Talk:Enlargement of NATO/Archive 2

Current status map
Jordan is also a Enhanced Opportunity Partner and needs to be colored as such. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for catching this! TDL (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Update reference link
[202] "Putin admits Russian forces were deployed to Crimea" does not link to the article anymore. It seems that the new link is the following: https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-putin-crimea-idUSL6N0N921H20140417 2A02:1811:371B:2300:BCF3:9262:684B:603C (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding flags of countries
Is it possible to add flags of countries?


 * Yes, but everyone will get very mad at you. Great Mercian (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Malta
Reference to the sovreign state of Malta should not be made as "the island" as the country is composed by an archipelago. However, this wording appears throught the section dedicated to Malta. The long form (Republic of Malta) could be used once, followed by the short form (Malta) or generic words such as "the country". 87.0.238.212 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Putin's views
The article states "succeeded by Vladimir Putin, who's views on NATO have devolved[vague]", this is true and need rewording and clean up. This section needs expanding to include more of the reunification of Germany, this agreement, related only to Germany, this has since been used, incorrectly, as an "implied" overall agreement on NATO expansion. Indeed, imperialist forces within Russia ignore this contradiction and limitation as it "justifies" their approach. So the line should be amended to something like "succeeded by Vladimir Putin, who's views on NATO have devolved, from a pragmatic understanding of the contemporary situation to a self-serving, political stance that plays up to the imperialist and ex-communist elites within modern day Russia". With reference to the above, Gorbachev, came to a deal, to stop Russia itself (and USSR) complete financial meltdown and took 55mil dm in early mid 1990, it did not stop the dissolution, in late 1990, and the agreement on East Germany is irrelevant to any other subsequent actions or expansion. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:3C5B:4B8B:4AF6:5716 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Unverified references
I've had a closer look on the Germany reunification section after I've found Shifrinson reference used to state in the article opposite of what his cited paper says. discovered more instances like this where sentences in the article present a point of view different from the cited source. Summarising them here for convenience.

Shifrinson, 2016
Article: There is no mention of NATO expansion into any other country in the September–October 1990 agreements on German reunification.

Source: 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.

Synth
Article: Whether or not Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker, as representatives from NATO member states, informally committed to not enlarge NATO into other parts of Eastern Europe during these and contemporary negotiations with Soviet counterparts has long been a matter of dispute among historians and international relations scholars.

One would expect that all three referenced sources support this statement, but they don't and the statement is actually a synth of:

Source 1: Kramer 2009 paper discussing assurances made during the Germany reunification treaty talks and not elsewhere

Source 2: Two letters by Shifrinson and Kramer from 2017, where Kramer maintains his paper is still current and Shifrinson is arguing why it isn't

Source 3: Trachtenberg 2021 paper, the only secondary (with regards to the dispute - the rest are participants) source of three concludes "An examination of the debate in light of the evidence—especially evidence that the participants themselves have presented—leads to the conclusion that the Russian allegations are by no means baseless, which affects how the U.S.-Russian relationship today is to be understood." - quite different from how the dispute is summarised in the article

(The Source 3 quote I use above is taken from the DOI link and is not present verbatim in the PDF linked in the reference; linked PDF from the UCLA website apparently is a 2020 pre-print that differs from the text of the referenced 2021 peer-reviewed source!)

Furthermore, this sentence in the article is followed not by discussion of this debate (whether any assurances existed that made Soviet leadership to make concessions they wouldn't have made otherwise), as one would expect, but a much more specific one: nature of promises made during the Gorbachev-Baker talks, effectively solely presenting the point of view from the Kramer 2009.

Gorbachev 2014 Interview
Article: However, Gorbachev himself has stated that this only pertained to East Germany and that the resulting agreement was upheld by NATO.

Source: The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country... The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east... was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990.

(Although there are a few self-published sources that interpret this in a way that he claims that no assurances were made or broken, I couldn't find such interpretation in scholarly publications; The important context also is that Gorbachev speaks about violation of assurances in his other interviews and books much clearer, thus even self-published sources claiming that Gorbachev stated that no assurances against expansions were made, reference this single fairly ambiguous statement from 2014 interview and typically don't mention his other statements on the subject altogether.)


