The action in Syria reminded us of its neighbor to the north, Turkey, whose views on global geopolitics seem to be quite different from the U.S.’s (and much of Western Europe’s) views.
So we agreed to discuss the NATO alliance and the varying geopolitics “bents” of many of its members–especially those whose perspectives differ materially from the mainstream–such as, perhaps, Hungary and Turkey.
Is the alliance structurally suitable to accommodate those who are active intermediaries with Putin’s Russia? Is there a fundamental misalignment of values amongst the member countries? What “veto” rights can individual members assert, and how can they affect NATO’s effectiveness?
Here are some links from one of our participants:
- The NATO website (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm) with background information about the organization, its history, a list of current member states, and the text of the North Atlantic.Treaty that created it.
- A July 2023 opinion piece in The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/opinion/nato-summit-vilnius-europe.html?smid=em-share) arguing that NATO is not the mutual defense organization it purports to be.
- A Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO) describing the history of NATO enlargement, the criteria and process for admitting new members, and the list of the three current aspirant countries (Bosnia and Herzogovina, Georgia, and Ukraine).