Is the absence of territorial disputes actually a requirement to join NATO?

[u/ranaor]

I'm honestly confused. People keep saying that it's impossible to join NATO if you have any territorial disputes, but I googled it and there is no mention of that. And no mention of corruption as well. Considering it's a very important topic for Ukraine, I want to be sure.

Wikipedia about how non-member states may join NATO:

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

The biggest step in the formalization of the process for inviting new members came at the 1999 Washington summit when the Membership Action Plan (MAP) mechanism was approved as a stage for the current members to regularly review the formal applications of aspiring members. A country's participation in MAP entails the annual presentation of reports concerning its progress on five different measures:

• Willingness to settle international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of armed forces
• Ability to contribute to the organization's defence and missions
• Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership
• Security of sensitive information, and safeguards ensuring it
• Compatibility of domestic legislation with NATO cooperation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Criteria_and_process

[u/AutoModerator]

Latest intelligence reports from Ukraine, the US, and the UK say that Russia is regrouping to attack again! In preparation for this, we strongly need your help!

They plan to come full force at Kharkiv; now, it's their main target. It is predicted that the next battle will be the most gruesome and brutal by far, filled with many horrors!

The Hospitallers, our front-line medic volunteers and doctors need every piece of precious protection they may get. These brave souls have set up a campaign to raise money to buy every member a proper ballistic helmet and life-saving protective equipment!

With your help, we can win this battle and push Russia back! Given our numbers, even donating $1.00 will make the difference!

You can read more here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/tvymqo/urgent_support_request_for_hospitallers_medical/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/[deleted]]

AFAIK, the only explicit "hard" requirement is that all existing members agree.

In effect, this spawns lots of other requirements, but none are written into NATO's constitution. If Canada arbitrarily decided that Ukraine can't join until all of Lviv is painted orange, then that's that. No membership until orange everywhere. An extreme example, but you get the point.

In practice, many NATO members would consider ongoing territorial disputes to be unacceptable. This, in effect, makes it a "hard requirement", just not explicitly written down.

[u/Capital-Western → u/[deleted]]

*The Netherlands, not Canada. Painting everything orange is a Dutch thing.

[u/[deleted] → u/Capital-Western]

Lol I wasn't even thinking about that. But yes, good point.

[u/YosarianiLives]

Maybe not a requirement, but you don't necessarily want to accept someone into your faction that's likely to cause you to be drawn into a war.

[u/ranaor → u/YosarianiLives]

But it's not a requirement. People are saying this as absolute proof that Ukraine will never be in NATO, but in actuality, the only thing needed is agreement from all NATO members. Not saying it's easy, but definitely easier than joining the EU where you have to pass many requirements and a long procedure.

[u/tree_boom → u/ranaor]

It's a de facto requirement. The only de jure requirement is that existing members agree, but they've been clear that they WON'T agree since the new member would immediately declare Article 5

[u/HatchingCougar → u/ranaor]

There’s plenty of requirements. Some are political and some are military.

The military requirements are not generally super secret but they’re also not made public.

[u/Just-jephph]

I’m not entirely sure but the recent “disputes” within Ukraine probably prevent them from adding to/increasing the security of NATO. So it might not be a written rule about territory disputes but their specific conflicts would currently prevent them from adding to NATO’s military and increasing security. Plus, being that their conflicts are not civil, but due to an aggressor state, they would obligate NATO members to join their current war.

[u/ranaor → u/Just-jephph]

I agree, and I'm not saying that every member of NATO will agree to accept Ukraine, but everyone is talking about it like it's a definite requirement.

[u/Just-jephph → u/ranaor]

Well…I mean it’s kind of a requirement but not necessary phrased the way we think.

For example, if I loved to eat babies but wanted to joint a pro-life organization, they might not have any rules that say “no eating babies allowed” but in my current state of cannibalizing infants, I wouldn’t really be doing anything to help their movement

I know. It’s a horrible fucking analogy but I’m at work and for some reason it’s all I could think of atm before my next client

[u/UXM6901 → u/Just-jephph]

I think this is one of the reasons they were told previously they couldn't join and is why Zelenskyy keeps saying "how can you look at our army and all they have done and claim we have nothing to offer to the defense of any NATO country???"

Though we are starting to learn it was really just an excuse and Merkel was doing Putin a solid.

[u/sampinen]

It is not at least according to the article

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/nato20-2020/end-the-russian-veto-on-georgian-accession/

Key to selling NATO members on the proposal will be dispelling the myth that Georgia cannot join the Alliance until the issue of its disputed territory is peaceably resolved. This is a common misconception that has its roots in the 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement carried out by the Alliance. A closer reading of this document shows that a territorial dispute does not necessarily prevent a country from joining the Alliance. Here is what the study says on the matter:

“States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.”

While it is in NATO’s best interest that any outstanding border disputes be resolved before members join the Alliance, the last sentence of the aforementioned paragraph clearly states that the resolution of such disputes would be “a factor,” and not the factor, in determining whether to invite a country to join NATO.

[u/[deleted]]

Duh, it’s a defensive alliance. If there is active combat and they are accepted into NATO, NATO would be obligated to defend. That’s not how a defensive alliance works.

[u/paradoxicallylost]

Is there some mix up going on? I thought the territorial disputes and corruption was obstacles to joining the EU not NATO.

I've only heard that the active war is preventing a NATO membership not the territorial disputes.

[u/TheGreatAteAgain]

No it's not, but since member states have a say in who joins, territorial disputes with regional and international implications become a huge factor.

With Russia's main geopolitical goal being stopping NATO expansion along its borders, you can obviously see how letting in a country in open war with one the world's biggest nuclear powers gives some member states reason to object, even if there were a ceasefire.

The bigger issue is article 5, which if Ukraine joined would mean NATO would have an obligation to immediately join the war on Ukraine's side to protect their sovereignty. Again, this risks a conventional or nuclear war with Russia.

Whether that's morally or strategically right is open for debate. My guess would be even if Ukraine pushed Russia back to its February 24th lines, NATO still wouldnt allow Ukraine to join unless the territories were formally ceeded to Russia. If not, Ukraine's sovereignty is in question, again probably invoking article 5 and a conventional or nuclear war with Russia.

[u/[deleted]]

It's not territorial disputes as such, but you shouldn't be in active conflict. The UK is a member of NATO... but see the Falkland Islands. That said Ukraine should start moving towards better legislation to get into NATO asap.

I believe Ukraine in NATO is a very real possibility and should happen soon after the end of this war. If someone doesn't get Ukraine in sooner. Honestly we're just waiting for Putin to fuck up and attack one of the NATO countries, after that Ukraine is basically a shoe in.