The Atlantic Alliance is about to welcome its 30th Member State. With the name dispute with Greece resolved, North Macedonia’s path to NATO membership was finally cleared, and an accession protocol was signed in February 2019. Once ratification is complete, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will have enlarged once more.

Want to learn more about NATO enlargement? Check out our infographic below (click for a bigger version):

NATO was founded in 1949 with twelve members. It was originally seen as a bulwark against Soviet and Communist expansion into Europe, and became synonymous with the “Western allies” during the Cold War. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded to included several former Warsaw Pact countries (something the Kremlin believed, and still believes, was an attempt to undermine Russian security).

There are still more countries eager to join NATO, including Georgia and Ukraine. However, these are countries right on Russia’s border that have been directly (or indirectly) involved in conflicts with Russia or its proxies. So, with North Macedonia, has NATO finally reached the limits of sensible expansion?

What do our readers think? We had a comment from EU Reform, who thinks the EU and NATO already have too many members, and risk becoming mere talking shops. Has NATO grown too big to be effective?

To get a response, we spoke to Vice Admiral Matthieu Borsboom, a retired Royal Netherlands Navy officer who is a former Commander of the Royal Netherlands Navy. What would he say?

I think these concerns are valid. We started in NATO with twelve founder nations in 1949, and now with North Macedonia joining it will be 30. I’ve been in NATO working for almost 40 years, and I saw it growing with these numbers, and it’s a matter of how to mitigate the challenge of how to govern, and I think NATO has been successful in that case.

It’s more that you also have to mitigate the internal assurance that Article 5 – which is the most important article, that one NATO country that is attacked will be defended by all – will stick when you enlarge. And that is under pressure. We had a review a year ago where people were asked what they would do if a NATO country were attacked – would you accept that your own soldiers would fight for that – and the results were, in a sense, worrying because for some countries it was around 50%. So, I think his worry is genuine and we have to work on it very hard. But, in the end, it should not prevent us from enlarging, it should encourage us to mitigate that type of risk.

Next up, we had a comment sent in from Dobromir, who is worried that enlarging NATO will actually make us less safe. He fears Russia will view the accession of North Macedonia to NATO as a threat, potentially further destabilising relations with Moscow.

To get a response, we spoke to Stevo Pendarovski, President of the Republic of North Macedonia. How would he respond?

Finally, we had a comment from Chris who thinks North Macedonia should join the EU but not NATO. What exactly are the benefits of joining NATO for North Macedonia, especially as the EU already has a mutual defence clause in its treaties?

How large should NATO get? Is the organisation growing too big to be effective? Could Russia view adding further members as a threat? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: (c) BigStock – palinchak; PORTRAIT CREDITS: Borsboom (c) Ernie Miga

82 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar

    As large as the number “zero”

  2. avatar

    As large as possible so that they can defend the poor of each country from the corrupt polititions of each country that never do anything to help their own.

  3. avatar

    Nato has played out its role. We need a common european defence

  4. avatar

    It should accept the membership of the Western Balkans’ countries which want to join.

  5. avatar

    NATO is good as it is…except that part of depending to much from US

  6. avatar

    We need a strong EU military, not Nato, at least not run by America

  7. avatar

    Nato was useful during the cold war.Even though it was never really used ,its first millitary operation happened few years after the cold war ended.Now its just used for americans and british to bring european countries to battlefields in the other side of the world for their own means.I say thats enough.We dont need nato anymore.A common european army or at least a common european defence alliance to serve only european interests and protect europes independence

  8. avatar

    After the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO serves only the American and British interests. Those two countries intervene in every part of the World and then call NATO for support. Also, “NATO” is a bad brand name all over the World since many people when they listen to the word “NATO” the first thing which comes in their mind is illegal wars and interventions.
    A European Army is what Europe needs this Era since the European members have the same interests and face the same threats. Europe’s soft power proved useless and this is why we have regional Leaders who blackmail and threat Europe or certain European members on various issues.

  9. avatar

    Not about size so much as quality. Lots of free-riders. Some of them are openly non-democracies. My tax-money is being spent on military defense of corrupt non-democracies. UNACCEPTABLE!!

  10. avatar

    Whatever happens, the next major military conflict between the so-called “superpower” is the fatal end

  11. avatar

    NATO should be replaced by a European military. Europe needs an independent military.

