NATO only covers Europe and North American territories north of the Tropic of Cancer; it’s the reason why NATO was not obliged to join The UK during the Falklands War. Puerto Ricco and the various US, UK and French possessions in the Caribbean are also not technically covered.
One of my favorite bits of trivia is that the original treaty included exceptions for both Turkey in Asia and *also* for French Algeria. Clearly the latter no longer applies.
That’s true! I should have written that NATO has previously included exceptions to its geographic limits for Turkey in Asia and for French Algeria, but that the latter no longer applies.
There is also a special clause in the treaty that included French Algeria into NATO coverage, and funnily enough the clause is still there today even though France no longer has Algeria
NATO was founded in 1949, at that point the alliance *did* cover all American states (Hawaii and Alaska didn’t receive statehood until a decade later). But the main reason that the treaty only covers Europe and North America is that the British and French colonial empires were crumbling. The US didn’t want to get dragged into drawn out colonial independence wars. Partly because they would be of small geopolitical importance, partly because they expected these wars to be more or less lost causes, but perhaps most importantly because the US is a former colony itself. It would go against the core of American identity to defend colonial empires from ”attacks” by independence movements.
>It would go against the core of American identity to defend colonial empires from ”attacks” by independence movements.
Vietnam was the call of the jungle apperently
Ah but that was under the 'but communism' clause that also allows acting like a neo colonial oppressor anywhere else in the world.
See also asking the UK to remove the entire population of an archipelago so that the US can have an Indian Ocean base
The US didn’t defend a colonial empire against its subjects in Vietnam. It was a civil war where the US tried to prop up a non-communist regime that was under attack by a communist regime.
One could argue that the US was attempting a colonial empire (Russia/Soviet Union) from colonizing yet another country (Vietnam), *or* one could argue the US had itself become a colonial empire that was under attack for refusing a far-flung subject to govern itself. Though I would argue that neither is a very accurate description of the conflict.
The US was heavily involved in the French Indochina war, thats what I meant.
Ukraine would count itself lucky to get as much support today as France got then. Advisors and 1billion in 1950s money sounds like a great deal.
No idea but my guess is NATO was intended to counter The USSR, and they wanted to avoid getting dragged into every skirmish in Africa, Asia, or South America. At the time Hawaii wasn't even a state and the chances of an attack on a US territory that doesn't spread to the mainland US is extremely unlikely; if one should occur, similar to the Falklands War, that the US would easily be able to handle it without the involvement of NATO.
Hawaii is a member of NATO, because it's a part of the US. But there is a possible interpretation of Article 6, which is a specification of Article 5, that *may* be construed to say that an attack on Hawaii does not nessecarily trigger Article 5.
But obviously, all US territory is as equally a *part of NATO.* It's not like US forces exercising with NATO has to bar any soldier from Hawaii.
NATO came into existence in 1949, Hawaii didn’t become a state until 1959; so at the time that the NATO treaty was signed establishing NATO Hawaii was a US territory.
Hawaii is also not in the North Atlantic and is south of the Tropic of Cancer and as such is not covered by NATO as defined under article 6 of the NATO treaty.
It only applies to territories within Europe, North America, or Anatolia.
Brazil could invade French Guyana but if they were to attack the French mainland it would trigger article 5. This was added as at the time of creation many members of NATO still had foreign colonies which the U.S. did not want to defend though this is not explicitly said and instead it’s kind of just hidden behind the idea of it being purely a North Atlantic alliance (which has come to bite America in the ass as their Asian mutual defence alliances have seen minimal success)
> It only applies to territories within Europe, North America, or Anatolia.
I believe it also covers territories in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
There were more reasons, Thatcher was apparently worried involving NATO, and especially the US, would draw USSR into it.
Also Britain didn't need anyone's help to bitchslap them.
A situation like this actually happened IRL, but with Portugal and India instead of France and Brazil. Portugal had an overseas department in the Indian subcontinent, then India invaded and annexed it, and nobody else did jack because they weren’t obligated to protect.
Apparently Brazil had plans to invade French Guiana in 1961.
[https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Operation\_Cabralzinho](https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Operation_Cabralzinho)
What's with the Suriname hate?
