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
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.)
And I don't see any point in the NATO charter which obliges member-states to defend one of them against another.
And I don’t see any point in Greece remaining in NATO, unless they change their tune. It’s a protection racket, and Greece deserves some, for all the money it’s been coughing up for decades.
Greece wanted to be in NATO originally to get protection against Yugoslavia and the USSR. It's true that this is not really needed anymore. However, leaving NATO now, while it wouldn't save any money, would make Greece even more vulnerable to Turkey (who is a member).
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.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.