pakistan for North Korea). Bottom line, Korea affects Pakistan.
Understanding Pakistan begins with a recognition that the Pakistani's are nationalists who play realpolitiks not internationalist liberal altruism and act in the interests of Pakistan; not any other power. Declaring Pakistan simply a tool of the USA completely misses the delicate game Pakistan plays under a very complicated set of regional circumstances and realities it does not fully control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"the Alliance calls upon Pyongyang to fulfil its international obligations. The NAC urges North Korea to implement fully all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and to eliminate its nuclear weapons and related programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. We call upon Pyongyang to refrain from any other actions which could contribute to raising tensions and to restore dialogue within the Six-Party framework. The Alliance will continue to carefully monitor developments with deep concern." [1] 7o62x39 ( talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The NATO article continues to fail to fully discuss and correctly describe NATO in 2009, not 1989. NATO in 2009 is a global military alliance. The past issues of defense of European members' colonial possessions has evolved as they have shed most of what will be shed and via the evolution of the EU as well as their national political systems have tranformed these remaining possessions into politically incorporated regions. For example, French Guiana and Reunion are no longer French 1960s colonial possessions ambiguously related to NATO but are fully incorporated regions of the French state and the EU. That is, Reunion would be defended by NATO as an attack on France (and the EU) itself, just as an attack on Hawaii would be. The relationship between the EU and NATO has also evolved and was formalized by the Berlin Agreements and through other Atlantic and European institutions. Thus the non-NATO EU states are de facto, albeit sui generis, affiliated states of NATO, not members but not merely partners. By not becoming NATO members they are not treaty bound to Article 5 but in all other respects they act as members. The relationship with Japan, Australia, Korea and New Zealand has also evolved to something like that of the non-NATO EU states.
Excerpts from NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the opening of the strategic concept seminar, July 7, 2009:
"First and foremost, I hope the new Strategic Concept will finally lay to rest the notion that there is any distinction between security at home and security abroad. Globalisation has abolished the protection that borders or geographical isolation from crisis areas used to provide. Article 5, as I have said, can apply outside NATO territory as much as inside. Today the challenge is not to defend our territory but our populations; and they, unlike our territory, move around. Our challenge is not just to make our populations secure, but feel secure – a much more complicated task which, to my mind, necessitates a much better job of communicating NATO’s activities and real achievements to our publics.
At the same time, the new Strategic Concept should also reassure our new Allies that NATO takes its Article 5 collective defence commitment seriously; not just on paper but through planning and exercises as well as having the necessary capabilities to call on in crisis situations. Allies who feel secure at home are much more likely to transform their forces for expeditionary operations and send them to Afghanistan or elsewhere. Article 5 collective defence is, after all, the bedrock of the Alliance, and has been for 60 years. We should not feel bashful in discussing it in the Alliance. It is purely defensive. But we should not go overboard either. The situation in Europe does not call for military build-ups which would be counter-productive as well as wasteful. The threats to our security today lie mainly outside Europe, notably from extremism in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere. That must remain our focus whether it be reinforcing ISAF or reinforcing closer links with key neighbours such as Pakistan. This said, reassuring Allies who feel less secure than others in their immediate neighbourhood is not that hard to do; but we must do it. NATO cannot function in the long run with two types of membership: those who feel secure and willing to transform and those who feel less secure and are less willing. ...
A fourth concern has to do with partnerships. A commentator once spoke of NATO’s “partnership industry”. One of the things that I am most satisfied with during my watch has been the continued growth of NATO’s partnerships, particularly outside Europe, in North Africa, the Middle East and the Gulf, and the Asia-Pacific region. A NATO without Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue, or the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative has become unthinkable. Many of our partners are with us today and will take part in our Strategic Concept debates. Rightly so, for Partners are no longer outside the NATO community, but inside; making indispensable contributions not only to the Partnership activities but also to NATO’s core business, such as military operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo or the Mediterranean. But I believe we are far from getting the best value out of our partnerships. Our political consultations beyond operations have too often become stale and ritualistic when there is so much quality analysis and experience that we should be exchanging on a regular basis. The value of our Partners to us must not be linked only to how many troops they contribute to ISAF or KFOR. Partners have an intrinsic value in their own right and we need to be much more imaginative in cooperating on other challenges: energy security, proliferation, cyber, terrorism – to name but the most obvious. Here again the new Strategic Concept has to move partnerships to the next generation." [2] 7o62x39 ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNNA I feel this section should be mentioned somewhere within the NATO article. Although not officially sanctioned by NATO, it is an official designation by the United States and carries with it military repercussions. Also, these countries participate and support a wide variety of NATO missions, so a brief mention should be included.
Mostly agree with Buckshot, that US MNNA status is not directly relevant to this NATO article. That said every MNNA has a relationship of some form with NATO. The article would be improved by expanding the discussion of the relationships of NATO with its partners. The article could also discuss how NATO fits within the larger context of the overall security alliances, treaties and military exercises amongst the liberal democracies. The reality is that the NATO "Community" (NATO members and all of its partners and cooperating nations) is acting more and more like a de facto substitute/alternative to the disfunctional and corrupted UN and UN Security Council on issues of security. 7o62x39 ( talk) 07:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The leader is now Anders Fogh Rasmussen, not Jaap de hoop Scheffer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.212.109 ( talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not necessary to have French in the lead. This is an English encyclopedia, and the English name is official. The reason to include alternative names in the lead is for clarity when the English version is not official. The French name is not important and it's cluttering the lead. Oreo Priest talk 06:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The article should give more info as to why France chickened out, when the going was tough and the Soviet troops were ready to invade Europe during the 1950s. They wanted to strike a "peace" accord with the Russians, like their 5-star General Petain made with the Germans a decade ago.
It is interesting that they wanted to come back to this alliance now that the Russian threat is over. Are they now ready to fight in Afghanistan with a sizeable number of troops ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.93.75 ( talk) 10:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
add link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natochannel in resources —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Voica emil (
talk •
contribs) 08:51, 9 September 2009
Not done: The target page was deleted. Celestra ( talk) 14:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I have recently created an article on Kori Schake, whose name is mentioned in this article. If appropriate, can someone please create a link to the Kori Schake article. Note: it appears here on the NATO page as "Schake, Kori". I would do it myself, but the semi-protection apparently affects new editors as well as anonymous ones. Thanks for your help.
Hoover Press (
talk)
02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
How does one go about adding references? Prmwp ( talk) 22:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is closed to new edits. How does one add references in this case? Prmwp ( talk) 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please place these under Further Reading--Early Period. Thanks
<ref> Francis A. Beer. Integration and Disintegration in NATO: Processes of Alliance Cohesion and Prospects for Atlantic Community. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969), 330 pp.</ref>
<ref> Francis A. Beer. The Political Economy of Alliances: Benefits, Costs, and Institutions in NATO. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972), 40 pp. </ref>
Prmwp ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please place these under Further Reading--Early Period. Thanks
Francis A. Beer. Integration and Disintegration in NATO: Processes of Alliance Cohesion and Prospects for Atlantic Community. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969), 330 pp.
