• REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Buddy, if some organisation exists that has members, there will always exist “de facto” members (ones that support the organisation to a large extent, but are not also de jure members), de jure members (members that don’t do anything) and both (the rest).

    The organisation can make PR about how it has “partners” and the like, but that does not change a thing.

    • sweng@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a “de facto” member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?

      NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous “de facto” members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a “de facto” member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.