Talk:Enlargement of NATO/Archive 1

Ukraine public opinion
The sentence "Current public opinion in Ukraine on NATO membership is not clear" is not only misleading, but it's original research. I've been google searching for the past 20 minutes, and every single poll result I find has the exact same results, that the majority are against joining, and less than a quarter are for. Therefore, the sentence "According to various independent polls conducted in 2008, public opinion in Ukraine on NATO membership is low with the majority against joining the military alliance," is completely truthful, backed up by multiple reliable sources, and represents the majority view. Government conducted polls cannot be used as an excuse to say public opinion is "not clear". We must use common sense in that one dubious and contradictory government conducted poll shouldn't be given undue weight in the overall consensus of public opinion and composure of the wording.Enairku (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, when I put that first sentence back it wasn't because I believed the government poll any more than the others, but that I wanted to see a poll conducted since the August troubles in Georgia before we said "Current" opinion was one way or the other. Feel free to update with any polls you find.--Patrick «» 01:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I haven't seen any polls conducted after July, but that doesn't mean current public opinion is unclear. Whether or not the Georgia conflict had an impact on public opinion is complete speculation and should have no effect on what we write in this article. Enairku (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found one conducted this month, interesting results. Enairku (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro: Liberal party reasoning
Presently, there is a remarkable reasoning in the Montenegro part:
 * "Nearly all present political currents support NATO admission. The exceptions include (...) the Liberal Party of Montenegro which favors military neutrality to the type of Iceland."

Iceland is a member of NATO, so how can Iceland be used as an example? Sijo Ripa (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I removed Iceland from that sentence, which probably refers to Iceland's cool reception to the EU. The sentence itself needs a source, especially for a weasel word like "nearly all".--Patrick «» 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support and Opposition in current members
How about a adding a section about support and opposition of expansion among current member states? --Amcalabrese (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Map of potential members
This article contains a map of potential members of nato, which has several categories which relate the attitudes of the countries toward Nato membership. I would just like to suggest that maybe there should be two categories of members which are not interested.... One category would be Neutral countries that are incompatible with NATO (Austria, Switzerland, etc), and the other would be Russia and Belarus, which are in competing military alliances or are otherwise antagonistic towards NATO. 142.192.10.50 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought about doing that. There are a few reasons why I don't get into more detail with regards to the map and a given nation's color. Countries like Ireland and Austria are very proud of their neutrality with regards to NATO, while Sweden and Finland are proud of their active participation in most NATO missions. Russia and Belarus are sort of the opposite of neutral towards NATO. I also note that the places I have as "Undecided" (Cyprus, Kosovo, Moldova, and Azerbaijan) could arguably be red as well, since none is actively trying to join, and this is probably the solution, to make all the rest grey. I don't like trying to read emotions into Wikipedia. The map primarily shows the status of a countries application.--Patrick «» 03:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do the maps in this article show Kosovo to be a country?
Hopefully a wiki respected editor will answer and not some radical extremist Serb or Albanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.75.157 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The law interpretation is in the hands of superpower (US) or great power (Russia). This article is wrong when it maps Kosovo as an independent country because Wikipedia is not a political institution such as UN, US, EU so it can't redraw Europe map like countries in the world. The Wiki admin is responsible for this fault.

I hope Wiki admin admits its mistakes. If it redraws Serbia map it also redraw Georgia map when Russia recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buianh (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the relevant Wikipedia rule in this situation is whether the organisation in question, here, NATO, recognises the polity/country, here, Kosovo, as an independent state or not. The precedent will be in all the MOS rules regarding Taiwan. I'll go and have a look.

Buckshot06(prof) 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked, I believe WP:MOSKOS is a much of a rule as we have on the topic. It would be best to lay your arguments out there, then eventually we'll get a rule applying to all Kosovo articles. Buckshot06(prof) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Kosovo, the Wikipedia rule is absolutely wrong and unacceptable and should be changed. Taiwan recognize Kosovo because it's US's ally and seeking to divorce from China and want to be recognized as an independent country.

I want to repeat that Wiki respected admin should change its attitude to Kosovo and respect international law. UN (proxy superpower), US, EU are not organisations to decide whether or not a country has its own sovereign, independence, intergral territorry. I remind Wiki admin that Vatican City is an independent country and not recognised by the UN through treaties athough UN and Vatican has close contact.

So, the Wiki rule is de facto but not de jure. If so, its other artices should take Abkhazia and South Ossetia out of Georgia map. Buianh (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that 'wiki admin' includes yourself? That's exactly what the Village Pump is for. In any case, I checked with a very experienced user, Kirill Lokshin, and he suggested that if one wishes to clarify the status of WP:MOSKOS and if/when it will be adopted, you take it up with someone like User:SandyGeorgia, who is involved with these kinds of issues. Buckshot06(prof) 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo is independent. Get over it. This country has been de facto independent for a long time, and finally got formal recognition from countries that have over 2/3 of world GDP. UN does not decide whether a country is sovereign or not, that's silly and history agrees with my point of view. There is no such thing as "international law", wake up. In international relations might makes right, and the rest are just guidelines that countries can respect or not, and if they don't nothing happens. Unless, some country can enforce it, not by a law but by being stronger. This means that if US wants to break any or all 'international laws' it can, and - nothing happens. If law can't be enforced, it's not a law. It's a list of good wishes. But if you don't want to listen, fine, go ahead, fantasize all you want. I'm sure that until UN votes on it, gravity won't work either. Oh wait.. JosipMac (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine pie chart
Today I removed this pie chart from the Ukraine section for the second or third time. I don't find it particularly attractive, and feel it looks out of place, since none of the other sections have any form of chart or graph. I also don't find it particularly easy to read, and feel the information is better presented in text format, which is now included in the paragraph. Thoughts?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of wikipedia is to inform people. Charts and graphs can be found on thousands of wiki pages, and I don't see why this one should be any different. I don't think it's proper to remove an informative graphic from an article just because you personally don't like the way it looks. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Since you keep trying to remove it and it keeps coming back, obviously not everyone agrees with you, which means you should not keep trying to remove it. You need a better reason to delete it than your personal opinion on aesthetics. (However I'm not suggesting you start improperly citing wiki policies to get your way, that would not be good.) LokiiT (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do realize it's an argument to avoid, but images are still an aesthetic choice, and that policy is really more for text or whole articles. And I also realize, LokiiT, that you are the only editor to put it back, but I was being polite. The actual file itself has issues. First, you can't read it from the thumbnail, neither the numbers nor the description. It should certainly be rendered as an SVG, and I also worry about using a Microsoft chart template. And while I don't mean to question the Russian agency which did the poll, I don't know why we should use that one and not another. It does seem that you picked the poll with the single lowest level of NATO support.
 * I feel the whole paragraph on charts should be summarized with one or two sentences, and a table should be created on the subpage, Ukraine–NATO relations, like the opinion poll tables seen on so many election articles. This would be a much better way of displaying information without either picking and choosing which poll to highlight or having a lengthy, number loaded paragraph here. Is that something you could help with?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 03:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Why do you say that policy is more for text? I think it goes for any type of content.
 * 2. You usually can't read charts by their thumbnail. That's why one can click on it, to enlarge the picture if they're curious. But even so, I think reading the description one could easily guess that red = against, and blue = for. It's not that difficult to understand. Besides, the image is certainly better than nothing at all. That's what I don't understand. Why do you prefer nothing over something? Do you think people are going to leave the page in disgust at this horrible image or what?
 * 3. I chose fom-Ukraine for no specific reason, only that they had the most up to date results at the time and I had to choose something. I don't know if you'll find any other independent pollster with vastly different results, give or take 3-4%. I don't appreciate the accusation that I chose that specific pollster for political/POV reasons because that's simply not the case. I could just as easily have used a Ukrainian source (albeit an outdated one), or a American-run gallup poll that shows almost half of Ukrainians view NATO as a threat, and only 15% view it as protection. But surely you don't want to add 2, 3 or 4 pie charts from different pollsters all with slightly different results?
 * 4. Regarding shortening the length, I agree, and in fact I tried to do this some time last year. But I gave up on that because someone kept reverting my changes, accusing my summary of being biased against Ukraine joining NATO because I wrote that most people were against joining. That's why I ended up adding all those different poll results; to prove the point that every poll except the government run one shows the majority of Ukrainians against joining NATO. But yes, I do think it needs to be summarized rather than listing all the different poll results, as long as we don't revert back to a fictional depiction of the Ukrainian public "being split" on the decision, which is what it used to say. LokiiT (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For those reasons there, yes, I do think no chart is better. It's a bad image. You didn't even remove the border on three sides or the large empty margins. Choosing any poll to make into an image will always be problematic. Election articles have consistently had issues with charts, particularly with individual polls, and I think that can be illustrative. And I'm sorry, but I don't see your edits from last year. Were you using a different account? I think if you used the term "most people" you would get reverted, since polls can only ever refer to the people polled. If I changed it to "opinion is split in nationwide polling, with opposition to NATO membership usually over fifty percent, and support for it usually close to twenty-five percent", would that offend anyone? I would also like to include in there somehow the mixed perception of NATO, which you mention there.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 05:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The border issue can easily be fixed. That's a non-issue. As for it being a "bad image", well for goodness sake it's a pie chart, what do you expect? Why don't you improve it if you think it needs improvement? I think you're just being unnecessarily picky, and those are not valid reasons to remove it altogether.
 * Yes I was editing under a different account. I was editing under the name Krawndawg and later Eniarku. And as it turns out, it was you who reverted me. It originally said "Current public opinion in Ukraine on NATO membership is not clear", which is obviously untrue. I then edited it to say "According to various independent pollsters, public support in Ukraine for NATO membership is low with the majority of people against joining", which is a 100% truthful depiction, as all independent polls support this statement. And apparently you now seem to be agreeing with that. But back then, you reverted it back to the original untrue statement, which prompted me some time later to again correct it and add another poll to prove the point. And now you're complaining again, not about the statement this time, but about the abundance in polls which I needed in order to convince you that the statement was true in the first place. LokiiT (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to address some of the issues raised here. The image border issue is resolved, and I made the font bigger so you can just barely read the legend from the thumbnail. I also re-worded and shortened the paragraph on public opinion, and added the above mentioned gallup poll since I think it's relevant and of interest. Anymore suggestions? LokiiT (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those edits are mostly fine, back then when it was fewer polls, I think it was easier to let three stand, whereas now there were five in the text plus your image. And again, polls reflect public opinion, and you can't say "the majority of Ukraine thinks..." only "the majority of those polled." Now, since the April 2009 poll is included in the text, I see even less point for a pie chart.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Greece wasn't alone
Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Germany supported the Greek veto. So, Greece isn't the only one to blame. At the article, it seems like "Bad" Greece to be thw guilty for not-FYROM's entry to NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.251.34 (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Map inconsistencies and other issues
In the map which illustrates future enlargement, considering what is written about Moldova, shouldn't it be coloured red to indicate "membership not a goal"?