Francis A. Beer. The Political Economy of Alliances: Benefits, Costs, and Institutions in NATO. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972), 40 pp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmwp ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
On September 11, the United States attacked suspected non-evangelicals resulting in many deaths. The article should specify that it is referencing September 11, 2001 because many others were killed in other attacks on September 11. It is disrespectful to those killed on September 11 to imply that all of the deaths of September 11 occurred on September 11, 2001 during the Presidential reading lesson of Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegenwind ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: There is a missing citation for Ukraine and Georgia having been "promised" NATO membership under the "Membership" heading. Suggest footnote to George/Teigen in European Security 2008 (DOI: 10.1080/09662830802642512, page 346), which is probative on the matter. Fizzspethwerk ( talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The relationship between the EU and NATO has evolved over time and change in recent years with France becoming more pro-Atlantic and the understanding of the EU's role inside of NATO. Today the EU's ESDP and NATO are "separable but not separate" and the EU can act on security matters only if NATO declines to do so. Under the EU's ESDP the six Non-NATO EU states have a sui generis relationship with NATO. It is ERRONEOUS to list Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Cyprus and Malta as "red" "membership not a goal" as they have de facto membership in NATO by virtue of their membership in the EU. What ever this relationship is correctly termed it is not "membership not a goal".
The four contact countries - Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand also have their own sui generis relationships with NATO. The wiki article states that this relationship is not formalized which is self-evidently incorrect since it is formalized under the definition of a contact nation. All four nations contributed military forces to Afghanistan under the USA's mutual defense enactment. 7o62x39 ( talk) 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The NATO map of membership is inconsistent with wikipedia maps of other military/security organizations such as the CSTO and the SCO with respect to definitions of association. The SCO map list "observers". The non-NATO EU states should be catagorized as "ESDP associated states of NATO." The four contact nations should be catagorized as such and labeled as such on the map. Australia, whose forces in Kosovo were under NATO command is far more associated with NATO than India is with the SCO (India is listed as an "observer" on the wikipedia map of the SCO). 7o62x39 ( talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The article states, "Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan currently have this status." This is not very precise language as the four are actually "examples" of nations with this status that are identified on the NATO website - http://www.nato.int/issues/contact_countries/index.html. The term "other partners across the globe" is used as a synonym with "contact countries" in various NATO documents. The article fails to mention evolutions in the concept since 2004. At the 2006 Riga Summit, NATO pledged to increase the operational relevance of relations with interested Contact Countries and decisions taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit defined NATO’s objectives for its relationships with partners across the globe. 7o62x39 ( talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
I came to the NATO page as part of a redirect from the 'western alliance' term linked in a different article. I think the two terms are not the same, nor is the latter short hand for the former in popular understandings. It doesn't make sense in light of the article linked from either (biography of 1980s NZ PM David Lange), which didn't discuss anything relating to NATO or NATO's area of interest at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.198.226 ( talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Removed the following text from a position immediately under the Structure heading.
If this is true, it needs rewording, sourcing, and relocation to the Military Structure subheading. Rklawton 05:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Georgia has a IPAP (i... partnership action plan) and wants to get full MAP (membership action plan) this year...
At what point did Turkey figure in to the geographic definition of the "North Atlantic"????? Heck, why not invite Japan, South Africa, Argentina, New Zealand?
No one in its right mind can think of Finland joining the NATO, since Russia would launch nuclear war immediately, otherwise its Kola peninsula would become undefendable, which would be the end of Russia, since that massive granite formation hosts the majority of its elite air force, naval and missile troops. It would be like Mexico becoming part of communist China, unthinkable to accept.
One interesting question is about colonies: - Are NATO members required by treaty to give military help to France in case of a Guyana natives' liberation fight and participate in exterminating the aboriginal indian population? - Are NATO members required to aid britain to hold the Falkland-Malvinas in war against Argentine? - Are NATO members required by treaty to send troops to help the british army quell a native irishmen revolution meant to unite the Irish Island under a free republic? - If Cuba invaded Puerto Rico to drive off US occupiers and establish an independent native government just to humiliate America, would NATO members need to offer troops to USA to help reconquer the island?
I would not like my country Hungary do such terrible things to benefit the imperialist powers against the natural right of aboriginals to self-government. I hope NATO obligations only cover continental territories. 195.70.32.136 10:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi,. I just read this article and the wording of the article in some parts is impossible. Hence, i have added the wikify tag. I will wikify it myself later, I just have limited time now so I have put the tag on to remind me. Thanks. David P. A. Hunter 02:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I decided to remove the following paragraphs;
Headline text krc nezinau lopai yra ir as istryniau viska :((((
and
Nu ir karocia niekas nezino kaip ten tie zydai supisti gyvena hahaha
Ill be keeping a close eye on this page but can someone get this translatted
anyone know the basics for nato funding during the cold war? nato website says funding currently: "the agreed cost sharing formulae which determine each member country's contributions” is called their "'ability to pay' "However the basis for the formulae applied is as much political as it is economic. The formulae applied to the Civil and Military Budgets and to the NATO Security Investment Programme were originally negotiated in the early 1950s. They have subsequently been adapted, largely proportionally, to reflect new membership and differing degrees of participation in the integrated command arrangements. Their relationship to current measurements of relative economic capacity such as GDP or purchasing power parities is consequently imprecise."
sooo its changed from 1949, but how? anyone got a source showing individual member funding during different years? thanks, writing a term paper.
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 07:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation → NATO – … Rationale: This is a concept known almost entirely by its acronym, so to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), the acronym should be the page name. This is similar to NASA, CERN, SETI etc. The page was always at NATO until recently when someone moved it, and now it can't be unmoved. — SteveRwanda 13:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If Google is any indication:
E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
217.67.19.67 21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:NATO expansion.png is slightly inaccurate. The state of Saarland reunited with Germany in 1957, two years after Germany became a NATO member state.
In NATO#Cooperation with non-member states it lists Sweden as both a socialist and capitalist country during the Cold War. Is this right or an error? - Rudykog 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The article says that, "the provision was invoked for the first time in the treaty's history on 12 September 2001, in response to the September 11 attacks on the United States the day before." However, I believe that Article V was first invoked at the beginning of the Kosovo War, in 1999. Since I only have this from memory (news reports at the time), I'd like someone to verify it first. arj 08:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a Good Article, but could be a great article. It currently has a number of structural weaknesses along with too much detail in some areas, and gaps in others. Its an article that needs to find its direction. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How does NATO get it's funding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.219.164 ( talk)
Is there a template which can be used to display an icon of the NATO flag? Thanks! Intangible 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why no mention of Sweden here? Its an issue in Sweden too (besides the secret agreements during the Cold War). Possible Swedish membership is also an issue in the Finnish debate. 82.181.150.151 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made decision to write about government campaign in Croatia about benefits of entry in NATO. Govenment has published benefits points and I want to put them on wikipedia with answer which are supported with resources. Because user:Sijo Ripa think that this is not for Wikipedia I want to hear your answers. For now this page is possible to find on my user page. Rjecina 7:20, 25 February 2007 (FED)
I would also like to see some list or summary of the benefits and disadvantages of Nato membership. Perhaps the application of 'capture theory' or other critical analysis of the finer political mechanisms.
