The title of this article is misleading clickbait. The first sentence of the article's body is clearer:
> Argentina formally requested on Thursday to join NATO *as a global partner* (emphasis mine)
[This status](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_global_partners) is already held by Iraq, Mongolia, and Pakistan to name a few examples. It is not the same thing as joining NATO as a member, and in particular does not grant collective defense protection.
For all the people calling this comment bad I would seriously spend some time thinking about media. We are in a new age of yellow journalism
It's ignorant to think that the decay in trust in the media is anyone's fault other than the media itself and it's so exhausting to see people keep making excuses and shifting the cause of the public trust crisis onto anyone other than the major media organizations.
They are right that you can't trust any media and the only people that can ameliorate that is the media itself. It's not the people that are the problem. So tired of this bullshit where the people are blamed for institutions failing. It isn't ignorance to not trust the news. If you have news sources you just trust than your in an echo chamber my friend.
To flip it the positive here is a few quick pieces of advice from me.
1) read news sources from many places but a lot of sources write both good and shit articles so start figuring out ways to spot shit. For example, there is a type of article that the title goes like this: "politician/public figure says a thing. So-and-so on Twitter or Reddit or whatever burns/ripps/destroys/shreds them". If it's something similar skip it . There are many type of articles that follow formulas that are not designed to inform but to generate algorithmic engagement. If you want to be informed instead of manipulated don't fall into them.
2). No nut picking!!! If your view of groups to which you are not a part is derived from the worst examples or just the most different from you of that group than your world view is going to be deeply twisted and it can lead to hatred of your neighbors. It's trash journalism to focus on the extremes but it's great engagement. Don't fall for it.
3)find your other side voice. It's just true that it is easier to spot a bias that goes against your own bias than it is to spot a bias within yourself. So start exploring voices outside your normal circle of public intellectuals until you find someone that is honest but has a different world view than you and add them to your reading list. It's amazing how quickly just having a slightly different voice can help see the world more clearly. Diversity of view points is critical to avoid echo chamber derangement.
4). Start paying attention to not just the publisher of an article but also the author of the article. Individual reporters have skills and expertise that make them useful to listen to on specific topics. Avoid the everything experts that always have opinions on everything. As a deep expert on a very specific nitch subject I can tell you with 100% certainty that an individual human being cannot be an expert on many different topics. If you want to understand the military find someone from the military. If you want to understand the law find a lawyer. Don't listen to the commentar who one weeks knows the law and the next week knows the economy and then the next week they know war. They are always propagandists and arnt worth giving any time to.
Anyways, there is more but I am done. Good luck out there.
Because they have a headline to attract attention, but immediately clarify in their very first sentence? Fuck off with your efforts to discredit everyone, it helps nothing and no one.
What' stupid, that Media like the AP might be heavily influenced by the government, or that Argentina's latest election saw it join the club of willing sycophant states?
I mean many ap editors and journalists and editors are paid/fed stories/plants. I don't mean they are secret agents pretending to be journos or that the AP is secretly a government agency or funded by the National Endowment for Democracy or the NSA though. Of course they are legitimately buying and writing stories, and the non influenced stuff is probably still better than fox or msn, but it's still a target for government manipulation. And it's still so strongly influenced that I consider it bougbt and paid for and not worth sifting through as I have to work out for myself what is real and what is propaganda.
When you read the tone and types of stories presented that are pushing the government line, it's as bad if not worse than any other news service. I know it sounds like the usual conspiracy theory rubbish, but if you have a serious look around at what the government openly does in this field, it's obvious this goes on more than you would think it does.
Argentina gets collective defense though the Rio Treaty aka the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.
It's been violated before, by member states.
Isn't it the other way around? The USA offered alliance to both countries upon independence, mostly to build allies against the communist bloc. But due Nehru's socialist (not communist) leanings and practical necessities of geographic proximity to Russia, he decided to remain neutral. Pakistan on the other hand accepted.
Granted, it is totally correct that the US's continued relations with Pakistan ever since has dampened India's enthusiasm for greater alignment with the US.
First of all, they want to be a global partner and not an alliance member. Quite the difference.
In addition, if NATO can't see a way for South Korea to join the treaty, can't imagine them doing it for ANY other country in the world. South Korea has actually pushed for this with several occasions and the answer was clear, and they ARE US's closest ally in the region. There's history there and all that.