Should something be written about Cyprus' aspirations possibly being vetoed by Turkey?

Also does anyone know anything about the relationship between Malta and the other microstates and NATO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.181.180 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Moldova's recent interest
Moldova had elections recently, it's communist party has been voted out of office. Look at this article:



There is also the press conference the prime minister had with Hillary Clinton you can see it at www.state.gov.

It appears that if Prime Minister Vlad Filat has his way, Moldova will join NATO. Contralya (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Future enlargement
The section Future Enlargement contains a paragraph about Finnland. This paragraph should be merged with the appropriate paragraph of Relations with other countries - Finnland. It is also written in a none NPOV. Although it gives a reference most of its content is either copied from the reference in a worse than school book fashion, badly cited or made up without providing a source. This paragraph should be overworked or deleted. 92.78.124.28 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine
Ukraine has to be recoloured red in the map, because NATO membership is no goal anymore. (More a goal in Moldova than in Ukraine, in my opinion.) Can anyone change this?--Stefan040780 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just started a discussion about this file over at Talk:NATO. But I don't think Ukraine should be red just because of Yanukovych. Its status under the Intensified Dialogue program hasn't changed, and nor has NATO moved to rescind its promise of future membership.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 21:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeating what I said in the NATO discussion linked above: It has been made abundantly clear that NATO membership is not a current goal for Ukraine. Implying otherwise is misleading, regardless of NATO's "official status" on Ukraine. The map is to demonstrate each country's own intent, not NATO's desires, and right now both the leadership of Ukraine and the Ukrainian public are against NATO membership. LokiiT (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine - Intensified Dialogue
I don't understand why the article is continuously edited to remove Ukraine from the ID list. The June 2010 decision of Ukraine not to seek NATO membership is relevant to its MAP aspirations, but not to the ID - Intensified Dialogue is an enhanced cooperation form, like IPAP vs. PfP-only - it does not guarantee (or include as goal) NATO membership for the participants. Anyway, if we are going to remove it from the ID list - I think that we need some source for official announcement (by Ukraine or by NATO) in this sense. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Intensified Dialogue is viewed as a additional stage before being invited to enter the alliance Membership Action Plan (MAP)" - This would be rather misleading to include Ukraine. LokiiT (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly - before being invited, eg. it does not ammount to invitation to join. I agree that there is some ambiguity here, but if we look at the timeline - Ukraine got ID before making official request to get membership. It later made this request, but was not granted MAP and now the request is dropped, but I haven't seen any news about ID being dropped too... Alinor (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ID is nothing more than a pretense to joining NATO. It serves no other purpose; what do you suspect the "dialogue" is about? The fact that Ukraine hasn't been formally dropped from ID means nothing in realistic terms. In fact, how do we even know? Do you think they'll make some big announcement about it? Unlikely. In order to continue including Ukraine in this category, we need an up to date source that specifically states Ukraine is still in ID despite its newly declared "non-alignment" stance. Then, if it is listed under ID, we need to make a note about that stance to make things completely clear. LokiiT (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. There should be a note explaining this. Also, getting announcement in either direction is not very probable, but we can't just "assume" things... Maybe there would be some Ukraine or NATO document about overall "foreign relations", where among other things it would be mentioned what's the current status of Ukraine-NATO relations (besides not aiming membership)... Alinor (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Weaselly, Woselly, Timey, Wimey
NATO is unlikely to invite countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland, where popular opinions do not support NATO membership. The policies of neutrality in these countries along with widespread public disapproval of membership make them incompatible with NATO.

This feels way too weaselly for comfort... -- とある白い猫 chi? 23:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Turkey not partner but owner of NATO
I came across this article where the current Turkish Foreign Minister repeated for the third time that Turkey is an owner or NATO, rather than a partner. Can this be included somewhere?

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-not-partner-but-owner-of-nato-fm-says-2010-10-30 Reaper7 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Turkey is a member state since the 50's. It is mentioned in the lead "During the Cold War, NATO grew with the admission of Greece, Turkey, West Germany, and Spain." which I feel is inadequate since Greece and Turkey became NATO members practically right after founding members unlike Spain which joined NATO much much later. -- とある白い猫 chi? 23:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely this is just some translational issue. He probably meant that Turkey is a "member" (just like US, UK, Germany, etc.), rather than a "partner" (such as Armenia, Serbia, and Sweden). In other words I think he did not understand that in English the phrase "NATO partners" is often used for those countries that hold membership in the organization and is quite different from members of the "NATO Partnership for Peace". --Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Austria, Ireland, Kosovo, Cyprus, Malta, Switzerland, Serbia
I think that we should have sub-sections for these in the "other relations" section - describing NATO relations, whether membership is a goal or not. It seems that Cyprus wants in, but Turkey objects (at least it objects Cyprus PfP participation); Kosovo wants in, but its status issue is the problem; Switzerland obviously sticks to neutrality; Ireland too; and what about Austria and Malta? Alinor (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Austria sticks to neutrality also, Malta doesn't seems to have any action around, but Serbia clearly opposed NATO and aligns them with Russia (due to NATO fought AGAINST them in the Bosnian War).--58.187.25.62 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Split off "Relations with other countries"
For several years now, I've lumped text on countries like Ukraine and Finland, which have dealt seriously with the political prospect of joining NATO over the years, in with others countries that just have relations with NATO, like India, whose had discussions with NATO regarding missile defense, not enlargement. This week, several empty sections and others with short paragraphs were added, again for countries that aren't looking to become NATO members. What do editors think about splitting off the "Relations with other countries" section into a new article, NATO relations with other countries or similar? We could move info there about countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Russia, Australia, India and Mongolia, as well as summaries of other articles like Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. Eventually, I would like to have an article on the newish Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme, which Mongolia and Switzerland have signed on for so far, but that could start as a section in the new article. Thoughts?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a great idea. This article should focus on states which have been discussed as potential full members.  Other stats, which seek only to cooperate with NATO, would be better covered in a separate article.  TDL (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea to have NATO relations with other countries and Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme where relations not related to future membership are discussed. But the section "Relations with other countries" of the current article also includes content about discussions of future membership, so that falls in the Enlargement of NATO scope. If a split is implemented such content should be kept here and the NATO relations with other countries may link to the respective sections and/or include a brief summary. Japinderum (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I wouldn't suggest removing information on countries where there has been historically, or even currently, an open discussion about membership. So under the heading "Membership debates" we might keep Finland, Serbia, and Ukraine, which are ones where we can point to specific parties and individuals with positions on NATO membership.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 19:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I just went ahead with this split, since it didn't seem to attract any negative reactions. So subsections on Australia, India, Russia, etc are now located at Foreign relations of NATO. The four I left in place are Finland, Serbia, Sweden, and Ukraine under the heading "Membership debates" since domestic leaders and parties in these countries have historically debated NATO membership. Ideally, I'd like to build up the foreign relations article to be similar to Foreign relations of the European Union, or at least Foreign relations of the African Union, with a history section, a diplomatic missions section, and chart for the establishment of formal relations between the entities.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Colombia reference
Seems that it gets undue weight in the article. The president mentioned the possibility in the flow of a moment. The lower level US official gave a polite yet ambiguous response on it at most. On the same day several official statements were released to do officially rule out membership. So seems more like a political hiccup, not an official intention towards membership. Morgengave (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a Colombia section on Foreign relations of NATO that might be a better place for this info. I would say that to be included in the "Membership debates" section there has to be at least a political party or prominent government official advocating in favor of membership, and I'm not sure Colombia has that right now.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