121.45.236.19
06:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As this is English Wiki I do not see why the French title OTAN should be included; and if alternative abbreviation are included the Dutch NAVO (Noord Atlantische Verdrags Organisatie) shuuld also be mentioned. Most other countries seem indeed to use NATO, regardless of national language, but Dutch does not; and there may be others. Arnoutf 13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As native Ukrainian, I endorse (Though without letter of ruling, of course, as I know that original research is not properly a form of referencing in Wikipedia) the validity and apparent truthiness on about the reasoning for the past decided means on being NATO or turning NATO unity holding the people being Ukrainian. Take meaning, that I make a severe point (I think to communicate, I italicised apparent for emphasis of literal thinking) when describing the truthiness in the statement apparent, by which I truly intend, thinking, it with others has been seemly but is not necessarily, or in actuality, true in literal thinking. The reason for this is because, having stayed with many various nationhoods, I understand that (People often know this, but are less to understand it, thinking in literal meaning.) that there are differences concerning, among things being other, the people-government relationship between various cultures and nations.
However, I turn away. I am beginning to make this post look like an amount of propaganda this may be taken for dishonesty; considering that I am depatriated, I can assure the reader that this is not my deliberate cause of action. I presently am, in singular, trying to give context to my question, which is the target in actual on keying of my post: Can anyone find or have an English in language source concerning the honesty of the Ukrainian government's reasoning, and perhaps having or finding some reliable statistics on why the Ukrainian people feel this way? I would presently present a lesser amount consisting with native documents that suit the needs of this particular dilemma, though with context excepting this. They, being native, are in Ukrainian language and Russian language, as spoken in there. Presently I am possessing none versions in English language, unless Wikipedia is not obligated in negative, as to trusting my competency to translate English language away from what language presently is two Slav languages.
==After reading your post I'm afraid I, for one, would have to say a polite 'no thank you' to your offer of translation (as a direct edit to the article, anyway) of the sources you mentioned. However, I wouldn't be adverse to assisting you on a separate 'sandbox' page, for instance, once you've finished your initial translation in order to help with syntax, grammar, etc., and then presenting it for approval for addition to the article CanadianMist 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As a native Ukrainian, you do not represent all of Ukraine. 76.70.116.77 ( talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Ireland's reasons for not joining be mentioned? As far as I know, Ireland didn't join as the government of the time didn't want to ally with Great Britain. They did however offer to make a separate alliance with the US. As an alliance with the US would have rendered Ireland non-neutral, it wasn't neutrality but an alliance with Great Britain which stopped Ireland joining NATO. The current stance is more than likely just the maintenance of neutrality however.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Everytime ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2007
And let's face it, Ireland would be pretty useless as an ally anyway. What would it do to an enemy? throw potatoes at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 ( talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You should stop spouting about your everyone is inferior to your nationality mr. IP, you've made quite a few posts disreguarding other peoples nations for fictional reasons. Bretonnia ( talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I Agree. Cillmore ( talk) 18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Article 29.2 of the Irish Constitution reads 'Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.' While this does not necessarily preclude a military alliance, it does make it unlikely that Ireland would enter an alliance as it would either (at least nominally) violate the Constitution, or put Ireland in a position where it would not be able honor an agreed upon treaty. Cillmore ( talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC).
I feel it should be pointed out that while Ireland never ratified an alliance to join NATO they have, because the British Army is open to Republican members, practically joined with all the military might at there disposal. Ireland may never have joined but her soldiers certainly did. Jackamo ( talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying people From the Republic of Ireland are allowed to join the British army or that Republicans from Northern Ireland (Whether or not they have ROI passports) can join? I was under the impression that ROI didn't join for the reasons given above and it has nothing to do with their relationships with any members. The whole thing about NI sounds rubbish to me as NATO has no real say over UK home affairs and the UK was and is very important to NATO and the addition of Ireland wouldn't make up for alienating the UK, though thats my thoughts rather than fact.( 86.31.187.246 ( talk) 00:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC))
Armenia and Azerbaijan were previously listed as countries who declared NATO membership as a goal, but now they are not, did something change or was there an error? QZXA2 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently, I wrote the 2004 Istanbul Summit and it's striking that several important parts of recent NATO history aren't added yet on this page: the SFOR mission (which lasted about 9 years), the Iraq troop training, the tensions between NATO and Russia about the non-ratification of the adapted CFE treaty, the roots for the current missile crisis, the reasons why Eastern European states joined NATO (mostly fear of Russia), the fact that NATO now also focusses on for instance drug and human traficking, etc. No mention is also made of NATO support for the African Union's mission in Darfur. Sijo Ripa 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
My points is that NATO do not fight drug and human traficking. You want sources about prostitution ? You are having them:
Do you need more. There is no problem for finding sources for that. NATO soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo have never go to court because they are having imunity for all crimes. Only home country can put them in prison (not Bosnia or Kosovo). Stop dreaming how good is NATO. Think more about why there have not been referendum for NATO entry in any country which has entered NATO in 21 century (and NATO protect democracy ???). Simple NATO is not popular in Europe. Rjecina 10:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
1 more source. In last few years this has become must known source about soldiers from NATO countries and sex slaves in Bosnia: [ [4]] , [5]. Please do not speak that this is story about U.N. because it is story about NATO soldiers in U.N. peace mission Rjecina 15:20, 22 May 2007 (CET)
I came to this page to learn abot NATO/EU military integration planning (or the possible lack of it.) Raggz 04:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we agree on something like this ?
In last years of Taliban regime there has been drop in production of drugs. After Taliban fall there has been short break-up of central goverment in which there have been raise in drug production. Now there is ulmost every year 30 - 50 % raise of production which is creating problems world wide. If NATO forces are really trying or not stop this production is very hard to say because of 2 problems. In words NATO in Afganistan is fighting against drugs but population of this country is working in drugs production for last 20 years and it is very hard to make them stop. Simple this has become fact of living. In situation where NATO soldiers are destroying drugs fields local population is becoming hostile to NATO and start more to support Talibans. It is ulmost not possibile for NATO to make war against Taliban and drugs so we have today this situation.
For that (sex slaves,pedophilia) I have given you enough source so there no need for me to say anything. Last problem about NATO and Balcans is Leukemia of soldiers which has been in territory where US has used "low radiation bullets". I will give you 1 source for that [6]. There is many more on internet if you put in google words Leukemia Italian soldiers Kosovo. All low radiation bullets (bombs) which has not been used in war operation has been droped to Croatian sea before planes has returned to Aviano. This is 1 of reasons why we do not like NATO !
