Comments by "Tjalve" (@Tjalve70) on "Why Every NATO Member Joined (And Why Everyone Else Hasn't)" video.

  1. Norway is the only country liberated/occupied by USSR during WW2 where the Russians pulled out without being asked to do so. So we have actually had quite peaceful relationship with Russia/USSR. And I would say that we were more happy about our NATO membership during the Cold War. Since if we hadn't been NATO members then, it would have been quite likely that USSR would have staged some reason to "help" us. After all, the Norwegian fjords would have been VERY valuable for Soviet fleets.
    20
  2. Stop sprouting Russian propaganda.
    5
  3. You don't need to nationalize your industry in order to be Nazi. Nor do you automatically become Nazi if you nationalize your industry. Nazism is a nationalist version of fascism. Fascism is a military dictatorship. So Nazism is a nationalist military dictatorship. Like Ruzzia.
    5
  4.  @RomanVideos1  And Ruzzo Nazis are bombing Ukrainians now. That's a fact. So what's your point? What are you even responding to?
    5
  5. We very clearly see now that NATO is not irrelevant. So Ron Paul is wrong.
    4
  6.  @nickbell4984  True. But again, they left without even being asked to. They could have occupied that part of Norway, like they did in other countries. But they didn't.
    3
  7. There was never such an agreement. Everybody involved have said so. That's just Russian propaganda.
    3
  8. If NATO had allowed Russia to join, then NATO would have been dead now. And Ukraine and the Baltic States would currently have been a part of Russia. Not sure if that would have been better than the current situation.
    3
  9. The alliance was founded on DEFENDING against Russia. Not on making war on Russia. That isn't the same thing.
    3
  10.  @wanderingartifact6087  True. But the same way lead ammunition can contaminate an area where it's used, DU-ammunition can also contaminate an area. Just vastly more so. So there are reasons to want to ban it.
    3
  11.  @oneonone8855  Ukraine was invaded in 2014 because they wanted to join NATO. And since NATO doesn't accept candidates that have territorial disputes, Putin made sure that they had territorial disputes.
    3
  12. Italy was a founding member of NATO. Anti-NATO sentiments in Italy now are irrelevant, since this video is about why countries joined NATO.
    3
  13. When did Russia try to invade a NATO member, and NATO didn't respond? If you want to make a claim, you should be ready to back it up.
    3
  14. NATO is an alliance, not an empire.
    3
  15. Very unlikely. Lots of other people have asked the same. The reason is simple: The countries in NATO wants NATO to keep existing. There is no requirement that NATO stop existing when USSR no longer exists.
    2
  16.  @Carewolf  I know they did. And they only left after the Danes argued that they had a sufficient army to defend themselves, and that the British and Americans were leaving. That's why I said Norway was the only country they left without having to be asked to do so.
    2
  17.  @WhoStoleMyAlias  Why are you starting to mix USA into this? I was talking about USSR and Norway. USA has nothing to do with this. Stay on topic, and answer my question.
    2
  18.  @WhoStoleMyAlias  I made it clear that I didn't answer your question because IT DIDN*T MAKE ANY SENSE. Which was why I asked you to CLARIFY your question. So am I to assume that this is your clarification of your question? Was this all you were asking all along? Then what was the rest of what you were asking all about? As for answering your question: Your question is nonsensical, because it's obvious. USSR and Russia has been looking for warm water ports for centuries. That historical fact is your answer. And if you had known anything about anything, you wouldn't have needed to ask.
    2
  19. France did not what?
    2
  20. So what you're saying is that we just have to wait until eternity ends, and then you can join?
    2
  21. Ukraine would need to have some changes before they could join, yes. Otherwise they would have joined a long time ago. But these things CAN be changed.
    2
  22.  @blackgruya011  This war in Ukraine is showing clearly that Ruzzia isn't even able to communicate with themselves. And NATO has frequent exercises, where one key aspect is to ensure organization and communication across country lines. So no, you're wrong. You obviously have no idea how this actually works. And when Ruzzia hasn't been able to take more than 20% of Ukraine in 5 months, including what they occupied before the war, your claim is laughable.
    2
  23. Turkey is a European state. Just like Kazakhstan and Iceland.
    2
  24. So that means it's correct. Crimea IS a part of Ukraine.
    2
  25.  @danielefabbro822  How is that in any way relevant to this video?