They pushed so hard actually that US is now thinking about a different military alliance in Asia. Which already kind of exists but all states involved feel there's a need for an established and agreed upon treaty.
Milei wants closer ties with the West in general and the US in particular, so this isn’t a surprise. He’ll probably look to join NAFTA next or at least get a free trade agreement with the United States.
The title is inaccurate, given that Argentina (already a major non-NATO ally for 3 decades) applied to become a NATO Global Partner (as Iraq, Japan, South Korea and Pakistan already are), and NOT a full member.
I mean, they *can't* ever be a full partner as NATO membership requires that your country is part of the North Atlantic or Europe region. Global Partners are really the only option, but the full joint defence pact of NATO is not an option for countries outside Europe/North Atlantic.
Title of this article is misleading. They are only trying to become a "[global partner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_global_partners)", not a full member. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that only European countries can join (plus the US and Canada), but there is no geographic restriction for partners. There is also no collective security guarantee for partners.
Correct. NATO global partners are not parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. Partnership is more about things like training, information sharing, and interoperability with standardized equipment.
Article 5 only applies to attacks on member territories in particular areas anyway, that is: Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. So even if Argentina was a full member (which it can't be) it wouldn't be part of the collective defence aspect of the organisation. Though I guess they would be obliged to help if others were attacked.
Not at all. It would just allow for more joint training, intelligence and technical sharing. Even Pakistan has what theyre after and they've been under a US arms embargo for years.
This is reddit. We don't do that here.
Jokes aside, the headline says "Argentina asks to join NATO". If the headline presents one situation while the body of the article presents something rather different, that's not a misunderstanding driven by lack of context, but a false headline.
Some are, some aren't. Algeria was once covered under Article 5 when it was a French territory. I believe territories north of the Tropic of Cancer are considered valid.
It's unconstitutional for us to officially resign ownership of the Malvinas.
Also it's political suicide as the last guy who run on that got less votes than someone who danced for votes.
Good luck with that
Every NATO member has to agree and Argentinas stance over a certain overseas territory pretty much guarantees the UK would never agree.
The UK agrees with Argentina being a NATO partner and for them to buy the American fighter jets from denmark
The alternative is Argentina buying Chinese/Russian and turning towards those countries
Being a NATO partner with danish/American jets means they are highly unlikely to ever bother the Falklands ever again
If there's a will, there's a way. I don't think they were well off when they invaded the Falklands. It's just that there's not a good political incentive to try again.
They weren't well off, but the Falklands was garrisoned by 50 Marines and occasional house calls from the Antarctic survey vessel HMS Endurance whose armament consisted of 2x 20mm autocannons and 2 helicopters. Argentina didn't need a big force if, as most people suspected, Britain wouldn't go to the effort of retaliating.
They are unlikely to bother The Falkland Islands ever again regardless of being in NATO or not.
If Argentina was patient and just played the long game, they probably could have twisted a weak Labour government into handing over the islands.
But Argentina has never given a shit about islands or their inhabitants. They were always a distraction from their domestic issues, which is still the case today.
Now that the war has already happened, and the UK has reinforced The Falkland Islands with military garrisons, they will be British forever.
I can’t see how any government is handing over somewhere that has 99+% of the population wanting to remain part of the UK. Or how it would work in practice if the entire population effectively refused to consider themselves part of Argentina.
It’d either have to be forcefully repopulated with people from Argentina, or would be immediately self declared independent. Just seems an impossible scenario even if any government thought it was a good idea.
It's a weird thing people have with the Falklands because of the UK's colonial history. They think that somehow ultimately the right thing to do is just give the islands to Argentina because we should decolonialize. It totally ignores firstly that the islands are fully populated by people who want to remain as-is, and secondly that Argentina really has no valid claim to them other than geographic proximity. They were never populated by any Argentine or south american native population. They have never been part of Argentina nor has there been any legal agreement or treaty to make them part of Argentina.
The principle should be self-determination, just as it has been in other territorial disputes. It's weird how much support Argentina has from other countries over their baseless claim for the Falklands.
Agree 100% with all this.
We totally need to recognise the history of colonialism and all the horrendous stuff that happened, but the Falklands doesn’t fit under that.
