Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 02:54 PM Mar 2022

If this is how NATO treats their NATO partners when they get invaded

Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:59 PM - Edit history (2)

I wonder if other NATO partners (non members) are reconsidering their affiliation.

Ukraine is a NATO partner, but not a member:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/28/nato-cant-send-troops-ukraine-here-is-what-it-will-probably-do-instead/

On edit: "reconsider" does not necessarily mean dissolving partnership but perhaps also considering increased priority in a mutual defense perspective.

Examples of partners having reconsidered their afilliations are Sweden and Finland: Both have requested full membership into NATO.

52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If this is how NATO treats their NATO partners when they get invaded (Original Post) ColinC Mar 2022 OP
What? Lochloosa Mar 2022 #1
What are you talking about? Ukraine is not a member of NATO. panader0 Mar 2022 #2
Partner* ColinC Mar 2022 #5
That ship has sailed. Georgia is also a NATO "partner". 11 Bravo Mar 2022 #35
And Sweden and Finland are NATO partners reconsidering their afiliation ColinC Mar 2022 #49
What NATO country got invaded? Ohio Joe Mar 2022 #3
Partner* ColinC Mar 2022 #4
ahhh... Ohio Joe Mar 2022 #9
See edit in OP ColinC Mar 2022 #41
Well... Ohio Joe Mar 2022 #44
Sure. For instance, Sweden and Finland are definitely reconsidering their position as partners ColinC Mar 2022 #45
You post an article from Feb 28, 2022 to say we are/have done NOTHING for Ukraine via NATO? REALLY? hlthe2b Mar 2022 #6
Nope. Not what I said. ColinC Mar 2022 #7
I heard something like this from RWers who still support Trump's intention to remove US from NATO. hlthe2b Mar 2022 #8
No. My stance is NATO should do more. ColinC Mar 2022 #11
"unless partnership is given more priority in its status." bluewater Mar 2022 #18
How Do We Know RobinA Mar 2022 #28
My judgement is entirely based on what is public, and nothing more ColinC Mar 2022 #29
Proving your "point" with a month-old article obamanut2012 Mar 2022 #20
Huh? The article is for reference ColinC Mar 2022 #24
With all respect, your post makes no sense. n/t RKP5637 Mar 2022 #10
Seems a very standard, boiler-plate agreement Torchlight Mar 2022 #12
NATO is a Defensive pact. Offensive operations are not allowed...nt Wounded Bear Mar 2022 #13
Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia...? ColinC Mar 2022 #15
Offensive operations are not allowed obamanut2012 Mar 2022 #21
That's a Very Fine Hair You Are Attempting to Split There. ruet Mar 2022 #32
NATO has 30 members, 37 Partners... OneBlueDotS-Carolina Mar 2022 #14
...Japan ColinC Mar 2022 #16
The United States and Japan have their own mutual defense treaty. Caliman73 Mar 2022 #19
Fair point ColinC Mar 2022 #25
...And probably why Russia was so quick to leave the disputed territory ColinC Mar 2022 #31
Semantics? 11 Bravo Mar 2022 #36
Why would they reconsider their affiliation. Caliman73 Mar 2022 #17
I think "reconsider" not so much as dissolve ColinC Mar 2022 #27
You can keep repeating "partner", parnter, but bottrott Mar 2022 #22
Post removed Post removed Mar 2022 #23
"I wonder if other NATO partners (non members) are reconsidering their affiliation." LudwigPastorius Mar 2022 #26
"reconsider" does not necessarily mean consider dissolving partnership ColinC Mar 2022 #34
Maybe clarify your opening post. Torchlight Mar 2022 #37
There was no definition provided. Just people jumping to conclusions ColinC Mar 2022 #39
I see people reaching conclusions, but no jumps. Torchlight Mar 2022 #42
It was like, one sentence. ColinC Mar 2022 #43
Which directly referenced an in-depth article Torchlight Mar 2022 #46
It was one sentence... ColinC Mar 2022 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author Torchlight Mar 2022 #47
There is no treaty with Ukraine for mutual defense. SoonerPride Mar 2022 #30
Understand the difference between member and partner in NATO. LiberalFighter Mar 2022 #33
I think NATO partners are delighted at the response. Weapons, intelligence, and economic warfare? mathematic Mar 2022 #38
See my edit in the OP ColinC Mar 2022 #40
You don't say.. denbot Mar 2022 #50
No member is reconsidering their membership. EndlessWire Mar 2022 #51
You just made my point for me. ColinC Mar 2022 #52

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
49. And Sweden and Finland are NATO partners reconsidering their afiliation
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:34 PM
Mar 2022

by working aggressively to become full NATO members.