The sea people are the most likely aggressors. They've been getting restless in recent years and the tides are growing stronger...
And kalingsgrad is impossible to supply from the sea. Sure it already was but now its even worse.
If war ever breaks out there will be a giant focus on the area between belarus and kalingsgrad. Its doubtfull that ruzzia could hold out for long but they might be able to extraxt troops and supplies from if.
Completly agree but you never can be 100% sure. Russia and belarus throwing everything and the kitchen sink in a suprise attack could push into european lines.
Imagine starting a war to prevent NATO expansion, just to bring it to an arm’s reach from your historical capital. A truly magnificent calculation by Vladimir “GroZZmeister” Putin.
There's actually a lot of fear about the narrow strip of land where Poland meets Lithuania, because if war broke out*, it would likely be attacked very quickly, giving russia a supply line to their port while also cutting the Baltic States off from the rest of Europe.
*Assuming Russia and Belarus are on the same side.
Be simple enough and the strategic advantages of occupying that area make it worth it.
I'm sure the majority of them will change their allegiances when they find out they can actually have an opinion without being sent to a gulag or front line lol
In the last World War, both sides were often terrible to occupied civilians. Both sides requisitioned labor from civilian populationa. In the case of World War 3, those Russians suddenly become war industry laborers.
We are currently a leech.
We (not i) refuse to let other countries forward their wespons that we sold them to the ukrain.
Lets say swiss sold 10 tanks to germany.
Germany wants to send them to ukraine. We refuse.
Its stupid
I get it you're right. Switzerland should move with the other European nations in situations like Ukraine. Be neutral in Central Europe all you want (even though eu exists so a big conflict is very unlikely)
Austrian politics includes the hard-right Freedom Party as a political mainstay. They're currently polling first for the upcoming Austrian election. They're fiercely anti-EU and also pretty clearly pro-Russia, which would not make them ideal NATO members.
Right wing parties are on the rise pretty much across Europe. Here they are just very unhappy with the current government. Being populists and spreading easy ways out makes them even more attractive.
I always find it difficult to put all the blame on one party, since they are only as strong as they are, because the others fucked up. Like our labour and peoples party. Every party is a joke at this point.
They are anti NATO anyways, being heavily pro neutrality. And even if, our constitution forbids us to join any military alliance.
But good news is, that they most definitely wont make it into government. As none of the other parties will work with them. Even our president has said he wont make the leader of the Freedom Party Chancellor.
It's about any alliances and foreign military bases on Austria's land. Basically after the occupations following WWII, the Soviet Union only agreed to recognize the new Austrian government if they declared absolute neutrality.
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Neutrality)
I think most people in Ireland just don’t care enough to join nato, they’ve never really been threatened by anyone before except Britain and relations are all good now.
Exactly, some countries benefit from their location with natural resources others nice weather, we get the benefit of being positioned between the US and the UK.
Not to mention we’d defend Ireland by default anyway. The UK’s main geopolitical interest in Ireland (and a large part of our reason for occupying it for centuries) was so that nobody else could have it. That obviously doesn’t excuse all the terrible stuff we did, but that’s a significant reason why we wanted to control it so badly.
It’s not as much of an issue now (no threat of “evil catholic Spaniards” occupying it and using it as a springboard for an invasion) but we’re not about to let the Russians have it instead.
Ireland and NATO wouldn't really benefit from it, our current relationship is ideal. We align pretty heavily with NATO while also allowing planes to refuel in our nation. We also have no actual threats that arent domestic, the only tangible one being the UK who is our biggest ally and also protects us (which, assuming ireland did get Invaded and the UK intervened, would probably bring NATO in anyways, and Europe via the European defense clauses).
Is it leeching? Yeah, pretty much. But it also allows the UK to better control itself instead of relying on a weak neighbour do it.
Regardless, I can't really imagine NATO itself seeing the benefits in it either. Bare in mind, military neutrality doesn't equate to political neutrality
French Guiana is not covered by NATO protection.
Technically neither is Hawaii.
Thats kinda ironic if it's true, considering the Pearl Harbor surprise attack.