    • avatar

      Any western military alliance that does not include America is basically just a girl guide troop.

  12. avatar

    Worldwide to end all wars…

  13. avatar
    Mag. Gunther Fehlinger

    #Nato34 in 2020 with Ukraine, Georgia and Bosnia and Moldova
    #Nato36 in 2024 with Serbia and Republic of Kosovo as result of Peace Treaty
    #Nato42 by including the 6 EU Neutrals Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Malta and Cyprus

    • avatar
      Mag. Gunther Fehlinger

      The Neutrals can as well join by 2024 so #Nato42by2024 is fully possible and that is what I recommend

    • avatar
      EU Reform- Proactive

      Dear Gunther!

      Sorry, but “your recommendations”- re Austria #NATO 42- is misplaced & illegal!
      Other neutral countries have different histories, national laws or political desires.

      E.g. Austria’s “enforced perpetual neutrality” is rooted in its military non- alignment declaration (WWII-1955-“Austrian State Treaty”) & a breach would amount to a serious international transgression!

      All those sacrifice to please the EU27 in:

      • Support of an ever power hungry growing political & militant EU policy- not based on economical reasons anymore.

      • The creation of an EU or EU/NATO army, manned by Austrian “virtual soldiers” from an ever declining pool of nationals due to its declining birth rate? Its workforce already heavily reliant on migrant labor & immigration, its nationals then called upon to create an “illegal EU/NATO army”- without proper funding? Absurd!

      You may be advised to rather follow Univ.-Prof. Dr. Heinz Gärtner- not EU’s “mischievous” brain washing!

  14. avatar

    We don,t need NATO enlarged because every country has its own army. Besides, which of our neighbours will atack us?

    • avatar

      only the US wants to sell us F35 migs at 150 miljon $ per plane, and it don’t work…. its disasterplane…

    • avatar

      Luc in this debate one thing is missing…the €€€€€€$$$$$$ comission.

  15. avatar

    The bigger, the better. Just Europe should have an alternative for Nato. On the case of unpredicted scenario 😊 Maybe some kind of PEACE army ready to solve unpredicted violations

  16. avatar

    Before enlarging Nato lets remove Turkey !!!

  17. avatar

    We missed the chance to dissolve NATO when the cold war ended.

  18. avatar

    not an inch to the East of Germany

  19. avatar

    What does Europe stand for in Spacetime Continuum comprising Universe, Humanity and Jesus?

  20. avatar

    Since europa is not paying for nato or not enough i doubt its a matter we need to discuss

  21. avatar

    It’s too big already, the EU deserves its own army. Cooperation with the USA and it’s NATO members is fine by me but I don’t like them meddling in European affairs. We should be able to make dealings with Russia and other non-NATO states without American interference.

    • avatar

      Putin couldn’t have put it better himself.

  22. avatar

    La belgique hors de l otan et l otan hors de belgique

  23. avatar

    Remplacer cette association de malfaiteurs qu’est l’OTAN (1) par une armée européenne est une excellente idée… à condition que cette armée inclue des contingents russes.
    1 – Organisation Terroriste de l’Amérique du Nord.

  24. avatar

    Nato should be disbanded.
    And before you ask, not a Russian though the tinfoilers might quickly think so.

    A certain French leader and general a few decades ago had the right idea.
    Shame the big wigs in Europe ignored him (although the Americans possibly never gave Europe the option).

  25. avatar

    Should they fight the Turks for stealing natural resources from Cyprus, Greece and the EU? Don’t forget that Greece and Cyprus are part of the EU while Turkey is not! Greece and Cyprus contribute to financial prosperity and stability for the EU while Turkey does not!

  26. avatar

    Why should Russia have a say in what other sovereign states do?

  27. avatar

    Enlargement is a NATO issue. It does not involve Russia.

  28. avatar

    It has no cause of existence at all

    • avatar

      Does you horizon only include your own country? oO
      Of course it has.

    • avatar

      What’s your countrg?NATO had principles universal not regional

    • avatar

      One does not need to be of country X to understand this:
      Until we have a common European army Nato is nescessary. Especially for Poland and the Baltics.

  29. avatar

    NATO is just US+vassals states

  30. avatar

    You don’t need a reason for that.Just for fun,?????