criticism of enlargement, theoretical frame missing
In my opinion the article contains useful information, but lacks any form of theoretical frame and background, any form of reflexion on facts. Why is there an expansion? In whose interest? For that reason I suggest to include a "critcism"-section oder something similar to give space, for example, for George F. Kennans Views back in the 90s or to Paul Nitze, Robert Strange McNamara, Richard Pipes, Gary Hart and other experts who did not agree with Clinton's liberal concept of enlargement. --Gabel1960 (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reflection on facts is actually not for Wikipedia to do. What you are suggesting, and have added to the article, is generally considered original research and breaks with Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view principals. Understand that neutrality does not mean giving one argument followed by the opposing one, but instead minimizing pro and con arguments in favor of letting the facts on a subject speak for themselves. As to the content, the Russian viewpoints on the 1990 negotiations over East German are expressed in the introduction of this article, twice on the NATO article, including in some detail, and have a whole section of the article about the treaty. This additional text just further adds to the undue weight the topic already receives. What I can say is that the article NATO–Russia relations is in need of more attention, and might a better place for these ideas. I hope you understand why we have to remove these additions from the article.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 13:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving reasons for your decision to remove my extension to the article. I have seen your entry just now, I am sorry. I first thought you had acted without discussion. Most of your reasons are convincing, there may be another section for critical views on the treaties. But your main objection, I think, is not valid, because referring the well-documented views of experts on political matters is something far from "original research" or personal views on the matter. I do not invent my own geostrategic interpretation or theory but cite the analyses of well-known experts from reliable and well-accepted "mainstream" sources. Gabel1960 (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So this is what I think we can do. The "Past enlargements" section is puny, and is mostly one large chart. Today, I've tried to fill it out to describe the enlargements in greater detail, including the controversies that accompanied the 1990 and 1999 enlargements. I've taken a paragraph from the larger NATO article on the 1990 topic that's been worked over by editors on both sides of this debate. Will this work? I'd also add that while "Criticism" sections can be found on other Wikipedia articles, editors are encouraged to incorporate the material when possible, and I think here we have that opportunity.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Patrick, I wasn't aware of the fact that it was you who made the latest revert. I thought it was a different person. Your suggestions are still useful - to work on Nato-Russian Relations, and your editorial work here was useful, too. But the following sentence in the previous version: "there are diverging views on whether negotiators gave commitments regarding further NATO expansion east.[7]" is cleary a distorted and obviously biased reference to the quoted source that says exactly the contrary - I ask you to read the article in Foreign Affairs. Leaving it like that would clearly be POV or something worse. Another point is structuring the text. I added headlines that structure the text in a meaningful way, I think. The enlargement of the critical views is essential for the topic. There is neither TF nor POV on my side. All the sources quoted are highly reputable.

I will check other aticles in Wikipedia for more suitable places, as you have suggested, but I still think that detailed information on the political processes behind decisions and interpretations of decisions by political scientists and other experts of international politics are an essential part of every article in Wikipedia. There is information on what and when, but also on why and to what effect in most articles on political or historical subjects. Gabel1960 (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC).
 * All I see is opinion. "40 former senators" said this, George F. Kennan thought that, Robert M. Gates said this. It's just quotes picked to be the most critical of this article's subject. WP:NPOV means neutral point of view. No point of view is acceptable, and I'm sorry but I'm sticking to that. And a line like "Clinton's decision to enlarge NATO up to the borders of Russia" betrays not just this bias, but a major misunderstanding here, as if Clinton woke up and chose to add Poland to NATO, and not that Polish politicians lobbied for and negotiated their membership over a decade with a myriad of political players.
 * So there are obvious issues with your edits on the macro-level, but then also in the text itself. It's clear your level of English is very good, but parts still read like they were put through Google Translate. One quote even in both English and German. The style of quotes violate the manual of style, and go against specific recommendations about the overuse of quotes and raise the prospect of their use being both indiscriminate and possibly copyright violations, since I can't even tell what is attributed. The use of semicolons as headers is not just wrong, it breaks Wiki markup language.
 * You brought up the Foreign Affairs article which surprises me, since the article is about the obsession opponents of NATO have with the idea that in 1990 there was some binding promise not to expand, and their use of that as a rhetorical cudgel. Before debunking it as a myth, the article does have lines like "the dispute over this sequence of events has distorted relations between Washington and Moscow ever since" which would be where I sourced the line "there are diverging views..." Again, I feel a line like that adheres to the WP:NPOV directive to present both sides without taking or giving undue weight to either.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * All the points you mention need to be clarified. I suggest a step by step discussion. So, if I manage to convince you in one point, we could agree on making small changes following the results of our discussion.


 * 1st point: your understanding of the Foreign Affairs article. The present text says: "... and there are diverging view(s) on whether negotiators gave commitments regarding further NATO expansion east." Apart from the non-information in this quote (the diverging views should be the content of the passage, the fact that there are diverging views is already known) it is not the essence of Elise Sarotte's article.

Her article is the answer to the question she puts forward at the beginning: "What, exactly, had been agreed about the future of NATO? Had the United States formally promised the Soviet Union that the alliance would not expand eastward as part of the deal?" and she has two answers:

a) "The evidence demonstrates that contrary to the conventional wisdom in Washington, the issue of NATO’s future in not only East Germany but also eastern Europe arose soon after the Berlin Wall opened, as early as February 1990. U.S. officials, working closely with West German leaders, hinted to Moscow during negotiations that month that the alliance might not expand, not even to the eastern half of a soon-to-be-reunited Germany."

Most of her detailed analysis deals with the newly revealed and formerly secret documents that prove the promises given to Gorbatschow and Sarotte reveals also the motives behind the different moves (reunification, Bush's policies, Gorbatschow's economic problems etc.). All of this seems to be, at least to me, quite new information, based on facts, not on points of view, claryfying the question of how, by whom, why and for what purpose, the eastward expansion of NATO had been prepared, thereby intentionally ignoring Russian interests, their wish even to join NATO or a pan-European security system.

b) Sarotte's second answer is that there has never been a formal written agreement.

So, in referring to Sarotte as a valuable source to the question whether there had been a promise or not, it would be misleading to simply write she states "diverging views", because doing so would mean withholding the very essence of her analysis.

Apart from the two answers ("Yes, there were purposeful and partly well-meant oral promises to Gorbatschev to get him to approve of reunification"; "No, there was no formal agreement") she presents a very interesting conclusion: Even if you cannot charge the US/EU of a broken formal promise it is understandable that the effect of "roughshodly" "pulling somebody over the barrel" (:-) google translate, in Sarotte's words: "U.S. officials and their West German counterparts had expertly outmaneuvered Gorbachev") was a deep mistrust and bitterness on the Russian side, containing "the seeds of a future problem" (Baker).

If, as I hope, my analysis of Sarotte's article should convince you, I would propose to cut out the meaningless phrase stating "diverging views" and replace it the phrase I used: "... due to resarch into formerly secret documents, there are clear proofs of oral promises given by Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Helmut Kohl and James Baker not to expand the NATO "one inch eastward", adding "oral" to my further version.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabel1960 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * One item I would note, is that part of the paragraph is taken whole cloth from the After the Cold War section on the NATO article, so there's been various discussion about it both in the history and in the talk (now archived) and any changes we make here should probably be made there too. The sentence about "diverging views" is just trying to set up the sentences that follow, where these views are presented. I'm not sure the reader would necessarily know that there are different viewpoints, so I do think we need to mention that not everyone agrees on the topic, but if you have a better way to phrase that, feel free to suggest. I've been frustrated by the amount of attention this one issue has taken, since all the text needs to reflect is that some scholars and Russians politicians/diplomats feel one way, while other scholars and diplomats feel another, and I think the current paragraph does that. The secret letter is one of the "declassified documents" that is mentioned in the next sentence.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You say: " since all the text needs to reflect is that some scholars and Russians politicians/diplomats feel one way, while other scholars and diplomats feel another" I don't think this is the essence of Sarotte's text, because to arrive at such conventional wisdom, you do not need political science or history. She says "The evidence demonstrates that contrary to the conventional wisdom in Washington, the issue of NATO’s future in not only East Germany but also eastern Europe arose soon after the Berlin Wall opened, as early as February 1990. U.S. officials, working closely with West German leaders, hinted to Moscow during negotiations that month that the alliance might not expand, not even to the eastern half of a soon-to-be-reunited Germany." So it is her work of resarch into documents and the results she presents that are worth mentioning, not the starting point before research was done, that one side is in favour of A and in favour of B.