Ohio Joe

(21,733 posts)
9. ahhh...
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:03 PM
Mar 2022

Well... Finland and Sweden are now considering membership. I've not heard of any countries distancing themselves from NATO over Ukraine.

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
41. See edit in OP
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:16 PM
Mar 2022

"reconsider" does not necessarily mean "leave." And i didn't exactly intend to send that message. Sorry for the confusion...

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
45. Sure. For instance, Sweden and Finland are definitely reconsidering their position as partners
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:24 PM
Mar 2022

by trying to become members

hlthe2b

(102,142 posts)
6. You post an article from Feb 28, 2022 to say we are/have done NOTHING for Ukraine via NATO? REALLY?
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 02:59 PM
Mar 2022

You really want to claim that NOTHING has been done in the past month?

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
7. Nope. Not what I said.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:00 PM
Mar 2022

I said if we treat them this way, maybe others are reconsidering their affiliation.
The article is so that people understand what a NATO partner is.

hlthe2b

(102,142 posts)
8. I heard something like this from RWers who still support Trump's intention to remove US from NATO.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:02 PM
Mar 2022

Because, according to THEM, NATO does nothing. Is that your stance as well?

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
11. No. My stance is NATO should do more.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:05 PM
Mar 2022

Part of the reason they do less is becaue the influence isolationists and right wingers have had on the organization over the years.


I am speculating that other countries may come to the conclusion that NATO may be ineffective for them and may leave the organization if they are not granted membership -unless partnership is given more priority in its status.

RobinA

(9,886 posts)
28. How Do We Know
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:54 PM
Mar 2022

what priority Ukraine has been given? We have no idea what has been done for them. Not a clue.

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
29. My judgement is entirely based on what is public, and nothing more
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:56 PM
Mar 2022

But if what is public is true -and if Ukraine is being honest in communicating its' needs, I draw the conclusion that not enough has been done.

obamanut2012

(26,047 posts)
20. Proving your "point" with a month-old article
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:21 PM
Mar 2022

Disingenuous much?

Wow.

You would have just posted bout what a NATO partner is, without the disingenuity

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
24. Huh? The article is for reference
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:40 PM
Mar 2022

The only thing I am saying is in the first sentence of my post.

The article is only there so people know I am referring to them as a partner and not a member.

Torchlight

(3,293 posts)
12. Seems a very standard, boiler-plate agreement
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:07 PM
Mar 2022

to which all parties are currently meeting their contractual obligations and responsibilities set forth in the treaty.

ruet

(10,037 posts)
32. That's a Very Fine Hair You Are Attempting to Split There.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:58 PM
Mar 2022
NATO Military Operations


The Bosnian War began in 1992, as a result of the break-up of Yugoslavia. The deteriorating situation led to United Nations Security Council Resolution 816 on 9 October 1992, ordering a no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina, which NATO began enforcing on 12 April 1993 with Operation Deny Flight. From June 1993 until October 1996, Operation Sharp Guard added maritime enforcement of the arms embargo and economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On 28 February 1994, NATO took its first wartime action by shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft violating the no-fly zone.

On 10 and 11 April 1994, the United Nations Protection Force called in air strikes to protect the Goražde safe area, resulting in the bombing of a Bosnian Serb military command outpost near Goražde by two US F-16 jets acting under NATO direction. In retaliation, Serbs took 150 U.N. personnel hostage on 14 April. On 16 April a British Sea Harrier was shot down over Goražde by Serb forces.

In August 1995, a two-week NATO bombing campaign, Operation Deliberate Force, began against the Army of the Republika Srpska, after the Srebrenica genocide. Further NATO air strikes helped bring the Yugoslav Wars to an end, resulting in the Dayton Agreement in November 1995. As part of this agreement, NATO deployed a UN-mandated peacekeeping force, under Operation Joint Endeavor, named IFOR. Almost 60,000 NATO troops were joined by forces from non-NATO nations in this peacekeeping mission. This transitioned into the smaller SFOR, which started with 32,000 troops initially and ran from December 1996 until December 2004, when operations were then passed onto European Union Force Althea. Following the lead of its member nations, NATO began to award a service medal, the NATO Medal, for these operations.