About this we must agree that must important is timeline (words and statements are not important). Timeline is going like this: November 1999 NATO and Russia has signed adapted version of the treaty from time of SSSR. November 1999 Russia and Georgia has written deal about Russian soldiers which are in Georgia. November 1999 Russia and Moldova has written deal that at Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty in 2001 this problem will be solved. 2000 Russia has ratified agreement. 2001 Until Second Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty in 2001 not 1 NATO state has ratified agreement so he is de facto dead. Guilty for this is NATO which has not ratified agreement not Russia. 2007 Russian president Putin is declaring that this agreement is dead because NATO has not ratified and Russia can raise number of soldiers 2007 NATO countries demand of Russia to not raise number of soldiers and to take Russian soldiers home from Moldova and Georgia before they will ratified this agreement. This demand is against agreement of 1999 so again NATO is problem !
Rjecina 9:15, 23 May 2007 (CET)
Please add below the significant gaps that exist in this article:
Just wondering, why is it that every supreme commander so far seems to be from the U.S army fo Air Force? do they have a much larger comitment or somthing? or am i massivly confuesed... -- Climax Void 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems a bit over the top, shouldnt it realy be selected from the country with the most seasoned Generals. As it gives the U.S a tramendas advantage if the United States can control the bulk of the militery forces, and i wouldnt feel to happy not haveing a choice about who controled my countrys fighting forces abroad on NATO duty -- Climax Void 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The last sentance of the second para of the introduction states that NATO's member states agree to ..."promote liberty around the world". Is this really the case - I thought that NATO was a defensive alliance and member countries were free to opt out out other activites conducted by NATO if they didn't agree with the majority decision to approve these activities. -- Nick Dowling 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The article currently says "A 2006 poll showed that the majority of Swedes remain opposed to joining NATO (46% are against, 22% are in favor, ±5% error margin)." I think it goes without saying that 46% is not, in fact, a "majority". — Red XIV ( talk) 03:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
They changed the s to a z! I never thought that we would make this edit! [7] Reginmund 05:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Xelas211 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)i am not sure if this npov. there is no it is mostly membership applying topics
As the membership section continues to expand, I would like to make a separate article about NATO enlargement, similar to the Enlargement of the EU, but less OR than that page. Sijo Ripa 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Something struck me as I was reading through these - the titles are surely incorrect? Armies, Air Forces, and Navies are surely being used possessively, and as such need a terminal apostrophe. (eg. Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies' Officers instead of Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers). I take it that there is no reason that that the apostrophe is omitted except through error?
Xdamr talk 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have found a few news reports:
It looks to me like Azerbaijan wants into NATO! Read them, it's all there. And I also found these: [11] [12]
I am not saying that it is official, but it is at least worth mentioning, I don't think they would conform to NATO standards for no reason. This needs to be further looked into and be factored into the article somehow. Contralya 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sure there are more sources out there that also confirm. I think the article should be changed. Contralya ( talk) 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I find it quite incredible how the history of NATO can be told without ever mentioning the Berlin Blockade. Is this a case of collective amnesia? The more I dig around Wikipedia, the more I'm surprised/disappointed by the absence of consistent quality. -- Vyyjpkmi 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
cause it has nothing to do with NATO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.218.90 ( talk) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is criticism? 168.103.80.6 ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am starting a current positions of nato heading - please do not bite as first it will be under populated/not a rounded section. Chendy ( talk) 12:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
NATO is a military alliance, not a ceremonial one. I reverted an edit that changed it to "ceremonial", but would welcome feedback if anyone were to disagree. -- Mukk 02:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
We have two possible images- we have the flag of NATO, as seen here, and we have a logo that NATO uses on its website, here. The question is which sould be used in the infobox. I personally believe that the flag is a better image, as the consensus seems to be on articles on organisations like this that we use the flag, rather than the logo that they put on their letter heads. Comments/opinions? J Milburn ( talk) 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
..why is Russia not in talks to join it? I'm looking for a reference in the article that would answer that simple question. This is not a forum but this is information that is vital on the subject. If the whole existence of NATO is not anymore part of a cold war, then that should be established in the article. -- Leladax ( talk) 11:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is regularly being vandalized, and should be locked up to prevent that. DWolf2k2 ( talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
At the Nato summit in Bucharest those two countries were invited to start accession talks, but political procedures will take some time. A&C will join at the earliest in January 2009. Gugganij ( talk) 12:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[17] Kosova2008 ( talk) 13:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't see this mentioned, so I'll ask. Why, in the last few years, have news organisations started using Nato instead of NATO? If you look at the bottom of the article page you'll see the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph using Nato. NATO itself uses all capitals (see http://www.nato.int), so what's happening? Poor quality of sub-editors?-- ML5 ( talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox, NATO apparently has "14 Major Allies", yet this point is never developed within the article. Who are these allies? What makes them "major"? 68.187.82.117 ( talk) 06:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As per user:Sijo Ripa above and in line with cutting down on non-core things that are not actually part of NATO, I propose to split the 'dialogue about new members' page into an Enlargement of NATO page with a short summary here. Comments appreciated. Buckshot06 ( talk) 23:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if mention should be made of countries that are not members of NATO per se, but whose defense is the responsibility of NATO members. (eg, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City) In some ways, this is not all that different from the status of Iceland --the only de jure member with no standing Army.
Also, I was wondering if the article should mention whether this de facto NATO membership would extend to every EU member, should the Treaty of Lisbon be ratified; and if so, to what degree.
Please let me know if any of this is relevant to the topic. Pine ( talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why is one blank and the other red? -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I know this discussion in now months old, but I just saw it and as the maker of the map in question I wanted to respond. The line between "NATO membership not a goal" (red) and "Undeclared intent" (a slight tan color) is a fuzzy one. It is easy to say that for a country not currently in the process of joining then "membership is not a goal." Arguably Serbia has taken more steps toward NATO membership than any of the countries marked as undeclared. Yet marking these all as red left out subtly and prospects in NATO's relationship with Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Moldova, and Kosovo. None of these four are by definition neutral, like Ireland/Switzerland/Austria, and while none of these red and tan countries have begun Intensified Dialogue, Serbia, like have Finland and Sweden, has (so far) rejected the offer. In all, the map was just a summary of information on the Enlargement of NATO page, so having it on this page might not be a great idea as it takes the map out of context and away from further explanation.-- Patrick «» 16:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This article does not include anywhere a concise listing of the orginal founding member countries of NATO in 1949. Actually, it is essential for understanding the deep history and nature of any organization to know at a glance what its original members were, and which ones joined soon therafter.
For example, to understand the United States, it is necessary to know what its original members were: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Rhode Island (the last of the 13 to join). Without knowing about this, one does not really understand much about the United States and its history at all.