I think you are right, the phrase was imported from the article on "NATO after the cold war". But that doesn't give it more sense, so I have put the issue into the discussion section, there, too. I looked into the archives there, but I didn't find a discussion of Sarotte's article.Gabel1960 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I think we do go into the evidence in the subsequent sentence, I believe using an article from Der Spiegel, so the Foreign Affairs article isn't the only source, and I'm not sure its typical for Wikipedia to rely solely on one as I think you're suggesting. To be frank, Sarotte's article might not even be a great source, even if it is a good summary of the issue. Foreign Affairs as a publication has a generally pro-internationalist bent, and its publisher, the Council on Foreign Relations, though certainly full of experts on the subject, is a Washington Think Tank, not neutral journalism outfit. And if we can keep the discussion on one Talk page, I think that would be best to prevent fragmented discussions. Thanks!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a pleasure to discuss matters with you, because you seem to be well-informed on the matter and also much more experienced in the English wikipedia than am. You seem to refer to the subsequent sentence in the wiki-article, and there is in fact some of the evidence Sarotte gives in her Foreign Affairs article, but no all, and not in detail. The Spiegel-Article you refer to, is no second source, I am afraid, but only a partial literal translation. Even without knowing German, you can easily check that by running google translate over the Spiegel text. I think the policy of wikipedia rather supports references to the original than to translations. Even so, the translation in the Spiegel shows that Sarotte's analysis is seen as quite important by the most prestigious German news magazine.

Your description of Foreign Affairs is accurate, I think, but it is, nevertheless, the most influential and prestigious scientific journal on international politics in the US. Quoting it, seems to be legitimate. You are right, there is a bias and a connection to a think tank. But please tell me of the "independent journalistic sources" you have found, and their views on the matter without showing any bias. The most important thing for wiki is to differentiate clearly between facts and views, I think we agree on this point. Sarotte refers to facts, and those should be incorporated, I think. The facts are partly mentioned in the subsequent sentence, but not all relevant ones. And the summary of her article by saying, she had found out that "there are diverging views", is more than just ridiculous, it is misleading and ignores the main points of her analysis. By the way, because you are interested in facts, I suggest to you the following video, by Tagesspiegel, a news format of the German ARD, showing clearly the promises made publicly by Genscher in the presence of Baker:. Gabel1960 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mean I added the source so I do believe its fine to use the way we do, just I wouldn't want to use it alone. But so you don't want to say there are different views on the 2+4 negotiations? Again, that's just to set up the viewpoints in the paragraph, like Gorbachev and Zoellick. I changed it to "the topic of further NATO expansion east was raised." Is that an option?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Russia and NATO
I don't have too much time on my hands to get things right, but I know there's an editor willing to work on this article, at least, for now. I think one thing this article is missing is Russia's aspirations to join NATO (not something people are currently discussing, yeah, but it's totally worth mentioning). For example, this header is pretty clear: Yeltsin says he wants Russia to join NATO, and even Putin didn't rule that out in 2000: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/transcripts/putin5.mar.txt (Is it possible Russia could join NATO? -- I don't see why not.) --R8R (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is the article NATO–Russia relations that does discuss the topic, and a section at Foreign relations of NATO, and yes, any editor that can touch those up should, they're perpetually in need of updates. I think, as I've suggested before, to be included in the "Membership debates" section there should be multiple politicians or parties that explicitly support NATO membership. I don't think anyone in the current Russian government is actively campaigning on the idea of NATO membership, and the idea is purely academic.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 20:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I should mention I was specifically caught by this line: "In 2009, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin did not rule out joining NATO at some point, but stated that Russia was currently more interested in leading a coalition as a great power." This is not the article to go deep into this topic, but I believe a short mention would be helpful. Like: "Although after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia declared it wanted to join NATO,[1] this never happened; in 2009, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin did not rule out..." After all, the politicians in power in Russia wouldn't openly talk about NATO membership even in distant future these days (geopolitical situation in 2009 was much different than now), so the current line is not exactly up to date either. Not to say this would comply with, say, the Colombian president's line--R8R (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Enlargement of NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418174843/http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37356.htm to http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37356.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205022148/http://www.angus-reid.com:80/polls/view/30120 to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30120

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Enlargement of NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206200940/http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm to http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206022902/http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48830.htm to http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48830.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417085734/http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48830.htm to http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48830.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30120
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231149/http://www.eucom.mil/mission/the-region/montenegro to http://www.eucom.mil/mission/the-region/montenegro
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716013153/http://www.military.ie/en/overseas/current-missions/isaf/ to http://www.military.ie/en/overseas/current-missions/isaf/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112045834/http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50100.htm to http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50100.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206200940/http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm to http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Enlargement of NATO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109232942/http://dalje.com/en-croatia/no-smoking-law-alcohol-limit-yes-referendum-no/111642 to http://dalje.com/en-croatia/no-smoking-law-alcohol-limit-yes-referendum-no/111642
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150109232952/http://dalje.com/en-croatia/slovenia-ratifies-croatias-accession-in-nato/232508 to http://dalje.com/en-croatia/slovenia-ratifies-croatias-accession-in-nato/232508
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209180451/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/60927/montenegro-hands-over-application-for-nato-s-map.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/60927/montenegro-hands-over-application-for-nato-s-map.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20160521123400/http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_NATO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-19-12-59-28 to http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_NATO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-19-12-59-28
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328042929/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/164962/bosnia-39-s-nato-hopes-39-depend-on-serbia-39.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/164962/bosnia-39-s-nato-hopes-39-depend-on-serbia-39.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419031103/https://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140412/ex-president-ahtisaari-calls-finland-join-nato-sweden to https://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140412/ex-president-ahtisaari-calls-finland-join-nato-sweden
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205075236/http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20031215IE6 to http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20031215IE6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205075241/http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20040120IE3 to http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20040120IE3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

1991 Commitment
I reverted an edit to the article earlier, and then put it back, but wanted to allow for a discussion. Both here and on the article NATO, I've seen editors really pack in several paragraphs on an alleged verbal commitment that American or European representatives gave about NATO expansion during the 1991 Two Plus Four negotiations. I have studied the issue, and conclude that there is very little substance to discuss here. It seems to be just the opinions of one biased observer vs those of another biased observer. If a line about NATO expansion was included in the treaty, then it would be notable, but dedicating a subsection of this article to hearsay is probably undue weight. We already have a good amount on the topic at Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, on the main NATO article, and here. The 2+4 Treaty was not with NATO but with six independent states, doesn't mention NATO, and Gorbachev has recanted his claims on the topic, which I think makes it less notable, rather than more. Further, I think it betrays a perspective that the article should avoid, one of a bipolar world with countries like a Risk board, seeing enlargement as NATO "advancing" rather than as individual countries that elected, and generally continue to elect, politicians in favor of a common military alliance. Thoughts?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 01:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As much as I hate this discussion (where the complete absence of any formal commitment seems not to matter somehow because of what some people think was agreed informally) this controversy is an actual thing. Just so long as it is made clear that there was no formal commitment and that there are doubts about whether any informal agreement was made, then it seems OK so long as the sources quoted are actually notable. FOARP (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
The whole article reads like a pro-NATO article. Who were the ones who wrote the article? NATO headquarter?

But anyway, aside from this, I think that the sources linked into the article must be reviewed a LOT more critically to really show that what is claimed, is true. To get a better overview, I would recommend that in particular when polls are done to:

a) show more polls in general, even critical ones rather than the default "public opinion increasingly shows a pro-NATO attitude" bla bla

and

b) ensure that these links are coming from somewhat objective sources. I would assume that university staff in unrelated countries may be a good source, among others. Better than media outlets owned by private interests for sure. As a reader, I don't want to read propaganda, no matter in which way - I want to focus on the FACTS. 2A02:8388:1603:CB00:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Articles by random academics are not "facts" FOARP (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We need a "Russian opposition" section
At the moment there's something like a very slow edit-war where "Russia opposes this" gets added in bits across the entire article, and then other editors edit in "but it's popular". Let's put all the "Russian opposition" stuff into a single section and deal with it there. FOARP (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support this move. Garuda28 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Northern Macedonia to NATO.
On February 6, 2019, NATO representatives signed a protocol on the accession of Northern Macedonia to NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.221.161 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added discussions at Talk:NATO and Talk:Accession of North Macedonia to NATO, but the timing to when to add North Macedonia to the various tables/maps is very close. I expect some editors will want to jump the gun just a bit, which is understandable. In the past, the final depositing a new member's signed agreements was accompanied by a delegation and flag-raising in Brussels within two to three weeks of the final country depositing their agreement. That said, with NATO HQ on lockdown due to COVID-19, its possible it will be a more muted event over the weekend or Monday. Either way, there will likely be ample reliable sources reporting on it then, so there's no worry that it'll be missed or not added to this article. Lastly, a heads-up to editors here that news about new members in the past has led to spikes in vandalism and disruptive editing, particularly if it makes it to the front page in the News section.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

