Talk:Enlargement of NATO

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
I want to make a small edit instead of 30 countries that have ratified the protocol, Sweden's accession to NATO should be replaced by 31 Vladislav Davydenko (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ The latest word is that it will be made official at 11:15 EST today, about 2 hours from now. Don't worry, there will be a flurry of updates once that happens! -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 14:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sweden: 9th or 10th enlargement
Thank you for updating the map to reflect Sweden's membership. I see that you have Finland and Sweden in different colors. Do we know of any sources that say Finland was round 9 and Sweden was round 10 of enlargement, as opposed to both being in round 9? If they are both 9, then I think the map colors would have to be the same, and if they are 9 and 10, then I think the colors would have to be different. I don't think this situation has happened before in NATO's history.  Ergo Sum  15:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey friend, good question. I don't have an answer, but maybe I would watch this page on the NATO website for how they denote it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is getting ahead of NATO's own website. But if they are the same color, then I'm not sure how to note it in the legend in that SVG. Would it just be one box with "2023-2024"? -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 15:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Alerting you to this discussion, given this edit.  Ergo Sum  17:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It appears that NATO has updated that page to include Sweden and its 2024 accession, but still refers to 9 rounds of enlargement. So can you make Finland and Sweden the same color on the map (preferably the one that Finland previously was)?  Ergo Sum  17:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, I see that, and while I somewhat wonder if it's an oversight on their part, I think the question I'll come back at you with is whether the colors/table rows are for the round or if they are for the year. The SVG we've had in this spot for a decade and a half doesn't list "Founders, Round 1, Round 2...", it has "1949, 1952, 1955...". I'll note there is 1990 on the map and table, which isn't, strictly speaking, a round of enlargement. Open to ideas for how to correctly note the situation though!
 * While we are discussing this summary table though, I do want to mention that it is very much not mobile friendly. Back in the dark ages,, there were only five rounds of enlargement and only an "iPhone" with no number, so perhaps this table/map setup is overdo for a rethink. -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a good point. Maps I've seen elsewhere seem to go with both approaches. I suppose it can be whatever WP finds most useful. I really like the table/map combo. I'd hate to lose it.  Ergo Sum  20:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that someone at NATO has reconsidered and concluded that there have been 10 rounds of enlargement. For the sake of consistency, would it be possible to reconcile the colors between your two wonderful maps: 1 and 2? Now that it is clear that there are 10 rounds, it would seem preferable to go with the greater contrast found in your GIF. What do you think?  Ergo Sum  00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hah, I wondered if that was an oversight, must be busy day for them I bet! Yes, I made GIF to match the new SVG I also worked up... but there were some opinions on the Commons about what brown Finland looked like. 💩
 * So I'm open to ideas! Updating the GIF takes much longer than changing the SVG, so I just want to do it once after there is some settlement about what colors to use. My concern about the colors now is that the two oranges are too similar, and I've never much liked the dark yellow, I'd rather have 4 shades of green, but I like that it follows ROYGBIV (backwards from blue). -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 01:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Accession protocol signed
The map which appears under the 'Current Status' section has as one of its sub-headings 'Accession protocol signed' and its associated colouring. That used to apply to Sweden but is now redundant. How do we get rid of it? Mrodowicz (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If you click on that map and view in on Commons, you will see that it has since been updated. That update will be reflected here and everywhere else on Wiki shortly.  Ergo Sum  13:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you - this has indeed been fixed now. Mrodowicz (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

1990-1991 assurances
Regarding this revision, it leaves out some important details. The spot where you placed the source I added was actually the original spot I was going to add it, with a different sentence, but it seemes better to go into the preceding paragraph with a what-because-why flow of information (ie first paragraph discusses what happened to give rise to this perspective, next paragraph goes into the subsequent consequences of this perspective/these assurances being made). The preceding paragraph discusses the actual assurances, ie Baker's famous remark, with the subsequent paragraph mentioning that the view these assurances were offered is not baseless. The source I provided covers numerous other statements than Baker's (Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner), and establishes: "Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO."

The article would benefit from going into more depth on this particular point. It does say the Soviet understanding wasn't baseless, but the reasons why should be expanded on further in the preceding paragraph (which I originally added the source to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropyandvodka (talk • contribs)
 * This "Soviet content" might be placed to the end of sections about Cold War or German reunification. We also need a separate section on Russia–NATO relations where all such matters can/should be described. These relations is a separate subject and an important one. My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)