    2
  26.  @wanderingartifact6087  Well, I would personally say that cluster bombs are worse. But I'm not a military or health specialist, so I can't really make the comparison.
    2
  27. WW1 started because Austria made demands to Serbia that they would not accept, and thus Austria declared war. Then Russia declared war on Austria, and so on. Germany did not start WW1. WW2 started as a consequence of the Versailles Treaty and the Great Depression, which allowed an ultra-nationalist party to grasp power in Germany. So yes, Germany did start WW2, but only because the Nazis got in power.
    2
  28. So what you're saying is that if NATO can get a tiny amount of Russians to invite them and ask for help, then NATO is fully justified in invading Russia? Because that IS the consequence of your arguments.
    2
  29. Some people claim that Taiwan (aka Republic of China) is not a state, simply because it has never declared independence from China. What they don't realise, is that in that case, PRC would also not be a state.
    2
  30. NATO did not step up when the Warsaw pact collapsed. NATO countries started to spend less money on defense when that happened. So you're wrong.
    2
  31.  @BA-gn3qb  Italy was one of the founding members. And they don't touch the Atlantic. However, the charter of NATO says that any European country can join.
    2
  32. Are you saying that Russia is not a sovereign country?
    2
  33. NATO has no need to expand. And NATO has never made an effort to expand. It's countries that are threatened by Russia that WANT to join. And who can blame them?
    2
  34.  @NoorElahi1776  Well, it's not that bad. We pay about the average price in Europe. But our high salaries make up for it.
    2
  35.  @sc1338  But Caleb Bearup said Kurdistan. Which is not an independent country. Anyway, you're both right. Kurdistan is not an independent country, AND Turkey would block their application even if they were. So both of those issues will prevent their membership.
    2
  36. Not sure if Putin has asked to join NATO. When did that happen? I do know that Stalin asked to join. Simply because when it was denied, that basically proved that NATO was an anti-USSR alliance. And also Yeltsin did ask to join. But I don't think Putin has done so.
    2
  37. Extremely unlikely. Ruzzia would ally with China.
    1
  38. So you want Iceland to become a Russian puppet state? Good for you, comrade.
    1
  39. That is quite interesting, yes. It has always been obvious that they must have joined at the same time. Since either of them would perpetually block the other's entry, if given half a chance.
    1
  40. Do you have any more conspiracy theories you want to present?
    1
  41. There is also a Moldova in NATO today.
    1
  42.  @shawnnoyes4620  If Turkey wanted to penetrate deep into Syria, then grease would definitely help to reduce the international friction.
    1
  43. Britain and France didn't lose WW1. Or WW2. And as victors, they would not decide to keep themselves down. Also, while Germany started WW2, and were (falsely) accused of starting WW1, Britain or France could not be accused of having done that. So there would be no reason to "keep them down".
    1
  44. Russia, China, North Korea, it's all the same empire.
    1
  45. Why do you think Turkey is NOT part of Europe? Do you even know where the boundaries of Europe are? Do you comprehend the concept of a country being in two different continents? Do you accept that Russia is in both Europe and Asia?
    1
  46.  @eltecnico9541  I was responding to the OP. Not to you. The borders between Europe and Asia are not very controversial. But I have to admit that I don't know for sure if any parts of Georgia or Azerbaijan are in Europe or not. Culturally I consider Georgia and Armenia to be European, but not Azerbaijan. But I know that Armenia is geographically not in Europe.
    1
  47.  @hakan9671  I said "culturally I consider" these two countries to be European. I'm not stating it as a fact. And I might be wrong. To my knowledge, these countries have been facing west, and have had cultural connections to Greece and the rest of Europe for thousands of years. That's why.
    1
  48.  @hakan9671  I fail to see what point you're trying to make here.
    1
  49. I would love paying $6/gallon for gas. I'm currently paying about $11.
    1
  50.  @Spacey_key  That I agree with. I'm not saying it's the ONLY reason why Romania doesn't want unification. But I can imagine that it's one reason. I mean, let's assume that Romania and Moldova unifies. And let's say that Russia decides to increase the conflict in Transnistria, and start invading the rest of Romania.... Will NATO accept that Romania activates Article 5? Or will they say that this is just a continuation of a conflict that Romania has imported, and thus not an attack in that sense? I don't think Romania would want to risk that.