98.67.175.127 (
talk)
01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The map includes France, which is not a NATO member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.25.21 ( talk) 02:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
France returned to NATO military command structure in April 2009. Its nuclear force was left separate. The first paragraph should mention this as of now it only mentions the 1966 withdraw. 7o62x39 ( talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The map showing EU and NATO membership incorrectly indicates that Switzerland is an EU member, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.81.210 ( talk) 02:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The map of NATO countries needs updated to reflect Albania and Croatia's membership. SpudHawg948 ( talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I know the map of Europe and North America were mashed together to make the map image look better (without a giant ocean between)... by why on Earth does Alaska appear to be as large as 50% of the continental USA?? Alaska may be our biggest state here in the USA, but it is not that huge! Who the heck made this map??
The article states that " the former Warsaw Pact states - except Albania - joining the alliance in 1999 and 2004", are we forgeting the de facto leader of the Warsaw Pact, Russia? While Latvia and Estonia are NATO members (and Georgia and Ukraine will likely become members); Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and other fmr Soviet Republics are not currently members of NATO. LCpl ( talk) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Two maps within the article disagree on whether there is an independent state of Kosovo, or there is no. Also please consider the South Ossetia and Abkhazia with the same legal state as Kosovo (i.e. recognized by part of UN members). AFAIK, part of NATO members recognize K. as independent, part does not, and none of them recognizes A. and S.O. as independent. Here are the maps in question: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/NATO_expansion.png and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Location_NATO.svg . FeelSunny ( talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the situation in South Ossentia and Abkhazia should be reflected. Wiki should be about conveying information - not as a forum for political and legal arguments. There can be an honest debate on how to label these realities but the information should be presented. The move of Georgia into the NATO structure under whatever term of art that relationship is identified with makes the fact that Russia and Russian backed indiginous forces control these territories very relevant. For the same reason, Kosovo and Transnistria should be shown too. 7o62x39 ( talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
It would be really nice if we could have a picture of that statue of the NATO logo, the one with iron beams sticking out from it. It's a really impressive piece of industrial art, shame not to have any pictures of it here. Nastykermit ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC).
This needs to be updated. Alessandro Minuto Rizzo has been replaced in 2007 by Claudio Bisogniero, who helds this post up to date. ( Sebecq ( talk) 14:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC))
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please, since the appropriate page has been created in Wikipedia, I would kindly ask to redirect the links (both of tehm) of the:
paragraph 7 Organizations and Agencies Third to last bullet - the Research and Technology Agency (RTA),[57] reporting to the NATO Research and Technology Organization (RTO);
to the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Research_and_Technology_Organisation
Also, as according to the offical definition, I would suggest to change the spelling (in teh above mentioned lines and in the relevant reference at number 57) so to reduce ambiguity.
Thank you. ABwiki 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: There is a missing citation for Ukraine and Georgia having been "promised" NATO membership under the "Membership" heading. Suggest footnote to George/Teigen in European Security 2008 (DOI: 10.1080/09662830802642512, page 346), which is probative on the matter. Fizzspethwerk ( talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
France has re-entered NATO's military command, so everything relating to it's withdrawal needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.45.67 ( talk) 12:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The same way as the OECD was first established between Europe and America and later extended to Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Mexico (Chile, Russia and Israel are candidates) it is expected for NATO to do the same including Australia, Japan, South Korea and probably Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.150.22 ( talk) 04:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what is being said here.
Australia & New Zealand are officially a NATO "partner" through the Contact Country (CC) structure. Australia and NZ is also "linked" to NATO by virtue of the ANZUS and the FPDA treaties and US MNNA status. The NZ withdraw from ANZUS over nuclear weapons on US ships did not severe the Australian-NZ commitment. The USA has recently made statements that the schism with NZ is over. NZ special forces are in Afghanistan. This reality for example is recognized in France's Strategic White Paper completed in 2008 - http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/134828/1175142/version/1/file/LivreBlancGB.pdf
Japan is a sui generis situation. Its Constitution precludes any military alliance other than the USA-Japan mutual defense treaty (MDT). But it is officially a NATO "partner" through the Contact Country structure. Like Australia it too is linked to NATO by virtue of the Japan-USA MDT. Japan sent naval forces to the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghan war effort, which pushed very much at the edge of its constitutional limits.
Mexico is not part of any western alliance. It withdrew from the Rio Treaty due to the USA support of the UK in the Falkland War. The UK could have enacted Article 5 but chose not to allow the USA to avoid direct war with its ally and fellow Americans - Argentina. The USA does equip and train the Mexican military but Mexico is unlikely to pursue tighter bonds unless Communists in El Savador, Venezuela and Nicaragua arm up, deploy foreign forces, or arm large insurgencies into Southern Mexico like they have in Peru and Columbia.
Chile is linked to NATO by virtue of its MNNA status with the USA, its active participation in RIMPAC and its deployment of forces under NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo. Chile is specifically listed on NATO's website as a contact country (aka Global partner). Its relationship to NATO is close to that of Japan, Australia, NZ and Korea. If the Rio Treaty completely breaks down over a Bolivian or Honduran civil war, war between Venezuela and the other communist South American states and allies of the West: Columbia, Chile, Peru, Panama, etc then it is likely that some institution will emerge in South America to formalize the democratic alliance there. If Cuba and Venezuela get their way and turn ALBA into a 21st Century Warsaw Pact of Communist states, NATO's eyes will turn to South America to an even greater degree. French Guiana in South America is a NATO and EU member as a part of France. The USA is now building a massive new military base in Surinam and has reactivated the 4th Fleet.
Korea is a "Partner" of NATO in the CC structure. It is linked to NATO via the US-Korea MDT. Korean forces have operated under NATO command in Afghanistan. The Cold War NATO we knew, came into existence due in part to the allied joint operations during the Korean War. Then non-NATO Turkey contributed significantly to the allied Korean War effort, and was later brought into the alliance. France maintains a One Korea Policy which recognizes the Republic of Korea as the sole legitimate government of the Korean people. The precident created by the PRC's demands on the world for One China and tossing the Republic of China (Taiwan) from the UN and the Security Council has implications for the ultimate fate of the North Korean regime and the eventual reunification of Korea.
Israel is a "Partner" of NATO through the Med Dialogue. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is specifically NOT in NATO's scope of concern. NATO is working with numerous countries in the region to prepare for any NATO peacekeeping role supporting any some future comprehensive peace. NATO works with the Palestinian Authority as well and they could be brought into the Med Dialogue officially in the future. Jordan and Egypt also carry the Palestinian cause within NATO via their partnership status.
Russia is a "Partner" of NATO through the Partnership for Peace and other European institutions. This relationship is strained but official. Russia was brought into this relationship partly as a solution to the conflict created by the eastern EU and NATO expansions which from Russia's point of view violated understandings they had from the West. In June 2009 NATO and Russia announced a new initiative to return to a commitment to partnership and working through security issues. Obviously, the hope in the future is for a stable, liberal, democratic Russia that could come into the West's institutions as an allied member. The situation in Georgia is dangerous and both sides are seekign a mechanism to reduce tensions and risks. 7o62x39 ( talk) 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
Hi there, I've recently proposed a NATO Wikiproject to cover all things NATO. If you'd be interested in helping get one started, head over to the nomination page and voice your support. Cool3 ( talk) 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a notice "citation needed" for the following sentence:
Other potential candidate countries include Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina.