In an effort to stop Slobodan Milošević's Serbian-led crackdown on KLA separatists and Albanian civilians in Kosovo, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1199 on 23 September 1998 to demand a ceasefire. Negotiations under US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke broke down on 23 March 1999, and he handed the matter to NATO, which started a 78-day bombing campaign on 24 March 1999. Operation Allied Force targeted the military capabilities of what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. During the crisis, NATO also deployed one of its international reaction forces, the ACE Mobile Force (Land), to Albania as the Albania Force (AFOR), to deliver humanitarian aid to refugees from Kosovo.

Though the campaign was criticized for high civilian casualties, including bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Milošević finally accepted the terms of an international peace plan on 3 June 1999, ending the Kosovo War. On 11 June, Milošević further accepted UN resolution 1244, under the mandate of which NATO then helped establish the KFOR peacekeeping force. Nearly one million refugees had fled Kosovo, and part of KFOR's mandate was to protect the humanitarian missions, in addition to deterring violence. In August–September 2001, the alliance also mounted Operation Essential Harvest, a mission disarming ethnic Albanian militias in the Republic of Macedonia. As of 1 December 2013, 4,882 KFOR soldiers, representing 31 countries, continue to operate in the area.

The US, the UK, and most other NATO countries opposed efforts to require the UN Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the action against Serbia in 1999, while France and some others claimed that the alliance needed UN approval. The US/UK side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization. Recognizing the post-Cold War military environment, NATO adopted the Alliance Strategic Concept during its Washington summit in April 1999 that emphasized conflict prevention and crisis management.


Beginning on 17 August 2009, NATO deployed warships in an operation to protect maritime traffic in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean from Somali pirates, and help strengthen the navies and coast guards of regional states. The operation was approved by the North Atlantic Council and involved warships primarily from the United States though vessels from many other nations were also included. Operation Ocean Shield focused on protecting the ships of Operation Allied Provider which were distributing aid as part of the World Food Programme mission in Somalia. Russia, China and South Korea sent warships to participate in the activities as well. The operation sought to dissuade and interrupt pirate attacks, protect vessels, and to increase the general level of security in the region


During the Libyan Civil War, violence between protesters and the Libyan government under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi escalated, and on 17 March 2011 led to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which called for a ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians. A coalition that included several NATO members began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya shortly afterwards, beginning with Opération Harmattan by the French Air Force on 19 March.

On 20 March 2011, NATO states agreed on enforcing an arms embargo against Libya with Operation Unified Protector using ships from NATO Standing Maritime Group 1 and Standing Mine Countermeasures Group 1, and additional ships and submarines from NATO members. They would "monitor, report and, if needed, interdict vessels suspected of carrying illegal arms or mercenaries".

On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone from the initial coalition, while command of targeting ground units remained with the coalition's forces. NATO began officially enforcing the UN resolution on 27 March 2011 with assistance from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. By June, reports of divisions within the alliance surfaced as only eight of the 28 member nations were participating in combat operations, resulting in a confrontation between US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and countries such as Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany with Gates calling on the latter to contribute more and the latter believing the organization has overstepped its mandate in the conflict. In his final policy speech in Brussels on 10 June, Gates further criticized allied countries in suggesting their actions could cause the demise of NATO. The German foreign ministry pointed to "a considerable [German] contribution to NATO and NATO-led operations" and to the fact that this engagement was highly valued by President Obama.

While the mission was extended into September, Norway that day (10 June) announced it would begin scaling down contributions and complete withdrawal by 1 August. Earlier that week it was reported Danish air fighters were running out of bombs. The following week, the head of the Royal Navy said the country's operations in the conflict were not sustainable. By the end of the mission in October 2011, after the death of Colonel Gaddafi, NATO planes had flown about 9,500 strike sorties against pro-Gaddafi targets. A report from the organization Human Rights Watch in May 2012 identified at least 72 civilians killed in the campaign.

Following a coup d'état attempt in October 2013, Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan requested technical advice and trainers from NATO to assist with ongoing security issues.