    1
  51.  @Spacey_key  Doesn't matter. If Moldova and Romania decided to unify, then Moldova would become a NATO member. They would not have to apply for membership, just like East Germany didn't apply for membership.
    1
  52. You're entirely correct. And I think a VERY important reason for this that USA believes that everybody in the world wants democracy. And so they try to export democracy around the world. But you can't force democracy onto people whose culture does not accept democracy. And that's something USA and Americans in general are incapable of understanding. Just like Russia and Putain believes that Ukraine wants to become Russian. But since he's wrong, there is no way for Russia to win this war, without killing 90% of Ukrainians.
    1
  53. That would basically be how East Germany joined.
    1
  54. Article 10 clearly states that EUROPEAN countries can join. To my knowledge, Mexico is not a European country. However, Article 12 states that the treaty can be reviewed, and thus it could be expanded to accept countries not in Europe.
    1
  55. What a load of bullshit.
    1
  56. NATO doesn't hate Ruzzia. But USA alone could probably defeat China and Ruzzia at the same time, with no help from anyone else. Not saying they wouldn't get help, but they wouldn't need it.
    1
  57. Feel free to list the border conflicts that NATO members have. USA clearly did not start this war. It can be argued that the war started as a result of USA's actions. But it's clear and obvious that Ruzzia started this war.
    1
  58. That is irrelevant for explaining why countries joined NATO. Which is the subject of this video. And if you are referring to what I think you're referring to, then no such agreement was ever made. That's just Russian propaganda.
    1
  59. North Atlantic" in this context means "Europe and North America". Italy was a founding member of NATO. And they're not in the Atlantic either. Although you do have a point, since every other founding member IS in the Atlantic.
    1
  60. Why are you assuming that would even happen? Or do you claim to have an example of it happening? Otherwise, why would you make up hypothetical situations that there is no reason to think would happen?
    1
  61. Does that mean Der Linke wants Germany to become more powerful? Maybe they want Germany to get a bigger military, and maybe they wants Lebensraum?
    1
  62. That is obvious. Not to mention, without a rewriting of the charter, only the European part of Turkey would be protected. But back when Turkey joined, they were bordering USSR, AND they control the entry to the Black Sea. So strategically they are very important.
    1
  63. North Atlantic..... NATO is not exclusively European. Although it is mainly focused on Europe.
    1
  64. If they try, then Russia will make sure that some ethnic Russians cause some riots in Kazakhstan, and then Russia will invade in order to create a phony puppet state. And thus Kazakhstan will have territorial disputes, and can't join. Putin has figured out the key to preventing countries from joining NATO. And you can be pretty sure he will use that to prevent further expansion.
    1
  65. Feel free to explain what is rubbish.
    1
  66. You're almost right. They joined NATO because they didn't want to be bombed and attacked by RUZZIA in the future.
    1
  67. USSR tried once, and Russia tried once. In both cases, probably so they could destroy NATO from the inside.
    1
  68.  @Marylandbrony  "Mostly" is irrelevant. Turkey IS a European country. Just like Kazakhstan and Iceland. Even though the capital is not in Europe, just like Kazakhstan and Iceland, and even though most of its territory is not in Europe, just like Kazakhstan, that doesn't change the fact that it's a European country. Israel is not a European country.
    1
  69. Feel free to mention what is false.
    1
  70. NATO was an alliance to protect the member states from Russia. As long as these member states were afraid of Russia, the purpose was not fulfilled.
    1
  71. Neutral in what sense? And why should that affect NATO?
    1
  72. They were not surrounded by allies in WW2, and they stayed neutral then. So it seems like you're just full of BS.
    1
  73.  @eltecnico9541  NATO's goal is to prevent a war in Europe. Any other thing that you might think is NATO's goal, is just your own imagination.
    1
  74.  @wanderingartifact6087  Well, that depends on who you're asking. DU-ammo is connected to increases in cancer in the areas where they're used. But then I expect the chemical contamination from conventional bombs isn't very healthy either. Some people say DU-ammo is really bad, and try to connect it to nukes, and others claim it's basically harmless. I assume neither are correct.