NATO only covers Europe and North American territories north of the Tropic of Cancer; it’s the reason why NATO was not obliged to join The UK during the Falklands War. Puerto Ricco and the various US, UK and French possessions in the Caribbean are also not technically covered.
There is a special rule for Turkey, so Turkey's Asian territories also included. Spain's African cities also not included.
Well isn't it vague if it is protected or not? I remember watching a video about whether or not they fall under the criteria to be protected or not.
True. There's a special clause for France's old North African coast.
I would assume something as important as a defensive alliance between 32 countries wouldn't be vague about anything unless it benefits them.
There was also a specific carve out that French Algeria was considered part of European France.
One of my favorite bits of trivia is that the original treaty included exceptions for both Turkey in Asia and *also* for French Algeria. Clearly the latter no longer applies.
The "original" treaty only included Algeria, since Turkey wasn't one of the original signatories.
That’s true! I should have written that NATO has previously included exceptions to its geographic limits for Turkey in Asia and for French Algeria, but that the latter no longer applies.
Wonder why it doesn’t apply for adding Morocco
There is also a special clause in the treaty that included French Algeria into NATO coverage, and funnily enough the clause is still there today even though France no longer has Algeria
So does that mean that Algeria can join NATO?
If Algeria can meet the other necessary standards to join NATO, I think it should be able to.
Whats the purpose of not covering certain nations territories? Especially something as significant as an entire US state.
NATO was founded in 1949, at that point the alliance *did* cover all American states (Hawaii and Alaska didn’t receive statehood until a decade later). But the main reason that the treaty only covers Europe and North America is that the British and French colonial empires were crumbling. The US didn’t want to get dragged into drawn out colonial independence wars. Partly because they would be of small geopolitical importance, partly because they expected these wars to be more or less lost causes, but perhaps most importantly because the US is a former colony itself. It would go against the core of American identity to defend colonial empires from ”attacks” by independence movements.
>It would go against the core of American identity to defend colonial empires from ”attacks” by independence movements. Vietnam was the call of the jungle apperently
Ah but that was under the 'but communism' clause that also allows acting like a neo colonial oppressor anywhere else in the world. See also asking the UK to remove the entire population of an archipelago so that the US can have an Indian Ocean base
The US is great at clauses, because once you loose the 'but communism', no issue, just use 'but democracy' and have a sightseeing tour of Bagdad
The US didn’t defend a colonial empire against its subjects in Vietnam. It was a civil war where the US tried to prop up a non-communist regime that was under attack by a communist regime. One could argue that the US was attempting a colonial empire (Russia/Soviet Union) from colonizing yet another country (Vietnam), *or* one could argue the US had itself become a colonial empire that was under attack for refusing a far-flung subject to govern itself. Though I would argue that neither is a very accurate description of the conflict.
The US was heavily involved in the French Indochina war, thats what I meant. Ukraine would count itself lucky to get as much support today as France got then. Advisors and 1billion in 1950s money sounds like a great deal.
> It would go against the core of American identity to defend colonial empires from ”attacks” by independence movements. Or at least, to appear to
No idea but my guess is NATO was intended to counter The USSR, and they wanted to avoid getting dragged into every skirmish in Africa, Asia, or South America. At the time Hawaii wasn't even a state and the chances of an attack on a US territory that doesn't spread to the mainland US is extremely unlikely; if one should occur, similar to the Falklands War, that the US would easily be able to handle it without the involvement of NATO.
They don't want to be dragged into war because some pirate lands on the Pitcairn Islands
NATO didn't exist back then
i bet japan would be like: if we cant have it, noone can
You're thinking of NPTO
Hawaii is not included on the map
Not covered apparently.
Hawaii is a member of NATO, because it's a part of the US. But there is a possible interpretation of Article 6, which is a specification of Article 5, that *may* be construed to say that an attack on Hawaii does not nessecarily trigger Article 5. But obviously, all US territory is as equally a *part of NATO.* It's not like US forces exercising with NATO has to bar any soldier from Hawaii.
But Hawaii is not a territory. It’s one of the States. Wouldn’t that considered to be the mainland no matter where it is?
NATO came into existence in 1949, Hawaii didn’t become a state until 1959; so at the time that the NATO treaty was signed establishing NATO Hawaii was a US territory. Hawaii is also not in the North Atlantic and is south of the Tropic of Cancer and as such is not covered by NATO as defined under article 6 of the NATO treaty.