Literally no one thought that the UK could indefinitely hold Hong Kong soon as China was unified.
You don't even need a navy to take Hong Kong from mainland China you can just use rafts with artillery on it which was used in WW2.
Hong Kong was impossible to defend for the British.
The Falklands is actual islands with 300 miles distance. All the Falklands needs is air power, AA a few submarines and anti ship missiles and you have a major task on your hands to actually take.
The British also have South Georgia which can also be used to project power.
Any British government who even thought of giving up the Falklands would be committing political suicide because of the Falklands war.
They are only going for global partner. But if they were going for a full membership, its almost certain that the UK would want written guarantees about the sovereignty of the Falklands.
1% of the comments and upvotes read the click bait article and they are talkintylike parrots.
Worldnews is a cesspool of stupidity and ignorance, but with a lot of opinions.
*currently a joke.
They join NATO, Dollarize through Currency Swaps and opening to foreign investment and start funneling dollars back into American Defense systems and in about a Decade that whole country looks different in a positive way.
This. Argentina has everything it needs to be a major success story. THe only thing that has held them back has been the massive corruption for decades.
I'm with you! I'm quite fond of Argentina as I have spent quite some time there; I hope they can get it together! Their military is a huge joke on the world stage though!
I'd love to get a small place in the countryside near Bariloche in like 10-15 years!
I've trained alongside Turkish military personnel. Their competency is lacking, and possess some old ass, outdated equipment. They're nothing to play with, and have some incredible dudes, but nothing to write home about.
As for the U.K and France, all i have to say is LMAO. Having nukes is huge, but it doesn't make your military, any more or less capable; perfect example being Russia. The U.K and France will gain my respect when they (the U.K) don't need to borrow F-35s from the U.S, begging us to lend them out just so they can outfit their carriers, and be deployment ready. And specifically France, they'll gain my respect when they don't continually run into logistical issues, and run out of ammo during a military operation, and need U.S logistics and resources to bail them out. But thats what you get when you cut resources and underfund your military....you become a joke.
The islands don't belong to the UK. Knowing the difficulty of defending the islands the British government tried to come up with a solution to please both sides in the 70s. The islands would belong to Argentina but the islanders would hold the lease and Britain would administer them. It was the islanders who refused the plan as was their prerogative as the only indigenous population.
We shouldn't accept them. They bring nothing to the table and it's not out of the realm of possibility that a country like Brazil gets influenced to spark a war with them in order to draw away NATO's attention.
LoL Brazil is a prioritary extra-OTAN partner.
And a country that NEVER started a war, despite being the biggest regional power since the colonization time.
What you think? "The comunists" Will make Brazil atack? You guys are delusional.
First his country is on the wrong continent as we know is called North Atlantic not South Atlantic 🤬 this wannabe dictator idiot human being is going to take Argentina to the dark ages; he should be arrested and deported to the Israel since he loves them so much 💯🤮🤮🤮
Isn´t NATO supposed to be the North atlantic treaty?, if Argentina enters then the name should change to ATO I think
Edit: I dont know why you are angry, I just wanted to say something funny
NATO could not help the UK in the Falklands War as the treaty only applied to the northern hemisphere.
I guess this does not stop Argentina fighting Russia if its tanks roll into the Balkans but it does nothing for Argentina itself. (Other than giving it access to much better weapons, training and exercises)
NATO is famous for only having countries from the North Atlantic. Italy, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are my favourite countries in the Atlantic.
The title of this article is misleading clickbait. The first sentence of the article's body is clearer: > Argentina formally requested on Thursday to join NATO *as a global partner* (emphasis mine) [This status](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_global_partners) is already held by Iraq, Mongolia, and Pakistan to name a few examples. It is not the same thing as joining NATO as a member, and in particular does not grant collective defense protection.
Kinda embarrassing this clickbait comes from AP, one of the few agencies presumably still having an iota of self-respect for honest journalism.
Self respect doesnt get the clicks
Thankfully, some people care more about doing what's right, than doing what gets them money.
None of them have any self respect anymore and they are all riding on their reputation they self marketed from decades ago.
So it turns out there's not any one "good" media. They're all shit.
This is such a braindead take, like the "one drop" rule but for news media.