 * Comment: FYI There was a related (although distinct) short discussion related to this quote here: Talk:Enlargement of NATO/Archive 1 (IMO that discussion was archived prematurely). You can find more relevant links there, including the relevant quote from the interview (does anyone know if the original interview was done in English? or was it done in Russian and then translated to English?) selfworm Talk ) 20:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-published sources summarised in wikivoice
Article: That is presumably because all of the countries in question were still in the Warsaw Pact at the time and hosted large Soviet garrisons.

Sources are self-published, which is not attributed correctly.

--PaulT2022 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

NATO Expansion in retrospect
Article: Despite the developing trade between the US and the Russian Federation, Russia did still hold mixed views to possible NATO expansion in the 1990s.

Source: The record shows that once serious discussions on expanding NATO eastward began, Moscow made its unequivocal opposition clear.

added PaulT2022 (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Both are true. Moscow position changed both ways in '90 and subsequently, and by leader, by negotiator and by need, however post Jul/Aug '90, Rus Fed wants, desires demands are totally irrelevant as Pol, Est etc were now independent, NATO stuck to its agreement re GDR, Putin's blabbering and Non-negotiable can go suck a lemon. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:FDC4:B90C:DD90:CD5F (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Markowitz, 1997
Article: Russian leaders[who?] believed NATO would not expand into former Soviet states because NATO had no strategic reason to do so

No mention of Russian leaders' beliefs in the source.

added PaulT2022 (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo
It should be changed to the same colour of Bosnia & Herzegovina due to them seeking to join NATO. 81.101.7.190 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Assessment
The article was assessed a GA in 2015, yet NATO saw several negotiations since like Montenegro in 2017, North Macedonia in 2020 and the Nordic accession bids of Sweden and Finland in 2022 and 2023. Might be worth to reassess it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

List-Defined References
Back in August,  in this article to the References section at the end as list-defined references. I've found this increasingly difficult to work with and feel it makes it unnecessarily complicated to prune or update out-of-date references, since to fix or remove a reference requires constantly editing the full article and using Ctrl+F to track down sources. Also previewing edits to sections is frustrating because all the references are listed as "Cite warning: tag with name foo_2020_01_01 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all."

I've learned the tool Reference Organizer can easily move the references back into the prose, and would like to go ahead and do that. I suspect this is the same tool that was used to move the references out of the sections previously. To be clear, no references are getting removed, and there would be zero difference for the reader, just those editing the article would have the references back the way they were for years and years, next to the items they're sourcing. I don't see the advantage of disconnecting these, but wanted to see if anyone did before I changed it back. Thanks -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 00:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Finland's accession
Just a heads up to editors that Finland has not yet joined NATO, but will in the "coming days". This likely means that there will be an uptick in traffic to this article, perhaps vandalism, and potentially also a blurb on WP:ITN/C to comment on. There's likely users that want to jump the gun by adding Finland to the tables, maps, etc, early but don't worry, we won't miss it! Thanks! -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 16:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI, the official ceremony for this is now scheduled for 15:35 Brussels time (so 9:35am DC time). -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 16:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Finland has now handed off the documents and the WP:ITN blurb got posted 10 minutes ago, so it's all very official now. Thanks! -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 13:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that Finland has officially become a NATO member, it seems the section on Finland will need to be removed and presumably merged into more appropriate articles like Finland–NATO relations.  Ergo Sum  13:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the info on Finland will need to move up. It would be cleaner if the whole "Finland and Sweden" subsection could just be moved to the bottom of the "Past enlargements" sections, but the powers that be haven't been considerate of the implications for Wikipedia. -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 14:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Saarland, Trieste on the table/map
Can I open a discussion about this? has added two rows to the table of enlargements, last week with "Saarland incorporation" and today with "Trieste incorporation", which were added to West Germany and Italy respectively. I don't think the idea of this table is to include all border changes for all countries, it's just to illustrate the "Past enlargements" section. The incorporation of Saarland and Trieste aren't mentioned in the section. By contrast, East Germany is, it has a whole subsection dedicated to that enlargement. But what do others think about this? -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 22:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Was the Saar Protectorate under the protection of NATO? Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Triest, Saarland and GDR + West Berlin have become secured by NATO only by becoming a part of NATO member state. Aight 2009 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the Saar Protectorate/West Berlin both fall under Article 5? Both were territories of NATO members (France/UK/USA) in Europe, was there any NATO involvement for if these territories (West Berlin particularly) were attacked? I believe Malta as a British colony was under NATO protection before its independence, so its independence should possibly also be noted. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe the table should only include countries that acceded to the organization. East Germany is a special case due to having been a sovereign state in its own right, as opposed to Saarland. The territory itself was a French protectorate, already putting it under NATO protection as "part" of France, which was a founding member. Political arguments aside, I feel they are pointless additions that only bloat the table. ProjectHorizons (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with . We should include countries that have acceded to the treaty. Since there were other treaties negotiated about German reunification, and the country's place in NATO was a key issue in that, it is a special case. Also German reunification, and the fall of the wall were a turning point in NATO expansion. The other cases are not.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