I have found two links on NATO official web site to support this claim:
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-montenegro/index.html
http://www.nato.int/issues/nato-bosnia-herzegovina/index.html
Ravenlord ( talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The word should be "appease" rather than "appeatise". This sentence could be a bit more formally written too and a citation would be good re the claim for Francee and other "big" countries.
Ozeye 10:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
In this section Bosnia and Herzgegovina, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia (all as part of Yugoslavia) were not "Other Cold War socialist economies" but "Militarily neutral Cold War socialist economies" because Yugoslavia was the founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement and never a part of the Eastern Bloc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.16.218 ( talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking the History section is long enough could be split into a History of NATO article, with a new, perhaps simpler and more chronological, three to five paragraph summary of events used on this page. Thoughts? Anyone interested in creating this summary? I added an official Split Section Template. I also think this would help maintain Good Article status.-- Patrick «» 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Interfax/BNS/Postimees, 58% of Russians have a negative attitude towards NATO. Interestingly, at the same time, NATO's nature is not well known in Russia: for example, 31% of the population thinks NATO's mission consists of "aggressive actions towards other countries". 34% have no idea what NATO is.
Source: Postimees 3 April 2009 13:56: Venelased ei salli NATOt, kuigi ei tea, mis see on. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I see bits and pieces of this throughout the article, but there should be a section dealing with the criticism of NATO and enlargement. Most of the article is to the point of being boistrous. MPA 146.235.130.52 ( talk) 14:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I see the article has gone over to US spelling. Considering NATO was set up by the British and itself uses UK spelling this is rather puzzling, especially as the article itself was originally in UK English. Presumably there'll by no objection if I now change US spelling to UK ones in any articles I come across.
Please add the British English pronunciation /'neɪ.toʊ/ as an alternative to the US pronunciation given. Andrewgdotcom ( talk) 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The following sentence is garbled:
This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily.
There appears to be a chunk of text missing - could someone trawl the history and restore it? Thanks. Andrewgdotcom ( talk) 11:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have done a GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. My reassessment can be found here. I find the article to still meet the GA criteria and I have kept it as GA. H1nkles ( talk) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
When NATO goes on a mission, is it similar to a UN mission? Or are countries independently represented by soldiers? Unlike the blue helmets of the UN. I hope that was an English sentence :) Mallerd ( talk) 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The initial part of the article should mention NATO's position in the Cold War, that being its founding and fundamental position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.241.190 ( talk) 11:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The article should include a discussion of the evolution of post Cold War NATO from a defend Europe/Turkey against the USSR/Warsaw Pact alliance to what it is today ... the primary organization within a spider web of multi-lateral and bi-lateral security agreements among the world's democracies which is replacing/substituting for the UN Security Council (blocked by Russia and China). NATO in 2009 is a global military alliance. There are 42 nations operating in Afghanistan under NATO-ISAF being joined this year by Mongolia (a NATO Partnership for Peace member actively seeking closer security ties to the "West"), Columbia a NATO associate by virtue of its bilateral military relationship with the USA and it active participation in RIMPAC and connections to the Pacific security spider web ANZUS/FPDA/NATO-CC/the USA Mutual Defense Agreements (Japan, Korea, Philippines, and the Pacific Island nations), and India (nuclear tech pact with France and the USA).
Consider Chile - "Chile's integration into a worldwide military network led by the US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, however, is not limited to weapons purchases. The nation was one of only five non-NATO states to provide troops for the first-ever NATO out-of-area military deployment, Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia, in 1995 .... It has since participated in regular military exercises under the command of the United States and its NATO allies. ...
It participates in the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) military exercises led by the United States and Britain, ... In 2008 the RIMPAC exercise included 35 ships, six submarines, over 150 aircraft and 20,000 troops from Chile, the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, South Korea and Singapore, a NATO/Asia Pacific NATO/Latin American NATO nexus in embryo." - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13788
7o62x39 ( talk) 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
Here are the non-NATO countries that have sent forces under NATO command to the three major operation NATO has conducted outside of the original NATO defense and operating area:
SFOR - Bosnia - 1998-2004 Australia Austria Argentina Chile Egypt Finland Ireland Malaysia Morocco New Zealand Russia Sweden
KFOR - Kosovo - 1999-Present Argentina Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Bosnia Chile Finland Georgia Ghana India Ireland Malaysia Mongolia Morocco Philippines Sweden Switzerland UAE
ISAF - Afghanistan - 2001-Present Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain (Naval) Bosnia Columbia Finland Georgia India Ireland Japan (Naval) Jordan Korea (Rep.) Macedonia Mongolia New Zealand Serbia Singapore Sweden Switzerland UAE Ukraine
Note that the four larger non-NATO member (although they are formally NATO "partners") EU states - Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden have sent forces to all three recent NATO operations. 7o62x39 ( talk) 00:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
Please see the debate above about AmE vesus BrE spelling in the article. To enlarge on it slightly here, the spelling in this article should be BrE, for the reasons I've noted above. At the moment it's a mixture and looks bad. So I intend to standardise on BrE (including z in organization). However, there may be instances in the article; direct quotations etc. where AmE should be used; hopefully I'll spot them all. If there's any doubt about NATO laguage usage please see their website. Mister Flash ( talk)
The ICI is a formal dialogue and partnering program with the same status within NATO as the PfP, the Contact Countries (aka Global Partners: Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand) and the Med dialogue. The ICI includes the six states of the GCC/PS - four of which have formally joined (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and the UAE) and two are preparing to do so (Saudi Arabia and Oman). NATO discusses this initiative carefully and it includes a potential role for NATO and the GCC working together through the ICI should a comprehensive peace be achieved between Israel and Palestine. NATO is careful to include the Palestinian Authority as a recognized entitiy with whom dialogue is occuring. NATO is preparing for security options that it may support should the UN authorize such a role in conjunction with a comprehensive peace. At present, NATO is clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself is not something that is part of NATO's scope. 66.182.3.61 ( talk) 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
Can somebody add some info on that to the main article. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.86.52 ( talk) 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Pakistan has no formal relationship with NATO. I find no indication of Pakistani forces operating in Afghanistan under ISAF (although interestingly India is sending forces to Afghanistan under NATO command in 2009). However NATO-ISAF in Afghanistan does communicate and coordinate on various operational and intelligence matters relating to both Afghanistan and Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Region. This "cooperation" is a poker game with both sides having mixed motives.
Pakistan was a member of the Cold War era CENTO which was something like NATO operating in South Asia, but has since been dissolved. Pakistan is an idiosyncratic nation whose foreign policy and geopolitical strategy is complex. Pakistan has two major focuses which are unique to itself; the rivalry with India, both over the disputed region of Kashmir and as the protector of India's significant Muslim minority, and Afghanistan which itself is a complex mix of various ethnic groups the largest of which is virtually identical to many of the peoples of Pakistan's west. Pakistan also seeks influence in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) as a Muslim nation which helps it counter India strategically. (India has effectively countered this desire with its actions dating back before the Pakistani Civil War).