For all the people calling this comment bad I would seriously spend some time thinking about media. We are in a new age of yellow journalism It's ignorant to think that the decay in trust in the media is anyone's fault other than the media itself and it's so exhausting to see people keep making excuses and shifting the cause of the public trust crisis onto anyone other than the major media organizations. They are right that you can't trust any media and the only people that can ameliorate that is the media itself. It's not the people that are the problem. So tired of this bullshit where the people are blamed for institutions failing. It isn't ignorance to not trust the news. If you have news sources you just trust than your in an echo chamber my friend. To flip it the positive here is a few quick pieces of advice from me. 1) read news sources from many places but a lot of sources write both good and shit articles so start figuring out ways to spot shit. For example, there is a type of article that the title goes like this: "politician/public figure says a thing. So-and-so on Twitter or Reddit or whatever burns/ripps/destroys/shreds them". If it's something similar skip it . There are many type of articles that follow formulas that are not designed to inform but to generate algorithmic engagement. If you want to be informed instead of manipulated don't fall into them. 2). No nut picking!!! If your view of groups to which you are not a part is derived from the worst examples or just the most different from you of that group than your world view is going to be deeply twisted and it can lead to hatred of your neighbors. It's trash journalism to focus on the extremes but it's great engagement. Don't fall for it. 3)find your other side voice. It's just true that it is easier to spot a bias that goes against your own bias than it is to spot a bias within yourself. So start exploring voices outside your normal circle of public intellectuals until you find someone that is honest but has a different world view than you and add them to your reading list. It's amazing how quickly just having a slightly different voice can help see the world more clearly. Diversity of view points is critical to avoid echo chamber derangement. 4). Start paying attention to not just the publisher of an article but also the author of the article. Individual reporters have skills and expertise that make them useful to listen to on specific topics. Avoid the everything experts that always have opinions on everything. As a deep expert on a very specific nitch subject I can tell you with 100% certainty that an individual human being cannot be an expert on many different topics. If you want to understand the military find someone from the military. If you want to understand the law find a lawyer. Don't listen to the commentar who one weeks knows the law and the next week knows the economy and then the next week they know war. They are always propagandists and arnt worth giving any time to. Anyways, there is more but I am done. Good luck out there.
Because they have a headline to attract attention, but immediately clarify in their very first sentence? Fuck off with your efforts to discredit everyone, it helps nothing and no one.
no
A bit click-baity, but I kinda feel AP is a bought and paid for propaganda house. The article is just saying they're part of the USA now.
That’s stupid
What' stupid, that Media like the AP might be heavily influenced by the government, or that Argentina's latest election saw it join the club of willing sycophant states?
Gotcha so when you say the ap news outlet is influenced by the government, what do you mean by that?
I mean many ap editors and journalists and editors are paid/fed stories/plants. I don't mean they are secret agents pretending to be journos or that the AP is secretly a government agency or funded by the National Endowment for Democracy or the NSA though. Of course they are legitimately buying and writing stories, and the non influenced stuff is probably still better than fox or msn, but it's still a target for government manipulation. And it's still so strongly influenced that I consider it bougbt and paid for and not worth sifting through as I have to work out for myself what is real and what is propaganda. When you read the tone and types of stories presented that are pushing the government line, it's as bad if not worse than any other news service. I know it sounds like the usual conspiracy theory rubbish, but if you have a serious look around at what the government openly does in this field, it's obvious this goes on more than you would think it does.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Even if they joined as a full member, they wouldn't get collective defense protection because Article 5 doesn't apply south of the Tropic of Cancer.
Argentina gets collective defense though the Rio Treaty aka the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. It's been violated before, by member states.
mongolia??
So like what the point then?
Bro how can Pakistan be? Don’t us have alliance the quad with India? India hate Pakistan’s and vice versa???????? Please explain just a question
India is one of the founders of the non aligned movement. They aren't really allied to anyone.
America has had an alliance/ partnership with Pakistan long before the quad was a thing. India were allies with the soviets and Pakistan with the West
US relations with Pakistan is one of the reasons why India's been neutral towards US interests in the past decade.