More on 1991 Commitment
The "German reunification and relations with Russia" section has grown very large once again, I have a lot of opinions on why that's an issue, but I'll try to summarize my feelings on it briefly. It's a section full on non-notable opinion, hearsay and rumor, and doesn't really belong on an article presenting facts and history. I think the premise misleads readers, perpetuating a Cold-War narrative of the West "expanding" that rejects the democratic will of millions people within NATO's post 1991-members and their ability to chose their own leaders and their own future. NATO was not a party to the 2+4 treaty, and there is no tangible impact of the issue on the topic of this article, NATO expansion. I'm tagging the section as WP:UNDUE because, among the issues of excessive weight, we have unnecessary opinions of sixteen "experts" highlighted:
 * Manfred Wörner
 * Mark Kramer
 * Christopher Clark
 * Kristina Spohr
 * Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson
 * Marc Trachtenberg
 * Svetlana Savranskaya
 * Tom Blanton
 * Hannes Adomeit
 * Boris Yeltsin
 * Jack Matlock
 * Hans-Dietrich Genscher
 * James Baker
 * Mikhail Gorbachev
 * Eduard Shevardnadze
 * Robert Zoellick

I have heard of about six of these people. Why are they here? I feel strongly that this all deserves one sentence, maybe two. "Some political historians and politicians felt representatives from NATO countries expressed commitments regarding further expansion at this time." Period, that's all the article needs to say, no rebuttal. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we give one argument and then the opposite, it means we just stick to clear, citable facts.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 00:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your overall point, although I think that issue still needs some coverage considering how much attention it has received. I would say the basic points that should be covered in succinct manner are:
 * 1. Current Russian government claims that promises were made and later broken.
 * 2. No formal commitment was ever given.
 * 3. Various politicians and historians disagree whether statements by some western diplomats could be considered informal promises.--Staberinde (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm probably coming off a bit stubborn there. Yes, I'm not opposed to some limited, on-topic coverage, as you suggest. It's all just a bit off topic, since, so far, there hasn't been a nation that held off or delayed their NATO membership because in 1991 there may or may not have been a commitment. The article on the 2+4 agreement, for example, is a more relevant location, and does already include a section on this issue, and giving more background to the Russia–NATO relations article makes total sense. Either way, I'd really like to pare down the number of experts here. Like if a car drives by, the Wikipedia article about it shouldn't say "A car drove by and Jack, a respected car enthusiast, said it was probably black, but Mike, whose friends claim they saw the car, said it was red." The Wikipedia article should just say "a car of uncertain color drove by." Thanks-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 12:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep the coverage re supposed promises to Yeltsin & Russia. this is a serious matter of major importance to NATO, Ukraine and Russia. The people mentioned are mostly leading scholars or politicians whose statements carry real weight on this issue. Wikipedia is very widely read on current issues because of its good coverage of high profile issues like this. Rjensen (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess I disagree that it is of "major importance", it really seems like more of a historical footnote, there just isn't any long term impact one way or the other. One of the citations we use, from the Guardian, goes into why there does seem to be lingering bitterness and using the term "false memory syndrome", lays out why the revival of the grievance in the 2010s plays into Russian propaganda. But again, we don't need to mention that, nor any of this back and forth from "leading scholars" (again, going to disagree on that term) in this article. Going back to Staberinde's items to include, it looks to me like the first two paragraphs of the section accomplish that, do you agree?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 16:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am personally leaning towards idea that we should move most of the details from here to the relevant section of Two Plus Four Agreement, which seems to have some POV issues about it at the moment anyway, while keeping here a much shorter summary outlining main aspects of dispute, without getting into specific details like which individual scholars support which viewpoint or whatnot.--Staberinde (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving text to another article feels a bit like just kicking the can down the road. But yes, that is an option! Another spot it might make sense in is here: Russia–NATO relations, I imagine a paragraph like "Additionally, Vladimir Putin has raised the issue of expansion being a broken promise...". Similarly, I can see a sentence here that mentions 1991 in the Georgia section (like the 4th paragraph?) or Ukraine section, as long as it's presented as part of Russian reaction to Georgia or Ukraine.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 00:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the topic is notable and has received quite a bit attention, so it makes sense to cover it in detail somewhere. As whole dispute is about whether there was some promise given during negotiations of 2+4 agreement, it makes sense for that article to be primary location for that information. In articles about Nato expansion or Nato-Russia relations it is more peripheral information, and should be summarized in a few sentences.--Staberinde (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to update, I haven't seen any other comments in the last two weeks, so I went ahead with moving some text to Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, and condensed the rest. Hopefully any further issues and future changes can be discussed here. Thanks!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Расширение НАТО on Russian Wikipedia
This article needs to be added to the languages section. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%88%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A2%D0%9E

NATO Expansion is the article, a better title than the English version to. Quiet2 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Plenty of alternative sources found there using google translate chrome extension. Quiet2 (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Renamed to NATO Enlargement from Enlargement of NATO
More apt title without the extraneous  preposition

Rewrote first sentence

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization Enlargement (NATO) is the process of including new member states into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Adding the full title of NATO as is best writing practices. Quiet2 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think I'm going to move the article back to "Enlargement of NATO". I understand you feel the "of" is extraneous, and I'm happy to discuss further, but that is the preferred style across Wikipedia. We have Category:Enlargement of NATO, Template:Enlargement of NATO, articles Foreign relations of NATO, Enlargement of the European Union, Enlargement of the United Nations, Category:Enlargement of intergovernmental organizations, etc. If you feel strongly that all of these articles, categories, templates need to be changed, maybe start a proposal or Request for Comment on a page like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations? It's also generally good practice to propose moves first. You can read more about it at WP:MOVE. Thanks-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 14:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

NPOV of German reunification section
I just tagged this section with NPOV for the following reasons:
 * Insufficient facts of what happened between NATO and USSR
 * POV on pro-NATO, misrepresents facts that were declassified in the US National Security Archives found here (eg. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance to Gorbachev on February 9, 1990; and  January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher mentioned in open bidding that NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.)
 * Missing position that the scope of Baker and Genscher assurances  the agreement at the time referring solely east of Germany, and broader Eastern Europe issues never came up
 * Conference transcripts indicating Genscher the non-extension assurance to apply not just to eastern Germany but to Eastern Europe as a whole
 * paper looking at the issue from UCLA -- made this post on 15 February 2022.
 * Hi, Cs california, just moving this comment to the bottom of the page for chronology, and heads up that you might want to sign your posts. I have tried hard to maintain a neutral page, and understand that other editors have very strongly held views on this NATO promise issue. We've discussed this a number of times here on the talk page (above and in archives), but the crux is that it isn't that important of an issue for this topic, and has only merited discussion in the last ten or fifteen years, as it became more of a talking point in Russian propaganda, which is fine, and we note in the article. There are other articles that discuss the 2+4 agreement in more detail, but NATO wasn't a party to that agreement (nor was Russia, depending on definitions), nor is this promise written in any document that any country's representatives signed.
 * I do agree with what Marc Trachtenberg is saying in that article you link to, that it is understandable why Russians today see this as a broken promise, but that's just not what happened historically in 1990, 1999, 2004, or the other years that countries freely chose to join NATO. Hans-Dietrich Genscher is not NATO. What he said could be interpreted by scholars as an "informal commitment", which is why the article says, in the most neutral way possible, "Whether or not the West informally committed to not enlarge NATO to the East is a matter of dispute among historians and international relations scholars." If you have suggestions for how to make that more neutral, they're always welcome. I for one dislike the term "the West", as being vague and imprecise, so perhaps it could say "Whether or not Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker, as representatives of NATO countries, informally committed to not expand NATO...". I'm happy to leave the banner up while we discuss. Thanks-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 15:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a response, but I went ahead and implemented that suggestion today. Let me know what you think, and if you still feel we need to banner the section as disputed NPOV. I did try to address your second and third bullets by specifically naming "east of East Germany" and both Baker and Genscher, and the Trachtenberg paper is one of the sources we use (the shorter published version from International Relations). To the first bullet point, I'd say that's not really a matter of NPOV, and that this page/section really isn't the place for more info on NATO-USSR relations (the article Russia–NATO relations is one that is, and is always in need of more work). Thoughts?-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 19:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Renamed the section ===German reunification and promises to not expand NATO === seems like the point of the current crisis in Ukraine is being buried.
 * German reunification and promises to not expand NATO

CNN

Will Vladimir Putin turn the Second Cold War into a hot one?

