Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

azeldatothepast3 t1_iuikkqs wrote

Reply to comment by lol_treez in Moldova condemns Russian strikes after missile debris lands in its territory. by professorbrainiac

There is a part of Moldova that is Russian, so that will never happen. The rest of Moldova is Romanian, who I would be wouldn’t be opposed to joining Romania or the EU.

1

Splatter_1 t1_iuiop5g wrote

Apparently the only requirement to join nato is unanimous yes votes. Not conflicted territory.

12

fallought t1_iuipz7j wrote

This is not true NATO clearly states territorial conflicts must be settled first. This is the reason Macedonia changed their name to north Macedonia due to conflicts with greece

12

Ornolfr t1_iuj4ylj wrote

Your example has nothing to do with territorial conflicts. Greece just told them to change country name if they wanted “yes” vote from them.

3

fallought t1_iujdb5p wrote

Because the north region of Greece is named Macedonia. And is ethnically Macedonian. They needed to name changed to be clear they would never dispute that territory

2

Kneepi t1_iujig7b wrote

No, Greece would not allow them in unless they changed the name

2

camxct t1_iujj08p wrote

That... That's what they said...

6

DecreasingPerception t1_iujo0c7 wrote

They said it was a territorial dispute which isn't true. Nobody claimed North Macedonia belonged to anyone but North Macedonia. They couldn't join because they wouldn't get a unanimous 'yes' vote. Greece would always vote no until they changed their name.

Having part of your territory occupied would be quite different. Either a nation would have to give up any claim to that territory, or get the occupier to give it up. That's why Moldova is a bit stuck. They don't want to fight Russia, but they don't want to give up that land forever.

That being said, I don't think the rule is a strict one. The only hard requirement is for the other NATO nations to unanimously accept a candidate, so the territorial dispute requirement could be ignored if they so choose.

0

fallought t1_iuk8r5g wrote

You are missing the point. No one said that north Macedonia had disputed territory. Civilians and nationalist fringe politicians were claiming Macedonia should encompass a part of Greece's northern region which is also named Macedonia. That is why they demanded the name change to repudiate and land claims

2

DecreasingPerception t1_iuk9tdi wrote

> NATO clearly states territorial conflicts must be settled first. This is the reason Macedonia changed their name to north Macedonia due to conflicts with greece

   - /u/fallought

What did you mean then? It certainly sounded like you meant Macedonia was in violation of the 'no territorial disputes' rule. It wasn't, it's just that Greece wouldn't support its admission due to the name.

Edit: To be clear, it's the positions of the states that matter, not opinions of citizens or fringe politicians.

0

murphymc t1_iujo9wx wrote

That's not actually a rule, as in its not explicitly in the treaty. Its a logical choice made by the various members, but it is not a literal requirement. The only literal requirement is a unanimous 'yes' vote from all treaty members.

1

Successful-Grape416 t1_iuiz7m7 wrote

There is no way that's true. NATO deliberates plenty on countries with no internal disputes, adding disputed territory to that mix would never fly.

1