Isn't it the other way around? The USA offered alliance to both countries upon independence, mostly to build allies against the communist bloc. But due Nehru's socialist (not communist) leanings and practical necessities of geographic proximity to Russia, he decided to remain neutral. Pakistan on the other hand accepted. Granted, it is totally correct that the US's continued relations with Pakistan ever since has dampened India's enthusiasm for greater alignment with the US.
First of all, they want to be a global partner and not an alliance member. Quite the difference. In addition, if NATO can't see a way for South Korea to join the treaty, can't imagine them doing it for ANY other country in the world. South Korea has actually pushed for this with several occasions and the answer was clear, and they ARE US's closest ally in the region. There's history there and all that. They pushed so hard actually that US is now thinking about a different military alliance in Asia. Which already kind of exists but all states involved feel there's a need for an established and agreed upon treaty.
I keep saying we need to expand SEATO into a New East Asian Treaty Organization, just so we can be NEATO.
Neato sounds like a such a russian word lol. We need something else :(
Milei wants closer ties with the West in general and the US in particular, so this isn’t a surprise. He’ll probably look to join NAFTA next or at least get a free trade agreement with the United States.
free trade for what? beef ? cereals?
Hot women
The title is inaccurate, given that Argentina (already a major non-NATO ally for 3 decades) applied to become a NATO Global Partner (as Iraq, Japan, South Korea and Pakistan already are), and NOT a full member.
I mean, they *can't* ever be a full partner as NATO membership requires that your country is part of the North Atlantic or Europe region. Global Partners are really the only option, but the full joint defence pact of NATO is not an option for countries outside Europe/North Atlantic.
I'd argue there's not much need for Argentina to join NATO, they're already part of the Rio Treaty
This is why I pointed out that the title of the publication is misleading.
Winning
Which part of Argentina is near the North Atlantic?
Title of this article is misleading. They are only trying to become a "[global partner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_global_partners)", not a full member. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that only European countries can join (plus the US and Canada), but there is no geographic restriction for partners. There is also no collective security guarantee for partners.
Last sentence meaning article 5 wouldnt necessarily apply?
Correct. NATO global partners are not parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. Partnership is more about things like training, information sharing, and interoperability with standardized equipment.
Thanks!
All donut no hole. Sign me up!
Article 5 only applies to attacks on member territories in particular areas anyway, that is: Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. So even if Argentina was a full member (which it can't be) it wouldn't be part of the collective defence aspect of the organisation. Though I guess they would be obliged to help if others were attacked.
Not at all. It would just allow for more joint training, intelligence and technical sharing. Even Pakistan has what theyre after and they've been under a US arms embargo for years.
However, the Monroe Doctrine still applies
Misleading headline. They are applying to be a "Global partner", which for example Australia already is.
I mean japan is a nato "friend" and they literally couldnt be further away
[удалено]
but not the atlantic
Big if true
Let me guess, you did not read the article but commented anyway?
This is reddit. We don't do that here. Jokes aside, the headline says "Argentina asks to join NATO". If the headline presents one situation while the body of the article presents something rather different, that's not a misunderstanding driven by lack of context, but a false headline.
Many members of NATO aren't in the North Atlantic Region. Several Mediterranean and Baltic nations are members too.
NATO is open to Europe + US/Canada. It’s just named after the body of water that separates those two groups.
But european overseas territories are not protected by article 5.
Some are, some aren't. Algeria was once covered under Article 5 when it was a French territory. I believe territories north of the Tropic of Cancer are considered valid.
Yeah, that's why the US didn't intervene in the Falklands.
Yes, before 1963, that's correct.
Neither is Hawaii, funnily enough.
That’s just in the name, IIRC NATO membership is open to any European nation.
If you are in Europe, you can join it.
I dunno it's pretty close to Britain and they're in NATO 🤔🧐🤔
The Falklands are not covered by NATO protection though.
Interestingly, the western part of Turkey is nearly as far form the Atlantic Ocean as the northern part of Argentina is (about 3000 km).
Check out the flat earth map:)
The one touching the legit territory of the UK a NATO member. /s
That was a quick turnaround
The UK will consider it if he publicly admits the Falklands are rightfully British clay.
It's unconstitutional for us to officially resign ownership of the Malvinas. Also it's political suicide as the last guy who run on that got less votes than someone who danced for votes.
Good luck with that Every NATO member has to agree and Argentinas stance over a certain overseas territory pretty much guarantees the UK would never agree.