In a formal way there is no need to distinguish difference between GDR+West Berlin and Saarland or Trieste, all of this territories were separate, had a state symbols. Of course that late GDR or the other territories were under high influence of senior states which were part of NATO but it's not equal to be part of NATO. I have to agree as well that under article 5 Malta and Cyprus were part of NATO which they left after gaining independence. Aight 2009 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Right, there's a host of colonial changes that happened during the second half of the 20th century, which I don't think this is the right place to itemize. I agree with that the table should just include countries, and that East Germany is a unique case for NATO. It doesn't really matter if Saar (or Malta or Cyprus) was covered by NATO in 1949 because that's not what the table is summarizing. It's visually summarizing the above "Past enlargements" section. There are a ton tiny of border changes in Europe you could include if you really want. Italy gave the Lago di Lei to Switzerland in 1955, Poland swapped several villages with Slovakia in 2002, when it was in NATO and Slovakia wasn't. Pheasant Island goes between France and Spain every year. The answer I have to how granular this should get is "not at all." --  Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 14:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the table should indicate only sovereign countries' entrnace into NATO, not territorial changes of member countries. That being said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to somehow indicate more detailed changes in NATO territory, like with a second, animated map that is annotated or a table or something like that.  Ergo Sum  15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We kind of do that already with the animated map at the top of the article. But sure, that would be a fine place to add more frames for the border changes. As it is, the borders on that map do change visually in 1991 and other years. And while we're on the topic, I happen to have an open request at the Wikimedia Graphics Lab for someone with talent to make a fancier SVG version of the animation, if you happen to be that person. -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 16:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish I were, but my graphics skills are pretty minimal. Might try my hand at something simple if I have a moment. I wish the current graphic moved faster. It seems just too slow for each frame!  Ergo Sum  18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not against this idea of a separate graphic showing the territory covered by Article 5 at different times. That said, I suspect it might be an overly complicated project. I am not sure that 's suggestion is correct that protectorates of a NATO member were automatically covered by Article 5. Happy to be pointed to WP:RS that shows that they were, but from my understanding protectorates are generally not considered part of a country's territory. Would an attack on the Crown Colony of Malta have been an attack on the UK and triggered Article 5? Is the same true for the other examples (ie Saar Protectorate, Trieste)?  What about West Germany before it joined in 1955? Would Article 5 have been triggered because West Germany was under French, American, and British protection? What about West Berlin? This is a bit in the weeds, and I suspect the answer will depend on who you ask.  The UK would probably say NATO protection extended to the Crown Colony of Malta, but would the others? I suggest we ensure this is correct, before sinking time into creating such a graphic. Beyond all of this, I don't know why we are including Trieste and Saarland in this table for the moment, without them being mentioned at all in the rest of the article, and without any citations justifying the content at all.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Switzerland subsection to Membership debates section
It occurs to me that every non-NATO or NATO aspirant, non-CSTO, non-microstate European state is represented in the "Membership debates" section other than Switzerland. Obviously Swiss membership in NATO does not seem likely anytime soon due to its neutrality and popular sentiment, but the same could be said for Austria and Malta, which both receive a mention. The May 2022 report, poll, and the contentious issue of ammunition exports seems like it would be substantive enough for Switzerland's own subsection in that part of the article. Curious to hear others' thoughts on this matter. 173.66.190.203 (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Switzerland is mentioned at the top of the "Membership debates" section, there's two sentences, one about the Swiss military exploring additional cooperation with NATO in May 2022 and one about a recent poll, as you note. The section is called "Membership debates", and I think the standard might be that there really needs to be an active pro-NATO movement within that country's politics, either represented by a political party of influential leader. Like in many of the Balkan nations, whether or not to pursue membership was a serious fault line between competing political parties over the last 30 years. Does Switzerland have that? Could it fill two paragraphs? Alternatively, feel free to start expanding and updating the article Switzerland–NATO relations, those sub-articles are always in need of work! -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 13:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Aspirations of Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, Moldova, and Serbia
Citation 6 (Günther Fehlinger) is an opinion piece where the author states their own belief.

