I guess that's what NATO always stood for, even if they didn't always admit it outright https://twitter.com/ekathimerini/status/985471048895184897 … protection money for nothing
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
I don't understand the context. Who is "us," and what operational level? Can you point me to a background analysis of what you're proposing?
OK? sorry for not being clearer. I simply meant that NATO is the worse possible forum to resolve military or border disputes amongst its members. It was designed to defend the members collectively against non-members.
Nevertheless, NATO has an implied ethical obligation, self-preservation interest & strategic objective, in keeping member states from wasting goodwill, human resources & materiel in aggression against each other. (My request stands.)
I get your point, but "implied obligations" legally mean nothing. You need written obligations to involve other members of an agreement into potential loss of life situations.
Listen, I’m aware of the argument in favor of a European common defense, and have supported it in past. But it’d be patently ridiculous to expect Greece to cough up even more money while in 2 crises. Point me to recent analyses if you want.
I never implied they would need to cough up any extra money. This is not about defence expenditure but about foreign policy.
Ideally, a common European Defence System would define the guaranteed borders and have an operational procedure to counter any threat to these borders IN COMMON.
Also, please don’t misunderstand my tone, I’m angry at the defense expenditure squeeze (as exemplified by Trump’s NATO stance), not you. In rational times, I’d wholeheartedly support a common European defense.
The defence expenditure was never an obligation. There was a recommendation for 2% of GDP and Greece consistently did 4%+, which had nothing to do with NATO and more to do with: 1/ the Turkish threat, 2/ poor allocation of expenses (= corruption).
Of course, such a system already exists, in embryonic state, in the European treaty. It guarantees all member-states borders by the military forces of all other members. However, it falls short at defining these borders, which is the essence of the problem.
A better forum for Greece to resolve its issues with Turkey would be a European common defence system (non NATO related) to which Turkey would have no part of. In such a system (operational, regardless of equipment) Greece could call on partners to help guarantee its borders.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.