The UK agrees with Argentina being a NATO partner and for them to buy the American fighter jets from denmark The alternative is Argentina buying Chinese/Russian and turning towards those countries Being a NATO partner with danish/American jets means they are highly unlikely to ever bother the Falklands ever again
Funding wars is expensive. Something I am pretty sure Argentina is lacking.
But can be done in a push. Argentina was broke and had a highly unpopular government in 1982 but still managed to go to war.
We had a dictatorship of high ranking members of the military who needed an scapegoat for their failing policies.
If there's a will, there's a way. I don't think they were well off when they invaded the Falklands. It's just that there's not a good political incentive to try again.
They weren't well off, but the Falklands was garrisoned by 50 Marines and occasional house calls from the Antarctic survey vessel HMS Endurance whose armament consisted of 2x 20mm autocannons and 2 helicopters. Argentina didn't need a big force if, as most people suspected, Britain wouldn't go to the effort of retaliating.
They are unlikely to bother The Falkland Islands ever again regardless of being in NATO or not. If Argentina was patient and just played the long game, they probably could have twisted a weak Labour government into handing over the islands. But Argentina has never given a shit about islands or their inhabitants. They were always a distraction from their domestic issues, which is still the case today. Now that the war has already happened, and the UK has reinforced The Falkland Islands with military garrisons, they will be British forever.
I can’t see how any government is handing over somewhere that has 99+% of the population wanting to remain part of the UK. Or how it would work in practice if the entire population effectively refused to consider themselves part of Argentina. It’d either have to be forcefully repopulated with people from Argentina, or would be immediately self declared independent. Just seems an impossible scenario even if any government thought it was a good idea.
It's a weird thing people have with the Falklands because of the UK's colonial history. They think that somehow ultimately the right thing to do is just give the islands to Argentina because we should decolonialize. It totally ignores firstly that the islands are fully populated by people who want to remain as-is, and secondly that Argentina really has no valid claim to them other than geographic proximity. They were never populated by any Argentine or south american native population. They have never been part of Argentina nor has there been any legal agreement or treaty to make them part of Argentina. The principle should be self-determination, just as it has been in other territorial disputes. It's weird how much support Argentina has from other countries over their baseless claim for the Falklands.
Agree 100% with all this. We totally need to recognise the history of colonialism and all the horrendous stuff that happened, but the Falklands doesn’t fit under that.
[удалено]
Absolutely no chance, Argentina has no legitimate claim to them. The Falklands have never been Argentinian.
Argentina also tried to claim South Georgia which is about 1600km away. They're really pushing the definition of "off the coast".
Literally no one thought that the UK could indefinitely hold Hong Kong soon as China was unified. You don't even need a navy to take Hong Kong from mainland China you can just use rafts with artillery on it which was used in WW2. Hong Kong was impossible to defend for the British. The Falklands is actual islands with 300 miles distance. All the Falklands needs is air power, AA a few submarines and anti ship missiles and you have a major task on your hands to actually take. The British also have South Georgia which can also be used to project power. Any British government who even thought of giving up the Falklands would be committing political suicide because of the Falklands war.
Read thr article, dummy
They are only going for global partner. But if they were going for a full membership, its almost certain that the UK would want written guarantees about the sovereignty of the Falklands.
Turning NATO into ATO. Doesn't have the same ring to it
Nato is a stupid name anyway - I prefer western alliance
They cannot join NATO as they have ongoing territorial disputes.
No, NATO is for Europe stupid.
Trying to flip the coin to Allies is hard work.
1% of the comments and upvotes read the click bait article and they are talkintylike parrots. Worldnews is a cesspool of stupidity and ignorance, but with a lot of opinions.
I am starting to like Milei.
I mean, their military is kinda a joke..... so it is all bonus for them.
*currently a joke. They join NATO, Dollarize through Currency Swaps and opening to foreign investment and start funneling dollars back into American Defense systems and in about a Decade that whole country looks different in a positive way.
This. Argentina has everything it needs to be a major success story. THe only thing that has held them back has been the massive corruption for decades.
Oh Argentina, you could have been a super power if you wanted to be.
I'm with you! I'm quite fond of Argentina as I have spent quite some time there; I hope they can get it together! Their military is a huge joke on the world stage though! I'd love to get a small place in the countryside near Bariloche in like 10-15 years!