An interesting point here is that all of these operations took place under Democratic Presidents. Presidents who employed NATO power as it was meant to be employed.

Caliman73

(11,726 posts)
19. The United States and Japan have their own mutual defense treaty.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:14 PM
Mar 2022

Neither China nor Russia would likely attack Japan because that would be considered a direct attack on the United States.

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
31. ...And probably why Russia was so quick to leave the disputed territory
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:58 PM
Mar 2022

when told to do so by Japan

Caliman73

(11,726 posts)
17. Why would they reconsider their affiliation.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:09 PM
Mar 2022

I would imagine that would make them want to push for greater compliance with the requirements to actually become a member of the alliance, so they can get full support.

bottrott

(81 posts)
22. You can keep repeating "partner", parnter, but
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:24 PM
Mar 2022
Ukraine is a NATO partner — but it is not a member of the 72-year-old military alliance. As such, NATO’s Collective Defense pledge (Article 5 of the Washington Treaty) doesn’t apply

Since this article was written, nearly 2bn in publicly acknowledged military aid has been pledged not to mention the clandestine efforts and transfers made on their behalf. Had Ukraine not been a partner, not been Westward leaning, it's likely they wouldn't have gotten anything. NATO has additionally mobilized over 100,000 troops across Europe, over 100 warships within striking range of Russian targets and has been providing intelligence to UA. That pressure has forced Russia to make expensive internal military movements while sanctions empty their bank. NATO and Western nations have done substantial economic damage to themselves in order to support Ukraine. I'd go so far as to say that this effort is the largest such in support of a non-ally in history.

But, yeah, lets flirt with nuclear war because NATO totally can make that call for the other 6.5bn people on the planet. The absolute effn hubris.

We all want to do more but arrogance and emotion do not make good warfighting. Just look at Russia's performance thus far for proof.

Response to ColinC (Original post)

LudwigPastorius

(9,111 posts)
26. "I wonder if other NATO partners (non members) are reconsidering their affiliation."
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:50 PM
Mar 2022

I seriously doubt it.

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
34. "reconsider" does not necessarily mean consider dissolving partnership
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:00 PM
Mar 2022

..but also perhaps requesting more priority in their partnership in a mutual defense perspective.

Torchlight

(3,293 posts)
37. Maybe clarify your opening post.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:07 PM
Mar 2022

You seem to be redefining the terms you used in that as the conversation advances.

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
39. There was no definition provided. Just people jumping to conclusions
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:11 PM
Mar 2022

Not that I blame them, but still..

Torchlight

(3,293 posts)
42. I see people reaching conclusions, but no jumps.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:20 PM
Mar 2022

Again, if you simply clarified your original point*, I think it would go a long way in reducing the jumps in conclusions you allege.



*Decide what you are trying to say before you actually start writing. Have evidence at hand to illustrate this point. Importantly, trim away unnecessary, confusing and vague material.

Torchlight

(3,293 posts)
46. Which directly referenced an in-depth article
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:25 PM
Mar 2022

This may be my mistake. I presume good faith discussions rather than trying to score points.

Thank you for your time and effort. Enduring Alliance by Timothy Sayl may give you insight into the obligations, responsibilities and available legal courses of action that directs the decisions and actions of NATO

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
48. It was one sentence...
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:29 PM
Mar 2022

The article was for reference so that people can understand the difference between NATO membership and partnership because the first responses to this post were "Ukraine is not a NATO member." The article was so that people understood what was meant by partner.

I think the issue is people like to use articles too often to say "see, I'm right and this article backs me up!" Which wasn't even close to what I was trying to say. I was only providing it so that people understood Ukraine is not a NATO member but is a NATO partner, and to have an idea of what that means.

Response to ColinC (Reply #43)

LiberalFighter

(50,795 posts)
33. Understand the difference between member and partner in NATO.
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 03:59 PM
Mar 2022

NATO and members are doing plenty for Ukraine.

mathematic

(1,434 posts)
38. I think NATO partners are delighted at the response. Weapons, intelligence, and economic warfare?
Thu Mar 24, 2022, 04:09 PM
Mar 2022

Are you kidding? Who wouldn't take that deal?

Oh sure, they don't get the NATO nuclear umbrella or NATO boots on the ground but they don't actually have to fulfill the obligations of a NATO member either.

You must be the only person on the planet that thinks the Russian invasion of Ukraine makes NATO look like less appealing of an alliance to belong to.