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/01/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-cold-war-hot-war-analysis-intl/index.html 2007 Munich Security Forum speech mentioned

Munich speech of Vladimir Putin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiet2 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Quiet2, we do link to the article on the 2007 Munich speech in the sentence about Putin, and I think it is accurate to add a reference to the ongoing use of this perception to the mention of "Russia's 2014 actions". I don't think the subsection needs to be renamed, again I think the promise issue can quickly veer of the topic of this specific article, and sticking to the who/how/when of NATO enlargement is the best way to keep it focused.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 14:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah it looks a lot better--Cs california (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll take the banner down then. Feel free to continue the discussion or put it back if it's necessary to draw editors here to the talk page.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 23:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved  Mike Cline (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Enlargement of NATO → NATO enlargement – No reason to be capitalised. Eurohunter (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Colin M (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article back to Enlargement of NATO. Happy to use this move discussion as a place to discuss the "of" in the article title, but that is the style these Wikipedia articles use, so I don't see a need to do this further move.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 14:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've changed the link of the article's title in the nomination statement from NATO Enlargement to Enlargement of NATO so this move request doesn't show up as malformed on WP:RM. Steel1943  (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support (I presume this is a rejected technical move). 1, it should not be capitalized per longstanding WP policy; second, the "of" formation (when optional) is a bit ostentatious and is not actually the style we prefer at Wikipedia: we pretty consistently use compound nouns if we can. WP:CONCISE is also in favor of the move. Red   Slash  19:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * support renaming per red slash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiet2 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming As mentioned by it doesn't follow the pattern of other Category:Enlargement of intergovernmental organizations articles. Garuda28 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I actually don't have a preference between "Enlargement of NATO" or "NATO enlargement", and yes, if it is the second, yes the E should be lower case. My concern as I mentioned, is that this article match Enlargement of the European Union, Enlargement of the United Nations, Enlargement of ASEAN, and the others in that category mentioned above. That's why I had suggested Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations may be a better place for this wider discussion.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 01:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY Oppose moving from "Enlargement of NATO". It should stay at "Enlargement of NATO" to be WP:CONSISTENT with the other Category:Enlargement of intergovernmental organizations articles (Enlargement of the European Union, Enlargement of the United Nations, Enlargement of ASEAN, etc.). Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "NATO enlargement" sounds very strange. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't like either title. But the move argument is nonsensical; we don't re-arrange titles so the first word of the title is the proper noun in order to minimize the number of capitalized words. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support NATO enlargement is the WP:COMMONNAME. Pilaz (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Support NATO enlargement is significantly more common I checked some others, and "X enlargement" is also more common for both the EU and ASEAN so some of the other titles should be looked at. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Buidhe. Proposed name is both more WP:CONCISE and seemingly more the WP:COMMONNAME, so a bit of a no-brainer really. It might be that other articles should be moved too, but that needn't hold up this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Garuda28, Paintspot Infez, Korny O'Near, User:力 and per comment by Patrick Neil. "Enlargement of..." is a standard main title header form on English Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose since the rationale is lame. Enlargement is capped because we use sentence case for titles. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no real rationale. Consistency with Enlargement of the European Union, Enlargement of the eurozone, Enlargement of the Eurasian Economic Union, Enlargement of the United Nations, etc.. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not much to say that hasn't already been said. "NATO enlargement" sounds too informal to be the name of a Wikipedia article. ProjectHorizons (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. NATO is the object, not the subject. 'NATO enlargement' sounds like something that is built into the system, i.e. that it has some sort of natural or inevitable tendency to enlarge itself. Walrasiad (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is much better English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - Should NATO be displayed in the infobox as a support belligerent providing indirect military aid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC_-_Should_NATO_be_displayed_in_the_infobox_as_a_support_belligerent_providing_indirect_military_aid%3F

Maxorazon (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT "What Gorbachev heard", and what did the Allied negotiators actually say?
The article references a National Security Archive document (2017) called "What Gorbachev Heard."

On Feb. 25, I added an account of what Gorbachev himself told Russian state media that he heard about NATO expansion.

Soon, in two edits, added new material right after Gorbachev's own statement. His additions bring to 3 the number of separate references to "What Gorbachev Heard," and give the inaccurate impression that those documents refute what Gorbachev himself remembered. I think this is giving undue weight to vaguely-phrased material over clearly-phrased account by Gorbachev, but I would like to know what other editors think. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @HouseOfChange I've been trying to maintain this article for years now, and it's frustrating how often this comes up, but any sentence that starts "According to..." really should not be here on Wikipedia. I feel that saying it's a topic of debate among scholars is how we keep the section NPOV, and making any of the arguments, even when prefaced with "according to" breaks that neutrality. Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 18:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The "clearly-phrased account by Gorbachev" of "what Gorbachev himself remembered" is a primary source, which should be avoided. See WP:RS and WP:RSPRIMARY. selfworm Talk ) 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * To be clear, this is the quote you're referring to, right?

RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.
 * "M.G." is Mikhail Gorbachev and "RBTH" refers to Russia Beyond The Headlines (now called Russia Beyond) with Maxim Korshunov being the person conducting the interview on behalf of RBTH. selfworm Talk ) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is permissible to WP:USEPRIMARY on wikipedia, and desirable in certain cases like this, but no . Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Attn, please read and affirm, or else withdraw from this content dispute. Jaredscribe (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a notable and newsworthy "debate" about negotiations between semi-belligerents, and the various POV should be accurately reflected, and attributed. Thus "According to" is a necessary usage in this type of section; we shouldn't presume to put everything in wikivoice, because the wiki is much less omniscient than usual on controversial questions of once-classified foreign policy.  Also the POV of the CIA director Robert Gates on expansion is a notable POV that should be reflected in this article..
 * Also concurs and has added some citations.  This is a newsworthy subject, should be expanded, IMHO, because of pre-existing pro-NATO POV. The real question implied here is "What did America and the Allies Say?", and that is now our WP:encyclopedic duty to investigate and report. Please don't remove citations on this unless you move them to  Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "According to" is never a violation of WP:NPOV. It is a fundamental misunderstanding, if not a distortion, of NPOV. NPOV says:
 * It also says:
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Total concurrence with you Jarescribe. The article is very biased in general, and it's been very difficult to keep something as important and primary sourced as this. It's discouraging. Jasandia (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Total concurrence with you Jarescribe. The article is very biased in general, and it's been very difficult to keep something as important and primary sourced as this. It's discouraging. Jasandia (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have read through a very good analysis of the Baker's promise issue: which sumarises the situation as follows:
 * 1) The "no one inch forward" promise was indeed made by Baker in his discussions with Gorbachev, as per his own notes.
 * 2) This would have meant that the western half of a unified Germany would be a member of NATO, and the eastern half of it would not.
 * 3) The National Security Council pointed out that it would be unworkable. So an amended concession was drawn up to state that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany, and the Warsaw Pact troops would remain for a set period. The treaty was signed on this basis.

So, the "no one inch forward" promise was indeed met in concrete terms, at least until the Warsaw Pact got disbanded. Had the original wording of the promise been used in the treaty, it would have precluded NATO's eastward expansion. So, the Russians argue (not just Putin) that the expansion was against the spirit of what was agreed. Baker's own notes say so:

I don't see how we can omit these debates from the article and still claim to be WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quoting our content policy on WP:NPOV to correct 's evident misunderstanding of it.  Now he should stand down from his assumed position of senior "managing editor", and refrain from making any more reversions or deletes from this article.  I'm not an admin, but IMHO, he and  should affirm their understanding of this policy, and also the policy on WP:USEPRIMARY sources which they have misunderstood, before any further "editing" or being allowed to "edit" other articles within this content field.  Constructive "contributions" are ok, but they shouldn't delete or revert anymore.  WP:Competence is required.  Thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It turns out that the article I quoted above is out of date because a full memorandum on the Baker-Gorbachev meeting is now in the public domain, which shows that even the "half-agreement" she gave to the US position is now overridden. I think I have also removed the web link to the Kramer-Shifrinson correspondence because it was incomplete. It showed Kramer's objections but omitted Shifrinson's response. The full correspondence available on the journal web site has Shifrinson pointing out that Kramer did not add anything new beyond his 2009 article. So the dichotomy presented in the article is false. Right now, there is WP:CONSENSUS among scholars that the Soviet understanding of the assurances is correct. It is even covered in full length books on NATO:
 * I have gotten busy with other matters this weekend. Otherwise, I would have worked on a revised write-up of the "no-expansion" pledges. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gotten busy with other matters this weekend. Otherwise, I would have worked on a revised write-up of the "no-expansion" pledges. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: New section on the Russian government's perceptions/reactions to the enlargement of NATO
Russian leadership's perceptions of NATO's enlargement (whether real or imagined, correct or incorrect) and their reactions to it are important enough that this topic should at a minimum have its own section or subsection, either in this article or another. The 2019 summary by Jakub M. Godzimirski "Explaining Russian reactions to increased NATO military presence" is just one source that describes Russian perception of NATO's enlargement and its important consequences for both Russia and other parts of the world.

Currently, information about this topic is scattered all throughout the article and there is also a lot of information that is missing.