    1
  75.  @danielefabbro822  I fully understood what I was answering. You started by talking about Anti-NATO sentiment in Italy. I responded saying that this video is about why countries joined NATO. It's not about how NATO countries feel now. And so current anti-NATO sentiment in Italy is irrelevant for this video. Then you told me to tell this to the fascists. And I asked how that in any way is relevant to this video. And then you talked about how Americans and Europeans fail to understand Italy. Well, assuming you're Italian, I can understand why we don't understand you. It's because you make no fücking sense.
    1
  76.  @danielefabbro822  Have you tried to understand what you try to respond to?
    1
  77. Armenia is factually not in Europe. Although I personally would consider them to culturally be a part of Europe. Georgia and Azerbaijan are on the border to Europe. And I can't say for sure if they are partly in Europe or not. Turkey is factually in Europe. Sure, most of it is in Asia, and the capital is in Asia. But part of it is in Europe. Just like part of Spain is in Africa.
    1
  78. When and where did Iraq attack USA? And did USA at that time activate Article 5, and the other NATO members ignored it? That is what it seems like you're saying. After 9/11 USA DID activate Article 5, which is why the rest of NATO went to war with Afghanistan.
    1
  79. Feel free to try.
    1
  80. Gorbachev has said that no such promise was made. You're just spewing Ruzzian propaganda.
    1
  81. You may be right. And I may agree with you. But there is nothing in the charter of NATO that makes it possible to forcibly expel a member. Maybe there should be.
    1
  82. There would have been a lot more fuss without NATO.
    1
  83. Read your own link. "The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an international organization". Emphasis on WAS. "SEATO was dissolved on 30 June 1977".
    1
  84. James Baker AND Gorbachev have both said that NO SUCH PROMISE WAS MADE. You are simply spewing Ruzzian propaganda. What WAS promised, is that there would be no American bases in East Germany. NATO never actively tried to expand eastwards, although USA did advocate doing so. Every country that joined NATO did so because they themselves wanted to. And they mainly wanted to, because they were afraid of Ruzzia. So the reason for NATO's expansion, is because of Ruzzian aggression. I will however agree that NATO's expansion has felt threatening to Russia. And that this should have been addressed and taken into consideration. But the solution should NEVER have been to refuse entry by countries that have been afraid of Ruzzian aggression. The solution should have been to be less threatening to Russia. And that shouldn't have been very difficult. It's interesting that you're quoting a guy talking about "NATO's expansion in the mid 90s", given that the first expansion of NATO was in 1999. Yes, we are facing the consequences of a NATO who acted recklessly and impetuously. But we are also facing a fascist Ruzzia that wants lebensraum and Anschluss.
    1
  85. Quite clearly military. NATO has a combined military budget that is nearly 2/3 of the entire world's military budget. So which military alliance or organization would you say is more powerful?
    1
  86.  @ΜαριαΚοτρελ  The League of Nations wasn't an alliance as such. I mean, what did they ally against? The League of Nations was a forum that was meant to stop the members from going to war with each other. And it was disbanded when WW2 proved that it wasn't able to achieve this. NATO is a defensive alliance. If Russia invades a NATO member, and the rest of the NATO countries fail to respond, and fail to fight back, THEN NATO is likely to collapse. But not before that.
    1
  87. Yes, they are. They are a founding member of NATO.
    1
  88.  @mandranmagelan9430  I guess the Second Coming of Christ might be considered such a breach. I guess we'll just have to see.
    1
  89. Well, Austria, Switzerland and Ireland hasn't joined. You could argue that their constitutions make it impossible, but they can change their constitutions.
    1
  90. No one is threatening Russia's existence, except Putain. So if Russia wants to preserve its existence, they should stop invading other countries. We stopped an expanding fascist country nearly 80 years ago. We can do it again.
    1
  91. What specifically are you confused about?
    1
  92. I'm not sure if they have an actual defence agreement, but you can be pretty sure that France would help them, yes.
    1
  93. They joined at the same time. But I agree with what you're implying. If one of them had joined first, they would have perpetually blocked the entry of the other.
    1
  94. Austria, Sweden and Finland joined EU without first joining NATO. But yes, you did say ex-communist countries, so they don't count. But this just shows that it's more important for these countries to join NATO than it is to join EU. And possibly that it's easier to join NATO than to join EU. There is no reason to believe that it's a requirement.