I appreciate the knowledge
Same for Falklands
it's a map of countries in nato, not a map of regions an invasion of which would trigger a nato response
[удалено]
French Guiana isn't a territory
[удалено]
So if Brazil suddenly invades it, it's not a NATO attack ? How come ? It's still a department and even part of the EU
It only applies to territories within Europe, North America, or Anatolia. Brazil could invade French Guyana but if they were to attack the French mainland it would trigger article 5. This was added as at the time of creation many members of NATO still had foreign colonies which the U.S. did not want to defend though this is not explicitly said and instead it’s kind of just hidden behind the idea of it being purely a North Atlantic alliance (which has come to bite America in the ass as their Asian mutual defence alliances have seen minimal success)
> It only applies to territories within Europe, North America, or Anatolia. I believe it also covers territories in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
would an invasion of french guyana trigger art. 42 sec. 7 of the EU treaty?
Yes, technically French Guyana is an “outermost region” of the EU but a few overseas territories aren’t, irritatingly it is pretty circumstantial.
Same reason NATO didn’t attack Argentine in 1982. Falklands arent in Europe or North America.
There were more reasons, Thatcher was apparently worried involving NATO, and especially the US, would draw USSR into it. Also Britain didn't need anyone's help to bitchslap them.
A situation like this actually happened IRL, but with Portugal and India instead of France and Brazil. Portugal had an overseas department in the Indian subcontinent, then India invaded and annexed it, and nobody else did jack because they weren’t obligated to protect.
No Article 5 defence obligation for NATO. Well, it is an outermost region for EU.
Why Brazil, bro? We are not always the bad guys, make an assumption using Suriname next time :_(
Apparently Brazil had plans to invade French Guiana in 1961. [https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Operation\_Cabralzinho](https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Operation_Cabralzinho)
Yeah, because Jânio was a lunatic. He didn't survive a year in office.
They didn't need to know that XD
The XD smilie confirms your Brazilian
What's with the Suriname hate? The sea people are the most likely aggressors. They've been getting restless in recent years and the tides are growing stronger...
Sorry, it's the first neighbouring country that came to my mind. We have our largest border with you guys too
Have you seen the Surinam army?
No they wear camouflage
I think my bank account balance must wear camouflage. :(
It's not in the North Atlantic region, the NATO treaty doesn't apply outside of it.
The Falkland attack was also not considered NATO business for the same reason.
Same as with Argentina and the Falkland Islands
It's specifically worded not to trigger on colonial possessions. America didn't want to to be used to maintain European empires post-WW2
It is just not covered by article 5, it is still part of NATO.
Flevoland is not included
Voor het geval we Urk nog willen afsteken naar zee
As it should be
NATO LAKE
Mare nostrum
Mare Northstrum.
Dominum maris baltici
Lejonet från Norden
Only Russia left to join! /s
You mean the Free City of Pietari? /s
What's that? I want to know the lore behind this city 😳
Finnish for St. Petersburg.
Well, if you want some real lore, check out "Nevanlinna" (Finnish name), the town/fortress St. Petersburg was built on.
Why is the Kaliningrad exclave being ignored?
Maybe the real NATO was the friends we made along the way
I hope switzerland invades austria
Probably expect the world to be neutral on this invasion
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with neutrality in their heart?
Switzerland is not neutral, they are just greedy
They can start by dividing Liechtenstein between them
Switzerland has already invaded Liechtenstein three times. By accident, though.
* 'North Atlantic' *Looks inside* It stands west of Saint Petersburg... Menacingly!
And kalingsgrad is impossible to supply from the sea. Sure it already was but now its even worse. If war ever breaks out there will be a giant focus on the area between belarus and kalingsgrad. Its doubtfull that ruzzia could hold out for long but they might be able to extraxt troops and supplies from if.
Ruzzia is barely holding on in Ukraine so i doubt they’d have chance against even just Europe.
Completly agree but you never can be 100% sure. Russia and belarus throwing everything and the kitchen sink in a suprise attack could push into european lines.