  31. avatar

    Should not provoke Russia…

  32. avatar

    NATO is about to collapse. US has abandoned it, Russia managed to pull out some members

  33. avatar

    NATO should finish its operations

  34. avatar

    If NATO accept turkey make problem to greece Then i Think soon Will be shorter ,members that attack or make problems to other members must be out of NATO !!!

  35. avatar

    you know Turkey is member of Nato, right?

  36. avatar

    why don’t you read his comment again, it seems you don’t understand it

  37. avatar

    As long as it provides peace between and/or to its members it isn’t significant how large it is.

  38. avatar

    It should also include Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Malta, Cyprus, Andorra, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Argentina, Chile, Australia and New Zealand.

    • avatar

      Half of those are not even in Europe

    • avatar

      why not Austria ?

    • avatar

      Because together with Switzerland they are military neutral states and should remain so.

    • avatar

      Ireland wants to remain neutral too. And Sweden!!

  39. avatar

    Large enough to include Russia. There is a battle between atheism and Christianity.

    • avatar

      All these atheist countries starting wars around the world need to be STOPPED!

  40. avatar

    Let me see…
    N = North
    A = Atlantic
    I don’t know… but take a wild guess.

    • avatar

      Brasil, Mexico, Australia and Japan then?

  41. avatar

    Well, it should include those who can pull their weight also, meaning not certain european nations who allocate under 2% of GDP for defence. Also clearly not Canada, too much state medicine and other socialist programs clogs up the finances of a state.

    • avatar

      “too much state medicine and other socialist programs”
      You just qualified for a Nobel in political science AND economics at the same time.

    • avatar

      Then how do you see the role of the state, as an overbearing institution that redistributes all the GDP according to Lenin’s wet dreams?

    • avatar

      Could be Keynes’ wet dreams
      Roosevelt’s wet dreams
      Olaf Palmer’s wet dreams
      And you meant Marx, not Lenin. But of course, Pavlov prevents you from perceiving the distinction. You hear the bell and all you can do is droll. Whether there is meat, hard bread… or nothing at all.

    • avatar

      shh. nobody tell him that european nations are also having various programs to ensure their peoples health and well-being (you know, social programs)

  42. avatar

    NATO should be closed because Europe is not in danger. Befriend Russia and help to reinforce our southeast borders.

  43. avatar

    The bigest enemy of NATO is inside and name turkey, Russia is not enemy from all points of view, so take turkey out and make embarko in weapon, by this you will help not only Greece and Cyprus but also turkish people from the nationalist islamic egime

  44. avatar

    If it would cover most of the world just to make sure there won’t be any other war among allies, why not make it that big…?

    • avatar

      if only it were that simple. Greece and Turkey are NATO allies.

  45. avatar

    Ukraine should not enter Nato. It would be a provocation

  46. avatar

    The countries that have to be in NATO are the current NATO members + Ireland, Argentina, Cyprus, Malta, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Japan.

    • avatar

      Cyprus? No way.

    • avatar

      I am actually surprised Cyprus isn’t in the NATO

  47. avatar

    Get rid of Turkey. Turkey invaded Cyprus and is occupying it. Turkey is trying to steal Greece’s seas and Cyprus’ seas because they have gas resources. Why are invaders, thieves and dictators in NATO anyway? Turkey is the enemy NATO needs to be protecting us from.

  48. avatar

    Whom is NATO fighting?
    … the Russians? China? the Marsians?

    • avatar

      Russia of course since the WW II and now Kina.

  49. avatar
    JT HK

    A government or army cannot submit to two different authorities. Being EU member and NATO member would unavoidably split either NATO or EU. As the America has been acting like parasite of European social, political and economic strength, making use of European lives to sustain its global hegemony. EU needs to be more determine to walk independently towards the common goal on peace and prosperity. EU has to let go the brain dead NATO, a product of the Cold War superpower confrontation of the last century. Make a choice between an independent EU or submit to control of the America from the other side of the Atlantic. America is not Europe. Europe is the source of modernity. It has been always at the forefront of world development. The current decline of Europe is a consequence of submitting too long for US leadership by sacrificing European interests. If Sweden and Finland want to join NATO, EU ought to reject their membership. European citizen. Like Ukraine, they would only drag Europe into war. Equally with Ukraine, a country with territorial conflict and political confrontation with another country should not be qualified to become a EU member. No European wants to die for Finland, Sweden or Ukraine. EU should only be a collective force safeguarding European peace and prosperity.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.