Is there any opposition to including a section dedicated to this topic in this article? Or if not in this article then in some other more appropriate article (e.g. Russia–NATO relations or perhaps you can suggest another more appropriate article)? selfworm Talk ) 16:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can say that I would not support any opinion sections from any individual perspective. This just sounds like a criticism section is another garb, and I have serious doubts it could stay NPOV. Russia–NATO relations is an article on this topic, and that's probably a fine place for any well sourced material on NATO and Russia's relationship.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 01:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with editor Patrick Neil.178.223.28.200 (talk) 06:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Finnish polling
Taloustutkimus conducted another Finnish poll on NATO membership for EVA earlier this month (analysis, tables). I haven't added it to the article because it's basically just repeating what the last polling, already in the article, is saying, but in the event that the section gets split into its own article and, e.g., there's a comprehensive list of polls on the question or a deeper look instead of just headline for/against/DK, this would be a useful source, so I am leaving this note on the talkpage for any interested future editors. FrankSpheres (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * A few more sources I'm leaving here on the cutting-room floor in case they turn out to be handy later:
 * Interview with Tarja Halonen; her position's changed a bit from being defnitely anti-NATO and there might be some grist here for describing what the Finnish idea of Russia was (& hence Finland's perceived security environment) during the 1990s and through her term in office. (Katainen being pro-NATO is absolutely no surprise, though.)
 * Decided to use this one.
 * A poll and another.


 * FrankSpheres (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * A couple more things that might be handy later:
 * A March 3 article from the Atlantic Council on Finland and Sweden.
 * Another poll (68% yes, 12% no, 20% DK).


 * FrankSpheres (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Germany unification
The expansion of NATO is also discussed at Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany busection. Please link it. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 11:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've linked it myself. [May 14, 2022, 11:07] Please discuss it here if there are any objections. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 11:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Grouping of membership debates
I recently organised the membership debates by geography. I considered this useful as countries in similar regions often have similar membership debates regarding their relationship with NATO (e.g. Austria & Switzerland, Sweden & Finland, former USSR, etc.). However, since that time, numerous other groupings have been added which I do not believe add any value. For instance the "Central Europe" section now only contains three sentences concerning Austria and Swtizerland. Additionally, the "Southern Europe" section only contains the two sub-headings of "Cyprus" and "Malta" without providing any commentary on what links the two aside from their direction from the rest of the continent.

I propose an alternate organisation:
 * Nordic countries: while this is more of a cultural than a geographical grouping, it makes sense to group these together owing to their simlilar relationship with NATO. Both are currently considered likely to accede to NATO within a year and this grouping can be deleted when that occurs (or Intensified Dialogue commences or an MAP is implemented)
 * Eastern Europe: Countries of the former USSR. These countries face similar debates in that their relationship with Russia is defined by their status as former Russian/Soviet territories.
 * Southern and Western Europe: Countries with capitalist democratic governments that remained militarily neutral during the Cold War. Switzerland and Austria are classified as Western Europe under UN geoscheme. Ireland is also classified as Western Europe under the CIA. All three are classified this way under EuroVoc. I'd be satisfied referring to this as Western Europe but I realise that some would have an issue with classifying Malta this way. I'd prefer not to put Cyprus in this category but if that is the consensus, it can be put here.
 * Western Balkans: Territories of the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Kosovo). Historical relationship to NATO defined by the Yugoslav Wars. This entry has only two categories so I'd actually have preferred that this category be considered part of Southern Europe. It is defined as such in the UN Geoscheme but I recognise that former Yugoslav countries have quite different relationships with NATO compared to other nations in Southern Europe.

This would be much simpler than the current format with the potential for only three categories following the accessions of Sweden and Finland. An even simpler alternative would simply split them into Eastern (including Western Balkans) and Western Europe (including Nordic countries). Please let me know what you think. Thanks --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you that these groupings are unnecessary and I prefer them to all disappear... but if there would be a majority in favor of it (is there?), let's make them logical and consistent. I could agree with your ending proposal. "Southern and Western Europe" if it includes Finland, Sweden and Cyprus (next to Austria, Switzerland, Ireland and Malta). Then separately "Eastern Europe" (Moldova, Serbia and Kosovo = the former communist countries). And then the "Other countries" for the non-European debates. The unlikelihood of Cypriote membership is btw not due to its geography but due to its current territorial split. Under most definitions, Cyprus is considered (Southern) European (see also its membership in most European organizations) - and that seems a more logical fit than the "other countries" grouping which spans only geographically distant countries like Mexico, Colombia and Brazil. UlyssorZebra (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Positioning Cyprus in "Other countries" does not imply that its geography is the reason for the unlikelihood of its membership. It is simply a reflection of logic and consistency with the geographical groupings. The UN Geoscheme considers Cyprus to be part of Western Asia and the CIA World Factbook lists it as part of the Middle East. "Other countries already includes other Middle Eastern countries such as Israel and even European territories such as Scotland. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding Cyprus, both views - Asia or Europe - are valid and have their sources and arguments (see Geography of Cyprus) - yet in this context, it makes much more logical sense to include it in Southern Europe. There's afaik no requirement to alter article 10 for it to join (or at least this not a commonly held view), making it implicitly a European country in the context of NATO. I have moved Scotland to the Western Europe section as it belongs there. This also makes the "other countries" a clear non-European section. UlyssorZebra (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we need these groupings? I don't think there are that many countries. This "Mediterranean" subsection has three sentences, same with "Internal enlargement". It's all going to look the more out of place in June when, apparently, Finland and Sweden will be moving up a section to "Current status". Are we going to keep the heading "Western Europe" if it's just Ireland? I'm not even sure we should have a sentence about Cyprus, there really isn't a "membership debate" there, which is what the overall section is about.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that the "Mediterranean" and "Internal enlargement" section do not add value to the article. It's my view that it makes sense to provide more than to group countries together that contain largely similar commentary. I believe that grouping as "Western Europe", "Eastern Europe" and "Other countries" is preferable to leaving countries such as Austria, Switzerland and the CSTO states loosely grouped together in "Other countries". Doing so means that the "Other countries" section then relates to speculative changes to the nature of the alliance (e.g. geographical expansion) rather than accession of more European countries. Having said that, I'd prefer that there are no groupings to there being short and pointless ones purely for consistency. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the current headings are made unnecessarily complex. We used to have only three groupings (Western & Southern, Eastern, non-European). That seemed clearer and simpler, but I don't want to edit-war - I can live with the current headings. UlyssorZebra (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I also think that the subgroupings should go. The current scheme has Finland falling under 'Southern and Western Europe', which is actually kind of hilarious. There are sufficiently few potential candidates that I think presenting them without further subdivision beyond 'countries with enough prose to justify their own sections' and 'countries without enough prose to justify their own section' is the best option. With the particular historically-contingent set of countries that haven't joined NATO but still could if they wanted, there isn't any good geographic cleavage we can use, so any attempt at grouping them up is going to be awkward and tortured one way or another - as repeated attempts to find one have shown. FrankSpheres (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposed subsectioning. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 12:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Overhaul for GA
NATO has enlarged quite a bit since 2015, when the article received its GA. Montenegro and Albania have joined since 2017 and recent developments regarding the Finland and Swedens accession might also need to be addressed. Pinging, I'll try to help and update what I see as fit.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

In the news proposal
There's been several WP:ITN proposals in the last month to put a blurb about Finland, Sweden, and NATO on the homepage in the "In the news" section at the top right. Editors here might be interested to comment on the current proposal, I think there's a decent chance this one goes up there. And if it does, just a reminder that that sort of prominence often leads to a lot of new editors, also potentially some vandalism. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 19:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have seen this a bit late but I would have also argued that this might be worth an ITN. The reasoning there was a bit different but not definitive. I guess we need to wait and argue a bit better next time. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it unfortunate that the outcome was to not post... Do you believe the 'next time' will occur before they actually join? The opponents of this ITN mostly said that this should only be posted after entry is accepted and takes place definitively... LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

George W. Bush about Russia and Ukraine

 * Vovan and Lexus strike again: George W. Bush tells pranksters why West broke promise to Russia not to expand NATO
 * George W. Bush Tells Pranksters Why West Broke Promise to Russia Not to Expand NATO 83.174.234.78 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Baker-Gorbachev
I'm adding the line on the Baker-Gorbachev conversations again:

1. It's primary and secondary sourced [ https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295 ].

2. Could anyone explain to me why a primary and secondary sourced conversation on Nato Enlargement between top U.S. and Soviet leaders should not be on the Nato Enlargement article? Even if it's included in other articles, this is the article named 'NATO enlargement' = the tipic of this top level conversations.

3. I'm adding it after this line 'Whether or not Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker, as representatives from NATO member states, informally committed to not enlarge NATO east of East Germany during these and contemporary negotiations with Soviet counterparts has long been a matter of dispute among historians and international relations scholars'.

That line is true, but chronollogically settled by a posterior fact: the release of an classified US Memorandum or a recent Der Spiegel article that proves this conversations did occur, thus a line on this should be included. If not, that line is not currently correct, or at least completly accurate for an enciclopedia. Thee debate now would be if this conversation has an implication on the relations between Russia and Nato countries, if it was informal or not... but not if it existed as currently that line states.