During the Cold War, Pakistan sided with the West, while India (although officially non-aligned) tilted towards the USSR. Pakistan's relationship with NATO happens indirectly by virtue of the USA-Pakistani relationship which itself is a marriage by necessity and circumstance. At the end of the Cold War, Pakistan was the conduit through which the USA, Saudi Arabia and others (including Pakistan) funneled resources to the Muslim Afghan resistance against the USSR backed Afghan communists. These forces also conducted offensive special operations inside the bordering Muslim republics of the former USSR. If Afghanistan was payback to the USSR for Vietnam, these ops were payback for El Salvador and USSR/Communist aggression in Central America during the 1980s. Pakistan knew well that the USSR's only strategic interest in Afghanistan was as a launching point to breakup or take over Pakistan (or Iran) and fulfill the USSR/Russian centuries old desire for access to a warm and open water port for its Navy. After the Soviet withdraw and the fall of the Afghan communists, the USA lost interest in the nation and Pakistan was left with the mess to manage. The Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan took place in this period. Pakistan has long sought to transform Afghanistan into a de facto Pakistani vassal through support of the Pashtun ethnic group which is common to both countries. The Pashtuns comprised a significant element of the Taliban. The so called "moderate" Taliban which the Obama administration is seeking to split off and come to terms with is to a large extent, that element of the Taliban that Pakistan can control or at least influence.
Pakistan's 2009 offensive against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operating in western Pakistan required the USA to seek Indian cooperation. India recently announced it was removing troops from the Pakistani boarder and Kashmir, thus allowing Pakistan to send forces from the Indian border to the west.
Pakistan's need to counter the Indian nuclear capability and missile gap, created an alliance of convenience with North Korea. Pakistani nuke tech got exchanged for North Korean missile tech. Pakistani cooperation with North Korea has probably ceased since Pakistan now has sufficient tech in missiles and the cost to play with North Korea in terms of Pakistan's relationship with the West is high.
Pakistan also has a complex relationship with other Central Asian nations and China. Pakistan saw China as a second ally to the USA via the India-China rivalry (an enemy of my enemy is my friend). But this is complicated as both the Taliban and before that the USA/Saudi backed Muslim forces have links to the Muslim and Turkic Uighur peoples of Western China. Pakistani fingerprints are found on Uighur insurgencies inside China. At various times in the past, the USA has lent covert support to the Uighurs as a card to play when the Chinese acted elsewhere in support of communist insurgencies. (No doubt India as well is none too pleased with Chinese fingerprints on Indian Communist insurgencies and their overt support of the Nepalese Maoists). The July 2009 Uighur riots highlight the tensions inside China with respect to its Muslim minorities. Most probably the USA has ceased any support of the Uighurs as it seeks Chinese cooperation on North Korea and the USA's War on Terrorism (although Uighurs captured in Taliban camps and sent to Gitmo were subsequently released to Palau and Bermuda rather than returned to China). The USA also considers support of the Uighurs as a very high risk game given the implications of the vastly more critical Sino-American relationship.
The Korean situation also impacts Pakistan. China's North Korean gambit is very high risk and reckless. North Korea is the prime element of the Chinese game of talking peace and covertly promoting whatever chaos in the world drains the USA and the West (inclusive of Japan and the Republic of Korea). This all works to China's advantage to the extent they keep a lid on it. But the North Koreans are lunatics. Regardless, China made its choice and from the USA/Korea/Japanese point of view, China will be held responsible for North Korea, period. If the Korean situation gets out of control, the CIA will be talking to the Pakistanis about the Uighurs. If a North Korean nuke goes off anywhere outside a North Korean cave, USA nuke, missile (and more anti-missile) tech goes to Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and India (especially if Pakistan balks on arming the Uighurs, given that a good portion of the North Korean nuke tech came from Pakistan. The USA and France's civilian nuke tech pacts with India was among many other things a card played on China and Pakistan for North Korea). Bottom line, Korea affects Pakistan.
Understanding Pakistan begins with a recognition that the Pakistani's are nationalists who play realpolitiks not internationalist liberal altruism and act in the interests of Pakistan; not any other power. Declaring Pakistan simply a tool of the USA completely misses the delicate game Pakistan plays under a very complicated set of regional circumstances and realities it does not fully control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"the Alliance calls upon Pyongyang to fulfil its international obligations. The NAC urges North Korea to implement fully all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and to eliminate its nuclear weapons and related programmes in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. We call upon Pyongyang to refrain from any other actions which could contribute to raising tensions and to restore dialogue within the Six-Party framework. The Alliance will continue to carefully monitor developments with deep concern." [1] 7o62x39 ( talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The NATO article continues to fail to fully discuss and correctly describe NATO in 2009, not 1989. NATO in 2009 is a global military alliance. The past issues of defense of European members' colonial possessions has evolved as they have shed most of what will be shed and via the evolution of the EU as well as their national political systems have tranformed these remaining possessions into politically incorporated regions. For example, French Guiana and Reunion are no longer French 1960s colonial possessions ambiguously related to NATO but are fully incorporated regions of the French state and the EU. That is, Reunion would be defended by NATO as an attack on France (and the EU) itself, just as an attack on Hawaii would be. The relationship between the EU and NATO has also evolved and was formalized by the Berlin Agreements and through other Atlantic and European institutions. Thus the non-NATO EU states are de facto, albeit sui generis, affiliated states of NATO, not members but not merely partners. By not becoming NATO members they are not treaty bound to Article 5 but in all other respects they act as members. The relationship with Japan, Australia, Korea and New Zealand has also evolved to something like that of the non-NATO EU states.
Excerpts from NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the opening of the strategic concept seminar, July 7, 2009:
"First and foremost, I hope the new Strategic Concept will finally lay to rest the notion that there is any distinction between security at home and security abroad. Globalisation has abolished the protection that borders or geographical isolation from crisis areas used to provide. Article 5, as I have said, can apply outside NATO territory as much as inside. Today the challenge is not to defend our territory but our populations; and they, unlike our territory, move around. Our challenge is not just to make our populations secure, but feel secure – a much more complicated task which, to my mind, necessitates a much better job of communicating NATO’s activities and real achievements to our publics.
At the same time, the new Strategic Concept should also reassure our new Allies that NATO takes its Article 5 collective defence commitment seriously; not just on paper but through planning and exercises as well as having the necessary capabilities to call on in crisis situations. Allies who feel secure at home are much more likely to transform their forces for expeditionary operations and send them to Afghanistan or elsewhere. Article 5 collective defence is, after all, the bedrock of the Alliance, and has been for 60 years. We should not feel bashful in discussing it in the Alliance. It is purely defensive. But we should not go overboard either. The situation in Europe does not call for military build-ups which would be counter-productive as well as wasteful. The threats to our security today lie mainly outside Europe, notably from extremism in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere. That must remain our focus whether it be reinforcing ISAF or reinforcing closer links with key neighbours such as Pakistan. This said, reassuring Allies who feel less secure than others in their immediate neighbourhood is not that hard to do; but we must do it. NATO cannot function in the long run with two types of membership: those who feel secure and willing to transform and those who feel less secure and are less willing. ...