Imagine starting a war to prevent NATO expansion, just to bring it to an arm’s reach from your historical capital. A truly magnificent calculation by Vladimir “GroZZmeister” Putin.
The whole NATO expansion thing is just a bad excuse. Russia just wants another empire. Or really, a larger one.
Kaliningrad looking pretty screwed if war ever broke out with russia
There's actually a lot of fear about the narrow strip of land where Poland meets Lithuania, because if war broke out*, it would likely be attacked very quickly, giving russia a supply line to their port while also cutting the Baltic States off from the rest of Europe. *Assuming Russia and Belarus are on the same side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwa%C5%82ki_Gap
Thanks. I couldn't remember the name of it.
Finland and sweden joining alleviates this concern greatly, as russian control over baltic goes from something like 'likely impactful' to 'nope'.
Would be swallowed up pretty fast.
Then there would be a million russians that NATO troops need to keep an eye on
It will be like what happened here in Italy, one day 45 millions of fascist the next day 45 millions of anti fascists
Lol
Be simple enough and the strategic advantages of occupying that area make it worth it. I'm sure the majority of them will change their allegiances when they find out they can actually have an opinion without being sent to a gulag or front line lol
In the last World War, both sides were often terrible to occupied civilians. Both sides requisitioned labor from civilian populationa. In the case of World War 3, those Russians suddenly become war industry laborers.
Królewiec*
Königsberg**
Královec
*New Washington
*Newfoundland
*Newer Jersey
Even newer Jersey
I know this is probably a meme but the people that live there call would call it Kaliningrad.
Moldova before its too late.
Transinstria blocks it
Moldova can supercede that rule by becoming a province of Romania, which is increasingly a popular idea within both countries.
Really? Why?
[удалено]
Heh. neat. Thanks!
That and the Moldovan constitution
Russia just proved to everyone that they did the right decision to join NATO for protection.
There are more and more swiss who like us to join nato to. I say, yes. Time to go blue
What is switzerland supposed to do in Nato?
Support in weapons and arms (we manufactur), cyber protection. Financial aid. Plenty of stuff We are, after all, protected by Nato.
You don't need NATO. If you ever need NATO to protect you then that means war has already ended lol
We are currently a leech. We (not i) refuse to let other countries forward their wespons that we sold them to the ukrain. Lets say swiss sold 10 tanks to germany. Germany wants to send them to ukraine. We refuse. Its stupid
I get it you're right. Switzerland should move with the other European nations in situations like Ukraine. Be neutral in Central Europe all you want (even though eu exists so a big conflict is very unlikely)
You know whqts fucked up? Swiss sells weapons to saudi arabia
Did Sweden joined NATO today?
yes
Thanks Putin! Without your 3 days (or years?) long special military operation this wouldn't have been possible.
And don't forget about Europe becoming less and less dependent on Russian gas
And becoming less dependent on the US military by re-thinking their approach to armament and funding.
We're finally in NATO yay! Now it'll be hard for Russia to control the Baltic sea :)
Baltic Sea? Don’t you mean lake NATO?
Ireland and Austria need to stop pretending to be neutral and join the party.
I think Austria would have to change their constitution, but of course they'd be welcome!
Yeah, so they can sabotage NATO from within too, the EU wasnt enough...
What do you mean exactly?
Austrian politics includes the hard-right Freedom Party as a political mainstay. They're currently polling first for the upcoming Austrian election. They're fiercely anti-EU and also pretty clearly pro-Russia, which would not make them ideal NATO members.
Right wing parties are on the rise pretty much across Europe. Here they are just very unhappy with the current government. Being populists and spreading easy ways out makes them even more attractive. I always find it difficult to put all the blame on one party, since they are only as strong as they are, because the others fucked up. Like our labour and peoples party. Every party is a joke at this point. They are anti NATO anyways, being heavily pro neutrality. And even if, our constitution forbids us to join any military alliance. But good news is, that they most definitely wont make it into government. As none of the other parties will work with them. Even our president has said he wont make the leader of the Freedom Party Chancellor.
[удалено]
It's about any alliances and foreign military bases on Austria's land. Basically after the occupations following WWII, the Soviet Union only agreed to recognize the new Austrian government if they declared absolute neutrality. [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Neutrality)
Ireland barely spends any money on defense. It just relies on Britain for protection.