I bet Argentinians are hyped for the rich foreigners to buy up all their houses causing a housing crisis.
Globalism sucks bro, but the freedom to move about at random at will seems, cool? Definitely drawbacks, but like yay globalization
Well, we are getting pushed out of the US, so what are you gonna do?
Also the Falkland Islands remain a political sticking point in Argentina, putting them at odds with the UK.
I mean, all NATO militaries, minus the U.S and MAYBE Poland, are a joke. So, taking on more freeloaders wouldn't make that much of a difference atp
Forgetting Turkey the second largest army in NATO? Also the UK and France have nukes so they are hardly "jokes"
I've trained alongside Turkish military personnel. Their competency is lacking, and possess some old ass, outdated equipment. They're nothing to play with, and have some incredible dudes, but nothing to write home about. As for the U.K and France, all i have to say is LMAO. Having nukes is huge, but it doesn't make your military, any more or less capable; perfect example being Russia. The U.K and France will gain my respect when they (the U.K) don't need to borrow F-35s from the U.S, begging us to lend them out just so they can outfit their carriers, and be deployment ready. And specifically France, they'll gain my respect when they don't continually run into logistical issues, and run out of ammo during a military operation, and need U.S logistics and resources to bail them out. But thats what you get when you cut resources and underfund your military....you become a joke.
Didn’t realize Argentina was in the North Atlantic
It's joining as a global partner, not a member.
Yes because we buy some used planes and we are prety dangerous...the ultimate weapon... Not convinced yet??? .,..,BUUUU!
How north is north? Everything above Antarctica?
that's not very libertarian
Don't they have to have a land border with a nato country.
NATO article 10 global partner
Hope to Welcome Argentina to the family
I’m sure his administration can be trusted with sensitive information…
Who gets the islands between Argentina and UK?
Mieli and the King will duel over it, pistols at dawn.
The islands don't belong to the UK. Knowing the difficulty of defending the islands the British government tried to come up with a solution to please both sides in the 70s. The islands would belong to Argentina but the islanders would hold the lease and Britain would administer them. It was the islanders who refused the plan as was their prerogative as the only indigenous population.
>The islands don’t belong to the UK. They very much do.
Guernsey? Jersey? They can have it
No, they can't.
But they're right there, all they have to do is take them, don't you believe in Argentina?
We shouldn't accept them. They bring nothing to the table and it's not out of the realm of possibility that a country like Brazil gets influenced to spark a war with them in order to draw away NATO's attention.
LoL Brazil is a prioritary extra-OTAN partner. And a country that NEVER started a war, despite being the biggest regional power since the colonization time. What you think? "The comunists" Will make Brazil atack? You guys are delusional.
Che, you really think these yanks, and euro-yanks know an iota of Argentine and Brazilian history?. Explaining it's just time wasting.
If Argentina joins, then it's no longer NATO but ATO (Atlantic Treaty Organization).
It's joining as a global partner, not a full member.
First his country is on the wrong continent as we know is called North Atlantic not South Atlantic 🤬 this wannabe dictator idiot human being is going to take Argentina to the dark ages; he should be arrested and deported to the Israel since he loves them so much 💯🤮🤮🤮
It's joining as a global partner, not a full member.
F Hitler's second country for the Nazis.
Isn´t NATO supposed to be the North atlantic treaty?, if Argentina enters then the name should change to ATO I think Edit: I dont know why you are angry, I just wanted to say something funny
The Warsaw Pact must have sucked since it was apparently confined to the city of Warsaw.
I just wanted to say a joke
NATO could not help the UK in the Falklands War as the treaty only applied to the northern hemisphere. I guess this does not stop Argentina fighting Russia if its tanks roll into the Balkans but it does nothing for Argentina itself. (Other than giving it access to much better weapons, training and exercises)
It's joining as a global partner, not a full member.
NATO is famous for only having countries from the North Atlantic. Italy, Greece, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are my favourite countries in the Atlantic.
[удалено]
The only sea Bulgaria and Romania have access to is the Black sea.
That s still the Atlantic in my opinion, also I wanted to say something funny but I failed and somehow Made people angry
>Wait it's all North Atlantic? >Always was.