The facts in the article state the opposite, Austria and Malta are neutral, and joining Nato is neither a option nor a real debate.

The source should be removed and the sentence should be sourced elsewhere with actual fact (such as polling or parliamentary discussion), or removed as speculation.

Citing an opinion piece like this for the discourse of several countries (most of which are barely mentioned in the article) gives way too much weight to the opinion of a single author (and activist for this opinion, per the article). 2001:4BB8:2DC:A040:0:0:28B8:5AFF (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Jimmie Akesson
please change ((Jimmie Akesson)) to ((Jimmie Åkesson)) 2601:540:CA80:5FB0:B084:625C:B6F0:5167 (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2023
In one of the citations (number 234) "Leichteinstein" is misspelled and should be changed to "Liechtenstein". While it's the name of a person, the author on the article linked has the name "Liechtenstein", meaning it's still a typo. Snoozingnewt (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Prolog (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Link to protocol of Sweden ratification on state.org
Link 130 should be modified with this "https://www.state.gov/protocol-to-the-north-atlantic-treaty-on-the-accession-of-sweden/2022". 29 January 2024. Archived "https://web.archive.org/web/20240129205642/https://www.state.gov/protocol-to-the-north-atlantic-treaty-on-the-accession-of-sweden/2022" from the original on 29 January 2024. Retrieved on 29 January 2024. Giacomo Maffioli (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Enlargement of NATO
MAP/Ukraine: NATO agreed that a MAP would not be required. And Sweden? It' s also missing there. 2003:E7:B710:F73A:3C49:CA4:B6CA:A4ED (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * So long as Ukraine is being invaded by Russia, they will not join NATO, as this would trigger Article 5. As for Sweden, I think the reason it hasn't been added is that, although all 31 member states have ratified it, there is some official proceeding for Sweden to enter the alliance. PrusBis6187 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024
Please fix reference 7. Here's how I readjusted it: Stormzzz26 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jamedeus (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Better introduction for President Wolodymyr Zelenskyy
I suggest mentioning President Wolodymyr Zelenskyy in his first appearance in the text (Section about Ukraine, 7th paragraph) with his full name and the prefix 'President' and with a link. As of now, the text states: 'In April 2021, Zelenskyy said that NATO membership ...' This to me sounds kind of disrespectful as it is the first appearance of President Wolodymyr Zelenskyy in this text, while other Presidents are mentioned with their full name and title 'President' like one paragraph above: 'In June 2017, Ukraine's parliament passed a law making NATO integration a foreign policy priority,[217] and President Petro Poroshenko announced ...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmstroem (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅. -- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 13:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)