    1
  95. True... But the title also included the word "WHY". As in "What was the reason why every NATO member has joined, and what was the reason why everyone who hasn't joined, didn't join". Picking out just a part of a title will not convey the same meaning as the whole title.
    1
  96. 1: Micro nations not allowed. 2: Only recognized states would be allowed. On the other hand, we wouldn't want Sealand to ally with Russia. Since that would give Russia an exclave very close to Britain.
    1
  97. The former Warsaw pack countries are still using some Warsaw pact weapons. So no, there is no requirement of total rearmament. But new weapons need to be NATO compliant, yes. Although, now it seems like most of the old Warsaw pact equipment has been sent to Ukraine.
    1
  98. Sweden can sell weapons to NATO without being a member. So I doubt the Swedish weapons industry will benefit very much by joining.
    1
  99.  @BobuxGuy  Georgia and Ukraine can't join NOW because of disputed territories. But John Walsh was talking about once the war is over. Then they would be able to join.
    1
  100.  @WhoStoleMyAlias  You're correct in your assumption that I don't understand your question. What do you mean by USSR basing part of their fleet in Norway? They have never done that. So either I don't understand what you're saying, or you are mistaken.
    1
  101.  @WhoStoleMyAlias  Maybe. Or maybe not. As I said: I don't understand what you were trying to say. So I don't know if you said what I had said, or if you said something else. So what exactly DID you try to say?
    1
  102.  @WhoStoleMyAlias  No. That was not what I said. But how about you answering my question, and say what YOU were trying to say?
    1
  103.  @WhoStoleMyAlias  No, it wasn't. And no, you didn't. So why is it so hard for you to explain exactly what you tried to say? Is it because you realise it was garbage?
    1
  104. And it justifies why countries that are afraid of Ruzzia wants to join.
    1
  105. Maybe, but compared to Russia and China, they're saints.
    1
  106.  @WhoStoleMyAlias  If you want to ask me something, then ask in a way that makes sense. I have answered your question. Do you have a problem with my answer?
    1
  107. The only nazis in Ukraine are the invaders from Ruzzia.
    1
  108. NATO is focused on the situation in Europe, mainly. If countries in other parts of the world wants a defensive organization for their parts, they should be free to create one.
    1
  109.  @bazsamester  Well, if they don't change, they can't join EU, and they can't join NATO. So I'm pretty sure that if it comes down to only this, they will change.
    1
  110. The war in Ukraine is TOTALLY Putain's fault. If Russia had joined NATO, they would have intentionally destroyed NATO from within. NATO has not TRIED to expand east. It's the countries in the east that have been afraid of Russia, and had wanted to join in order to be protected.
    1
  111. Well, if someone attacks San Marino, they would have to go through Italy. And so Italy would technically be attacked, and can activate Article 5. So in that sense, San Marino, Holy See, and Andorra are already inside NATO.
    1
  112. Dream on.
    1
  113. Do you want a nuclear war? Because that's how you get a nuclear war.
    1
  114.  @mig-29  Easy to explain. NATO won against Serbia. And Serbia is not occupied, and is still a sovereign country. If Russia wins the war against Ukraine, Ukraine will not be a sovereign country anymore. Do you understand the difference?
    1
  115. No such promises were made. You are probably talking about discussions between James Baker and Gorbachev. And both of them have said that no such promises were given. This is Ruzzian propaganda.
    1
  116. Turkey was (and still is) a very valuable member of NATO, since they were bordering USSR, and they control the access to the Black Sea. So no, keeping nukes there was definitely NOT the only reason.
    1
  117. Ruzzia (or rather, USSR) invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia. So you're wrong about that. And all of the eastern European countries that joined NATO, from Poland and up to Finland, have done so because they have feared a Russian invasion. NATO has however never threatened Russia in any way. I'm not saying Russia hasn't felt threatened, but NATO has never threatened them.
    1
  118. How do they wreck your military system? Turkey has the second largest military in NATO.
    1
  119.  @midge_gender_solek3314  Try to read the NATO charter, and try to understand what it means. If a country has an ongoing territorial dispute, such as Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia has, then they can't join. There are also other criteria. But that's why these countries can't join. If these countries had joined before Ruzzia had provoked these territorial disputes, then it would have been different. Although admittedly that would have been difficult for Moldova. However, NATO didn't realise that Putain was so vehemently against NATO's expansion that he would deliberately start territorial disputes with countries in order to prevent them form joining NATO.