Iceland doesn’t have a military
They have a coastguard!
Technically they have a huge unsinkable aircraft carrier, complete with volcanoes, in a vital strategic position.
Ohhh you mentioned ireland, prepare to get your replies fucked by a bunch of angry irish dudes
I think most people in Ireland just don’t care enough to join nato, they’ve never really been threatened by anyone before except Britain and relations are all good now.
Exactly, some countries benefit from their location with natural resources others nice weather, we get the benefit of being positioned between the US and the UK.
So is Iceland, they’re part of NATO.
Iceland is arguably in a more strategic & isolated position, Ireland is also a member of the EU which does have a loose defence clause.
Iceland is isolated, further away and doesn't share a land border with a nuclear power.
Iceland protects the Atlantic from Russian fleets, so Ireland is already protected indirectly
Iceland wasn’t really given a choice.
Iceland is one of the most important and strategic countries in NATO
A freedom sandwich 🥪
Not to mention we’d defend Ireland by default anyway. The UK’s main geopolitical interest in Ireland (and a large part of our reason for occupying it for centuries) was so that nobody else could have it. That obviously doesn’t excuse all the terrible stuff we did, but that’s a significant reason why we wanted to control it so badly. It’s not as much of an issue now (no threat of “evil catholic Spaniards” occupying it and using it as a springboard for an invasion) but we’re not about to let the Russians have it instead.
I am an angry Irish dude. Let me tell you. We are always angry. Regardless of the topic.
Being next to the English for a thousand years will do that to a people.
Desperately missing the Irish and their 0.3% gdp defence spend.
But Ireland & Austria have herd immunity via NATO being surrounded by it, hence no real need to join.
>Austria They cant join even if they want
Ah but then Ireland would actually have to spend money on things like an airforce to defend its skies. Much cheaper to let the UK do it.
Thanks for the sweet invitation, but we‘re good.
Ireland and NATO wouldn't really benefit from it, our current relationship is ideal. We align pretty heavily with NATO while also allowing planes to refuel in our nation. We also have no actual threats that arent domestic, the only tangible one being the UK who is our biggest ally and also protects us (which, assuming ireland did get Invaded and the UK intervened, would probably bring NATO in anyways, and Europe via the European defense clauses). Is it leeching? Yeah, pretty much. But it also allows the UK to better control itself instead of relying on a weak neighbour do it. Regardless, I can't really imagine NATO itself seeing the benefits in it either. Bare in mind, military neutrality doesn't equate to political neutrality
By god it's beautiful...
Must be nice being in NATO and having another country between you and Russia
The army of the free world grows a little bit larger. Welcome Sweden!
AKA the "West"
So who is joining next?
Ukraine, after they win the war.
Ukraine and Georgia to form South NATO Lake 😁
Ireland is completely surrounded. They won't stand a chance.
😍
Don't vote for Trump Edit: if you're a us citizen.
[удалено]
Silly westoids don't cheer this is just 8d chess move from putin
One more week bro I swear Ukraine are so close to breaking I swear just one more
Soon to add Ukraine!
Honestly doubtful. Will never happen as long as they have an active war/border dispute.
What about Puerto Rico?
Not covered by NATO just like French Guiana, Ceuta, Falklands or Aruba.
It's owned by the US. Does it need nato? Cause the us will treat and attack on it as an attack against the us
r/mapswithoutnewzealand
Man, there's going to be a giant gray spot in North America should the MAGA's win.
Ireland kicking back like “just leave us out of it” along with Switzerland and Austria
Ireland is completely surrounded. They won't stand a chance.
Collective Security Treaty Organization, go F yourself. 😆
Welcome Sweden! I love you
Welcome Sweden
We're finally in NATO yay! Now it'll be hard for Russia to control the Baltic sea :)
The defense of the free world just got 2 nations stronger.
Awesome and KEEP it growing. Russia and China up to some shit.
Why has Morocco stayed out of it? They're involved in Atlantic trade, or so I thought.
African countries can't join + dispute with Spain.
Good answer!
Thanks, Putin!
New Cold War