A fourth concern has to do with partnerships. A commentator once spoke of NATO’s “partnership industry”. One of the things that I am most satisfied with during my watch has been the continued growth of NATO’s partnerships, particularly outside Europe, in North Africa, the Middle East and the Gulf, and the Asia-Pacific region. A NATO without Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue, or the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative has become unthinkable. Many of our partners are with us today and will take part in our Strategic Concept debates. Rightly so, for Partners are no longer outside the NATO community, but inside; making indispensable contributions not only to the Partnership activities but also to NATO’s core business, such as military operations in Afghanistan, Kosovo or the Mediterranean. But I believe we are far from getting the best value out of our partnerships. Our political consultations beyond operations have too often become stale and ritualistic when there is so much quality analysis and experience that we should be exchanging on a regular basis. The value of our Partners to us must not be linked only to how many troops they contribute to ISAF or KFOR. Partners have an intrinsic value in their own right and we need to be much more imaginative in cooperating on other challenges: energy security, proliferation, cyber, terrorism – to name but the most obvious. Here again the new Strategic Concept has to move partnerships to the next generation." [2] 7o62x39 ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MNNA I feel this section should be mentioned somewhere within the NATO article. Although not officially sanctioned by NATO, it is an official designation by the United States and carries with it military repercussions. Also, these countries participate and support a wide variety of NATO missions, so a brief mention should be included.
Mostly agree with Buckshot, that US MNNA status is not directly relevant to this NATO article. That said every MNNA has a relationship of some form with NATO. The article would be improved by expanding the discussion of the relationships of NATO with its partners. The article could also discuss how NATO fits within the larger context of the overall security alliances, treaties and military exercises amongst the liberal democracies. The reality is that the NATO "Community" (NATO members and all of its partners and cooperating nations) is acting more and more like a de facto substitute/alternative to the disfunctional and corrupted UN and UN Security Council on issues of security. 7o62x39 ( talk) 07:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The leader is now Anders Fogh Rasmussen, not Jaap de hoop Scheffer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.212.109 ( talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not necessary to have French in the lead. This is an English encyclopedia, and the English name is official. The reason to include alternative names in the lead is for clarity when the English version is not official. The French name is not important and it's cluttering the lead. Oreo Priest talk 06:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The article should give more info as to why France chickened out, when the going was tough and the Soviet troops were ready to invade Europe during the 1950s. They wanted to strike a "peace" accord with the Russians, like their 5-star General Petain made with the Germans a decade ago.
It is interesting that they wanted to come back to this alliance now that the Russian threat is over. Are they now ready to fight in Afghanistan with a sizeable number of troops ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.93.75 ( talk) 10:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
add link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natochannel in resources —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Voica emil (
talk •
contribs) 08:51, 9 September 2009
Not done: The target page was deleted. Celestra ( talk) 14:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I have recently created an article on Kori Schake, whose name is mentioned in this article. If appropriate, can someone please create a link to the Kori Schake article. Note: it appears here on the NATO page as "Schake, Kori". I would do it myself, but the semi-protection apparently affects new editors as well as anonymous ones. Thanks for your help.
Hoover Press (
talk)
02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
How does one go about adding references? Prmwp ( talk) 22:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is closed to new edits. How does one add references in this case? Prmwp ( talk) 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please place these under Further Reading--Early Period. Thanks
<ref> Francis A. Beer. Integration and Disintegration in NATO: Processes of Alliance Cohesion and Prospects for Atlantic Community. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969), 330 pp.</ref>
<ref> Francis A. Beer. The Political Economy of Alliances: Benefits, Costs, and Institutions in NATO. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972), 40 pp. </ref>
Prmwp ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please place these under Further Reading--Early Period. Thanks
Francis A. Beer. Integration and Disintegration in NATO: Processes of Alliance Cohesion and Prospects for Atlantic Community. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969), 330 pp.
Francis A. Beer. The Political Economy of Alliances: Benefits, Costs, and Institutions in NATO. (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1972), 40 pp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prmwp ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
On September 11, the United States attacked suspected non-evangelicals resulting in many deaths. The article should specify that it is referencing September 11, 2001 because many others were killed in other attacks on September 11. It is disrespectful to those killed on September 11 to imply that all of the deaths of September 11 occurred on September 11, 2001 during the Presidential reading lesson of Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegenwind ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: There is a missing citation for Ukraine and Georgia having been "promised" NATO membership under the "Membership" heading. Suggest footnote to George/Teigen in European Security 2008 (DOI: 10.1080/09662830802642512, page 346), which is probative on the matter. Fizzspethwerk ( talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The relationship between the EU and NATO has evolved over time and change in recent years with France becoming more pro-Atlantic and the understanding of the EU's role inside of NATO. Today the EU's ESDP and NATO are "separable but not separate" and the EU can act on security matters only if NATO declines to do so. Under the EU's ESDP the six Non-NATO EU states have a sui generis relationship with NATO. It is ERRONEOUS to list Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Cyprus and Malta as "red" "membership not a goal" as they have de facto membership in NATO by virtue of their membership in the EU. What ever this relationship is correctly termed it is not "membership not a goal".
The four contact countries - Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand also have their own sui generis relationships with NATO. The wiki article states that this relationship is not formalized which is self-evidently incorrect since it is formalized under the definition of a contact nation. All four nations contributed military forces to Afghanistan under the USA's mutual defense enactment. 7o62x39 ( talk) 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The NATO map of membership is inconsistent with wikipedia maps of other military/security organizations such as the CSTO and the SCO with respect to definitions of association. The SCO map list "observers". The non-NATO EU states should be catagorized as "ESDP associated states of NATO." The four contact nations should be catagorized as such and labeled as such on the map. Australia, whose forces in Kosovo were under NATO command is far more associated with NATO than India is with the SCO (India is listed as an "observer" on the wikipedia map of the SCO). 7o62x39 ( talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
The article states, "Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan currently have this status." This is not very precise language as the four are actually "examples" of nations with this status that are identified on the NATO website - http://www.nato.int/issues/contact_countries/index.html. The term "other partners across the globe" is used as a synonym with "contact countries" in various NATO documents. The article fails to mention evolutions in the concept since 2004. At the 2006 Riga Summit, NATO pledged to increase the operational relevance of relations with interested Contact Countries and decisions taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit defined NATO’s objectives for its relationships with partners across the globe. 7o62x39 ( talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)7o62x39
I came to the NATO page as part of a redirect from the 'western alliance' term linked in a different article. I think the two terms are not the same, nor is the latter short hand for the former in popular understandings. It doesn't make sense in light of the article linked from either (biography of 1980s NZ PM David Lange), which didn't discuss anything relating to NATO or NATO's area of interest at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.198.226 ( talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)