4. Yes, the debate has been going for a long time, but if new information comes out, it must be included. In 2017 the NSA of George Washington University released the memorandum proving that this existed. The last update on this is an article in March 2022 by Der Spiegel and there are many more. The investigation by the NSA adiscusses it was not just a single conversation, US and Western leaders were aware of what they were leading Gorbachev to believe -the subheadline is: 'Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner'

There is no convincing argument to not include this. Erasing it goes against Neutral point of view. Please, if mediation is needed let's call for it, but not erase a well sourced material related to the article's name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasandia (talk • contribs) 10:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll respond here if that's fine. You keep bringing up this declassified document about James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev's conversation in February 1990, but I get zero sense that you've actually read any of it or the Der Spiegel opinion piece (again, I can send you the text if the paywall is an issue). Yes, Baker mentioned that they might reach an agreement regarding future NATO expansion, it was one paragraph out of the 12 pages, during which the two spent far more time discussing the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the state of the Russian economy, and the main reason the document was classified, Gorbachev's internal opposition to reforms from Soviet hardliners. Again, the key is that they didn't reach an agreement regarding NATO expansion in 1990. I agree that it is understandable why Gorbachev thought he had assurances, but NATO expansion in 1999, 2004, and other years shows that he didn't and that these conversations just didn't have any effect on the history of NATO enlargement. The only reason you keep bringing this topic up is because it's part of pro-Putin propaganda, which, yes, is notable and mentioned in the article already. Regarding notability, you and I are discussing NATO enlargement right here, our conversation, while on the topic of NATO enlargement, also doesn't have an effect on history, so just because two individuals are discussing the topic of this article does not mean we need a paragraph about it on said article. So no, it doesn't "must be included". And lastly, you keep insisting things are in violation of WP:NPOV again without understanding of what that means. Some people still believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean the idea needs to be included on the article about Earth for that article to be neutral, it's actually the opposite. Giving the flat earth theory credence in that way would be WP:UNDUE, which makes it less neutral. Giving this topic more than a passing mention is also undue. It's just not important to history, end of story.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 16:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit I may not be as well acquainted with the Wikipedia procedures on quoting, etc, even after more than a decade as a casual editor, but that doesn’t prevent me of seen this is something of historical interest that must be addressed (one way or another, but addressed, not erased). You are erasing a relevant piece of History: a top level conversation by top West and Soviet leaders on NATO enlargement (the topic of the article). Which, by the way, this detailed article by scholars state was not the only one, these assurances were systematic by several Western leaders according to GWU, and the primary documents proving it are included.
 * Some historical thing being used by Russian propaganda (I agree on this one) is not a reason to not acknowledge it happened. I though you had agreed to not enter into a war editing with me… If you were interested in objectivity, you would modify, or refine, not erase. Perhaps we should ask for a third opinion to answer if talks between two key leaders on NATO’s enlargement should be in an article called NATO’s enlargement Jasandia (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep linking to this declassified document as some smoking gun "proving it", but I just don't think it is what you want it to be. You even copied and pasted the "one inch" sentence into this article, but I don't understand, why can't you read the next sentence? I'll copy it here for you: "At the end of the day, if it is acceptable to everyone, we could have discussions in a two plus four context that might achieve this kind of outcome." This conversation took place before the 2+4 negotiations started and unfortunately for Gorbachev, limiting NATO expansion in the 2+4 Treaty wasn't acceptable to everyone and they didn't achieve this kind of outcome. Gorbachev signed the treaty anyway. But that doesn't fit the narrative of NATO and the west as lying promise breakers, so folks like Vladimir Putin stop reading at "one inch". The section where the two men discuss German reunification starts on the bottom page 5 and goes to page 9, get your phone, open the timer, and read the parts about NATO aloud. I did it in five minutes and three seconds. I'm maintaining that Baker and Gorbachev's five minute chat (or any other taking place in 1990) is not important to the encyclopedic story of NATO enlargement because there isn't any historic event their words changed, not when compared to the other 73 years of NATO history which the article tries to cover.
 * I've made this point elsewhere, but show me where Montenegro (or any new member), after completing the treaty ratification process, said "oops, James Baker promised NATO wouldn't expand, nevermind." Right? The only historic impact, as we've mentioned and as we address in the article, is as Yeltsin's and now Putin's personal and political grievance. This point I'm driving home here is on top of arguments we've been over on this talk page time and again, that Baker/Genscher weren't and couldn't have been speaking on behalf of NATO, that the Soviet Union subsequently ceased to exist, and that Russia later signed agreements regarding new NATO members in eastern Europe. History is not getting erased, I don't feel the need to modify your additions because we already have sentences there addressing the controversy which are the result of many compromises here on this discussion page and because you're linking to a primary source and a German op-ed, neither which specifically add to sources we already cite. And yes, the authors of the sources we cite are generally aware of these 2017 declassified documents among many other factors, and the "new files" from the Der Spiegel headline is Shifrinson's 2021 book, and we cite Shifrinson like six times in that section already. If you want a third opinion, you can follow the instructions at WP:THIRD.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 18:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Patrickneil I think the way the article is written currently does violate WP:NPOV
 * According to (which as a secondary source citing numerous primary sources - not sure why people refer to it as a primary) there were more assurances to Soviet leadership than just the Baker conversation. The way the article emphasises a single conversation with Baker, which indeed was in the context of East Germany and sometimes misinterpreted, is quite misleading by hiding the bigger picture.
 * It also omits reasons for the so called "Yeltsin's grievances". The same NSA in their another analysis describe conversations that took place with Yeltsin and Kozyrev as misleading (see main text and comments for document 07 and document 08: ).
 * For another authoritative source, analysis by James Goldgeier claims that Yeltsin had grounds to feel misled: The MemCon from the meeting makes clear why Yeltsin later felt betrayed. The elements of the Christopher and Talbott recitations are there, but not in quite the same order as implied, and in ways that are fairly misleading.
 * I understand the hesitance of including anything that would indicate that grounds for the "NATO and the west as lying promise breakers" point of view exist. However, doing this by suppressing certain WP:RSs that present this POV goes against the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policies.
 * PaulT2022 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A clarification. After reading the article more carefully, I think much of the argument about seeming contradictions in the sources comes from the qualifications like that "the question never came up" in the talks on German reunification. If you look at the matter limiting the scope with the reunification/2+4 negotiations, I agree that the article is both factually correct and the POV is perfectly neutral.
 * However, my understanding of the NSA analysis, as well as what Gorbachev said in the often referenced 2014 interview, is that the enlargement wasn't discussed on the reunification talks because assurances were made elsewhere and everyone was on the same page regarding future European security having to be done in the inclusive way. Nobody saw it in us vs them terms at a time. This seems consistent with the misunderstanding that followed the PFP talks with Yeltsin, where a promise to build a security structure around NATO that won't extend its membership was made to the Russian leadership. (Not OR - see sources in my earlier reply above.)
 * It's exclusion of these assurances, made to Soviet and Russian leadership outside of the formal reunification talks, documented, and described in the sources, that is a concern for neutrality - not the description of the talks themselves.
 * PaulT2022 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I stumbled upon a well structured review in https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/40/4/7/12126/Deal-or-No-Deal-The-End-of-the-Cold-War-and-the-U and was going to suggest to use it as a source, however noticed its already used to claim almost exact opposite of what the original paper says by selectively cherry-picking 1/4 of the literature review.
 * Abstract of Shifrinson's paper: Although no non-expansion pledge was ever codified, U.S. policymakers presented their Soviet counterparts with implicit and informal assurances in 1990 strongly suggesting that NATO would not expand in post–Cold War Europe if the Soviet Union consented to German reunification.
 * Summary in this article: There is no mention of NATO expansion into any other country in the September–October 1990 agreements on German reunification. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Summary in this article: There is no mention of NATO expansion into any other country in the September–October 1990 agreements on German reunification. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ireland
The section on Ireland erroneously claims that it would legally require a referendum for Ireland to join NATO (due to neutrality). In support of this claim, it links to a 26 year old government document that merely states that it was government policy (pursuant to the then programme for government) to hold a referendum if any change to the neutrality policy was proposed. As a matter of law, there is nothing in the Irish Constitution requiring a referendum prior to joining NATO. This should thus be corrected. 86.43.72.9 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

New Map Colouring Needed for Finland & Sweden
The signing of the Accession Protocol on July 5th, 2022, means that the status of Finland and Sweden has been elevated over the other NATO aspirants (B&H [MAP], Georgia & Ukraine). A new map needs to be created to show this. Mrodowicz (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion page for that map, where in I have opened suggestions for changes to reflect this topic. Chase1493 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Update Ratification
As of 7/28/22, 21 NATO Members have Ratified the ascension of Sweden and Finland

The table under Section 3("Current Status") should reflect this and change "9/30 Ratified" to "21/30 Ratified"


 * ❌ These ratifications have not yet been deposited to the United States government, see . Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)