EndlessWire

(6,464 posts)
51. No member is reconsidering their membership.
Fri Mar 25, 2022, 07:55 AM
Mar 2022

Those that are "partners" all want in as rapidly as possible. That's because Russia is a big threatening bully. Without neighboring countries and NATO, Ukraine would have been done by now. NATO and friends sent them billions of dollars worth of war materials. To their credit, Ukrainians are fighting like hell, and refusing to give up or surrender. They are competent fighters, and making good use of what they are receiving.

We are sitting here watching a whole country be decimated by the neighborhood bully. Why? Because people are afraid of WW3 fought with nukes. So, even though we also have nukes, we can't have boots on the ground, or have a shoot em up with Russia. Putin knows that, because WE TOLD HIM. He tested the limits, and now he knows what he can do.

The Russians shot up ships and sank some, but nothing happened to them. Nothing will happen to them. There are few people who think that Putin will stop with Ukraine. He'll reconstitute his army and go again. Then, we'll get treated to more brutal conquest in other countries that are weaker militarily.

This desire to join NATO is not new for Ukraine. They were working for it, cleaning up their act, and attempting to qualify. Originally, that was the excuse that Russia declared, their "fear" of having NATO neighbors. This was a lie, and then they switched to saving Donbas, or denazification, or demilitarizing Ukraine, or the alleged "biowarfare labs," or the "nuclear labs," or any other damned excuse for their aggression. IMO, the real reason is so they can gain the seaports and control the Azov Sea. They want that corridor. They are also working to take over Georgia.

We are in a pickle. We can't show fear of Putin. We can't let him control us with fear of a nuclear war. Sure, we'd be stupid not to fear it, but we can't let Xi and Putin become the masters of the world.

NATO is already fighting WW3, we just don't recognize it. It is an incremental war, but there are tactics being used, armaments, and attempted diplomacy. The UN is defining the sides by their voting for resolutions. People are already divided there into friendly and unfriendly. People just think that because there are no boots actually on the ground in Ukraine other than people living there, they are safe, when in reality the entire world is at risk because of that one man, and one government.

There is absolutely no reason to make some rule that Putin can't be touched, or Russia can't be touched. They can be. What Putin is doing in Mariupol is the same as any concentration camp, any ghetto created. And, we are on the sidelines watching.

They always say that as soon as the conversation devolves into Hitler comparisons that it should end. But, look at the perspective. Putin is a modern day Hitler. He really is. He is carrying out the same, horrifying crap that Hitler did. And, we are doing the same things that we did last time. The US supplied Britain with military materials in WW2 before we HAD TO JOIN in the fight. When Japan breached that line, it was on. So, I hear Ukraine pleading that the line has been breached in their country. And, we are just watching, the same way we did before we had to join in WW2. It's just that we are being pulled over the line, little by little. I think that Russia is counting on both China and India to back them, push come to shove with the US and NATO.

So, IMO, it doesn't much matter whether a country is a member, a partner, or some stupid country just waiting for the outcome. We are all involved in it. Let's face it. We need to capture Putin. Why he did this, we'll never know, except that power corrupts. Whatever we think we learned about Hitler, we can apply to Putin. Never in my lifetime did I think that this would happen. You can't be friendly with someone like this. There is nothing to save here.

I'd move up the G20 summit schedule. Why are they holding it in October? I'd extend that invitation to him, and nab him there. It would not be a dirty deed. It would be saving the world.

Same thing for Lukashenko.

I probably didn't fully understand your comments. I am just truly viscerally upset over the thought of little kids starving to death because of Putin's desire to own their seaport. I know a measure of someone's character is how they treat other people during times of disaster or distress. I trust Joe Biden to do the right thing. But, almost daily my anger compels me to imagine Moscow bombed to rubble. Good thing I am not President.

And, I live on the WC of the US, and so when the missiles fly, I'll probably go in the first volley. If I don't, I'll be out there following orders. Nothing much else I can do. The only other thing I can think of is to make sure to GOTV. Having a Republican president will probably kill me, anyway.

ColinC

(8,282 posts)
52. You just made my point for me.
Sat Mar 26, 2022, 04:43 PM
Mar 2022

Thanks.

"Reconsider partnership" in having more involvement not less.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If this is how NATO treat...