Hungarian Politics

[HVC]

Is NATO like the EU and lacks a means of expulsion? more alliances and treaties need expulsion pathways, even if only to use the threat as a stick.

[Sheilbh]

Is NATO like the EU and lakes a means of expulsion? more alliances and treaties need expulsion pathways, even if only to use the threat as a stick.

I'm not sure with NATO.

The purpose of NATO is mutual defence - an attack on one member is an attack on all. I worry that even a narrow, tightly drafted expulsion mechanism could be perceived as undermining that.

Edit: Also NATO doesn't have anything like the democratic value bit that the EU does.

[Tonitrus]

Is NATO like the EU and lakes a means of expulsion? more alliances and treaties need expulsion pathways, even if only to use the threat as a stick.

The treaty is not a very long read: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

[Admiral Yi]

The purpose of NATO is mutual defence - an attack on one member is an attack on all. I worry that even a narrow, tightly drafted expulsion mechanism could be perceived as undermining that.

Well sure, getting kicked out undermines their membership rights.

[Sheilbh]

Well sure, getting kicked out undermines their membership rights.

Yeah - but my thought is if there's an expulsion mechanism doesn't it change the calculation for an enemy too?

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah - but my thought is if there's an expulsion mechanism doesn't it change the calculation for an enemy too?

Elaborez s'il vous plait.

[Sheilbh]

Elaborez s'il vous plait.

I think an advatnage of NATO is that unless you leave, then during a crisis there isn't an out. You are locked on a path that is ultimately determined by the country that is under attack/wanting to activate Article 5.

With an expulsion mechanism there is a turning you can take and it stops being simply a question of whether each country remains committed to NATO and would respond. There's an additional layer of how does the rest of NATO feel about that country?

For example, right now, if there was an expulsion mechanism (and obviously loads of other context and specifics) - but if Turkey were attacked I'm not sure that there wouldn't be a push to just expel them. I think it could undermine the credibility of NATO across NATO and actually, possibly, introduce an element of risk in (for want of a better phrase) the NATO periphery.

Obviously countries are free and sovereign and can leave any time, but I think NATO is safer and more credible if it doesn't have an ejector seat that everyone else can pull.

[HVC]

Couldn't you just just add the clause no expulsion once article 5 is triggered?


*edit* In the hypothetical timetine I mean

[Admiral Yi]

You're one devious fuck Shelf.  I hadn't even considered that.

But it would still take a majority, or more likely a supermajority to expel a country.  I don't think that would weigh very heavily on a potential invader's mind.

[Sheilbh]

Couldn't you just just add the clause no expulsion once article 5 is triggered?


*edit* In the hypothetical timetine I mean

Right - but I think there you're just expanding the risk and maybe making it even easier for an opponent of NATO. They could get what they want just through brinksmanship and massing troops on borders.

If countries would be open to using an expulsion mechanism after Article 5 then I think they'd just take move that decision forward in a crisis so they can take it before. It shifts the time but I don't think it changes the risk.

And frankly even with Hungary, I think there's a bit of a concept creep about what NATO's for. It's not about advancing our values, or democracy - it's a mutual defence pact. Even with its awful government is there any real belief that in the event of an attack on Hungary - an EU member state - we wouldn't all have to intervene anyway? It's why the typical order is NATO membership first, then EU membership. What's the point of kicking them out?

If we'd be willing and possibly feel we have to defend them anyway then it makes sense to me that they'd be in NATO. If there's an applicant we wouldn't be willing to defend with our own troops, then they shouldn't be in NATO.

[Sheilbh]

You're one devious fuck Shelf.  I hadn't even considered that.

But it would still take a majority, or more likely a supermajority to expel a country.  I don't think that would weigh very heavily on a potential invader's mind.

I agree it's unlikely - but I think it's a factor and definitely one that Russia or other opponents would think about My general view is if you build in mechanisms like, say, expulsion from NATO or a state of emergency/exception then I think you should expect that they will be used at some point however many hurdles you include.

[Admiral Yi]

And frankly even with Hungary, I think there's a bit of a concept creep about what NATO's for. It's not about advancing our values, or democracy - it's a mutual defence pact. Even with its awful government is there any real belief that in the event of an attack on Hungary - an EU member state - we wouldn't all have to intervene anyway? It's why the typical order is NATO membership first, then EU membership. What's the point of kicking them out?

To stop them from barring future members.  So they don't sell tech to the bad guys.

[Sheilbh]

To stop them from barring future members.  So they don't sell tech to the bad guys.

I think you can still pick and choose who you sell tech to even within NATO and I absolutely don't think you cc Hungary into everything. If Greece and Turkey can both be in NATO then I think most countries can with Hungary

On future members, let's see them do it first. I've said before that Orban talks very loudly about how awful EU sanctions are but, when it comes to a vote (where they have a veto), they go along or at worst abstain (and normally they only abstain if another country does). My suspicion is that they're saying what they are about Sweden because Turkey is standing in the way of membership - if we can square Turkey I suspect Hungary's will talk a lot about how awful it is and then go along.

I think Orban is awful domestically. I think internationally he talks a lot - if there's such a thing as vice signalling it's Orban's posturing - but is practically very aware that Hungary's a small-ish country that's reliant on the EU and West generally and doesn't actually ever do anything that puts that at risk. And whatever Orban does or says, if Serbia picked a fight, then practically speaking we would side with Hungary. So it makes sense to me that our formal alliance structure reflects that reality.

[Grey Fox]

The current Hungary problem is temporary anyway. Hungary's leader will not always be a Putin stooge. Like in the USA, leaders change. We only need to be patient.

[The Larch]

Tweeted by Orban today:



A good Hungarian is an asexual Hungarian!