1/5
As #Finland grapples with the #Erdogan challenge to its #NATO aspirations, pointed questions are being asked. Glad to have been interviewed in the preparation of this opinion piece about whether NATO accession supports democratic reforms.

hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2…
2/5
I consider there's a strong case for viewing NATO accession *alone* as a significant pull factor supporting democracy & rule of law reforms for Spain in the 1980s and for the first wave of CEE Allies in the 1990s, in that NATO accession predated EU accession in those cases.
3/5
CEE Allies who joined later experienced the NATO and EU pull factors in closer succession or simultaneously, so the NATO pull factor is harder to isolate from the EU pull factor.
That said, what happens after joining?
4/5
It is very rare for a state to leave or be expelled from an International Organisation. There is leverage on candidate countries to boost political reforms - but far less so once they are members. This is generally true of International Organisations, not just NATO.
5/5
So, is joining about political norms or about collective defence? I am content in my belief that it is both. But there can be plot twists later on.
Thanks to @JuusoMaattanen for the conversation.
The views in the opinion piece are his.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Edward Hunter Christie

Edward Hunter Christie Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EHunterChristie

Jun 19
1/16
Agree with @iquardt's critique of Germany's "change through trade" policy, but the biggest failure was that the policy was pursued unconditionally. You cannot get change through trade if trade never responds to negative change.
15 missed opportunities over 2004-2021 🧵
2/16
Selected pivotal instances of negative RUS change that had no effect on West / GER trade policy:

1- Putin cheats at the Presidential election of 2004: we knew it, we self-censored, business-as-usual
2- Putin cheats again in the 2007 legislative elections: same non-response
3/16

3- December 2007: Russia suspends participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty - an important arms control treaty. Under-reported at the time, guess what happens the following year. Any response in terms of trade & investment? No.
Read 16 tweets
Jun 18
1/7
Recently had exchanges with some foreign policy analysts from a Western European country - I won't specify further. I was struck by a certain degree of short-sighted cynicism regarding Russia and Ukraine. Obviously Kissinger was quoted.
2/7
There was no mention of the fact that RUS violations of International Law are very grave. No understanding that such violations, if not severely punished, could present Europe with further danger in future.
3/7
At a deeper level, I would also say the individuals concerned had no understanding of what a military alliance is all about - and I mean NATO here in particular. I had to spell it out, and I will do so here too.
Read 7 tweets
Jun 15
1/17
Press briefing: US Def Sec #Austin and Gen. #Milley after the 3rd #Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Brussels.
Selected points: (note, this is *not* a NATO meeting. It's an ad hoc group, that has now grown to 50 countries.)
via
@YouTube
2/17
DefSec Austin:
Fact we have 50 countries pledging mil aid to #Ukraine testament to how RUS unprovoked invasion has horrified and galvanised the world, and testament to #heroism of Ukrainian people
3/17
DefSec Austin:
In May, US #Congress approved 40 bn USD in assistance to UA. On 1 June, POTUS auth. further 700 mill USD mil package incl #HIMARS rocket system and guided munitions, plus #Javelins, helicopters, counter-battery radars and ammunition.
Read 17 tweets
Jun 15
1/6
I'm not sure about this interpretation.
As the FT article makes clear, LIT wants a full presence, not a "remote brigade". Of course they welcome what they can get, that's diplomacy, and it's a small Ally asking for support. But I doubt they are satisfied.
2/6
The notion that the GER decision was "praised" doesn't account for how diplomacy works in such cases. In the NATO context, every contribution is praised, it's good form, it's how Allies talk, almost always.
3/6
Did LIT know it would only get a "remote brigade"?
Of course. There was a joint statement, press reports (though issue of longer-term presence was a bit less clear, to me at least).
Read 6 tweets
Jun 9
1/5
People's opinions are often shaped by their nationality, which carries it with it a specific historical memory. Not real history, but the memory of it.
That's why it's very hard to get many Western Europeans to understand how evil the USSR was, or how evil Putin is.
2/5
Hitler comparisons also raise resistance. E.g. compare Stalin's USSR with Nazi Germany: they were different of course, but tyrannical mass murder is tyrannical mass murder. But many West. Europeans reject that comparison because their "national memory software" blocks it.
3/5
Who is most at ease making Hitler-Stalin comparisons? Those from nations that were victims of both forms of terror.
Who struggles the most to make them? Those from nations that experienced only one of them.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 8
1/5

Attn. France and Germany

This homework is due by Monday 13 June 2022.

I. Read the interview below with the Polish President

II. Respond to questions A to D in tweets below
(use supporting material as necessary)
2/5

A: In April 1939, Roosevelt addressed an additional letter to Adolf Hitler, stressing he was "a friendly intermediary", and asked for assurances concerning several third countries.
How successful was that mediation effort?

mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Wo…

criticalpast.com/video/65675047…
3/5

B: Following the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan:
(i) the United States acted as a mediator and the Soviet Union admitted its mistake
(ii) the United States supplied weapons to the freedom fighters and was incinerated
(iii) a bunch of badly behaved countries joined NATO
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(