    1
  120. That doesn't make them part of NATO. Since other NATO members are not required to defend them if they are attacked. USA can have military and defensive alliances without that meaning these countries are members of NATO.
    1
  121. That MAY be true, but Ruzzia started this war. It seems like we need to defeat a fascist dictator in this century as well.
    1
  122.  @sfalhilsajd  Neither. Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty when they gave up their nukes. And then like the weaselly scum they are, they invaded Crimea, just like they are now invading the rest of Ukraine.
    1
  123. Morocco will never become a NATO member. Not sufficiently democratic, occupying Western Sahara, border disputes with Spain, and most importantly, not in Europe.
    1
  124. NATO has never had anything to do with Nazi Germany. So why do you even mention them? Except that Russia has taken over that mantle. NATO exists because the countries see the need for it to exist. Why is this hard for you to understand?
    1
  125. The rational reason for Finland and Sweden to join NATO, is because Ruzzia is turning into Nazi.v.2. And so they want to be defended.
    1
  126.  @elspoocho4637  That's not what he said, no. What he said is that the European NATO members wanted to make sure that if a new war in Europe broke out, USA would be involved from the beginning. After all, in WW1 and WW2, USA took quite some time before they got actively involved. And the European NATO members wanted to make sure that didn't happen again. Did you understand it this time?
    1
  127. NATO didn't start the war in Yugoslavia. But we ended it. How is that hypocritical?
    1
  128. Well, if anyone think that, they're not TOTALLY wrong. Article 5 clearly states that any attack on a member country IN EUROPE OR NORTH AMERICA should be seen as an attack on all. So if China decides to attack Guam, the other NATO countries are not required to respond. Just like when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
    1
  129.  @TheNefastor  Read Article 5 of NATO. Argentina attacked UK when they invaded the Falkland Islands. But since the Falkland Islands are not in Europe or North America, they could not activate Article 5. And since Guam is not in Europe or North America, USA would not be able to activate Article 5 if China attacks Guam. And I never said that the other NATO members CAN*T respond. I said they are not REQUIRED to respond. Learn to read. And understand.
    1
  130.  @TheNefastor  No. It's not semantics. It's about what the NATO charter is all about. Try to read it. And try to understand it. That IS what really matters.
    1
  131.  @drdelewded  Yes, it does. And as I said, Guam is outside of that area. It can be argued that Hawaii is also outside of that. So a new Pearl Harbor might also not qualify for activating Article 5.
    1
  132. Moldova can't join NATO until they settle the problem is Transnistria. But if Moldova accept Transnistria as an independent state, and agrees on the borders, they could be able to join. The problem is that Russia would never allow Transnistria to do this.
    1
  133.  @Suksass  Well, they could of course join Russia if that happens. I don't see how anyone could prevent them. But as I said: In order for Moldova to be able to join NATO, they would have to settle on a border with Transnistria. And Russia would never allow that to happen.
    1
  134. No. NATO was started on FEAR. Fear of USSR. Sure, it's a shame, but what can you do when you're threatened? Better to ally with someone who is strong.
    1
  135. Most likely they wanted to join in order to be able to destroy NATO from the inside.
    1
  136. I agree with this. USA was needed in NATO during the Cold War, especially in the beginning of it, since the European NATO countries would not have been strong enough to withstand a Soviet invasion. But when the Cold War ended, and USSR collapsed, USA should have pulled out, and told the European NATO members that they were strong enough to handle Russia on their own. If that had happened, the European NATO members would have made sure to keep their military strength up, and not have relied to American help.
    1
  137. So which organization would you say is more powerful?
    1
  138. The Baltic States were not allied with Hitler until Stalin occupied them.
    1
  139.  @NahodnáHruška  Which is exactly what he's saying.
    1
  140. And that's still enough.
    1
  141.  @wanderingartifact6087  He's talking about depleted uranium ammunition. It's basically what's left of the uranium when you take out what is used in nukes. Depleted uranium ammunition WAS used in Kosovo, as well as in Iraq, and wherever USA has needed armour penetrating ammunition.
    1
  142. In what was it not mentioned? It was mentioned that these countries joined NATO. So it was clearly mentioned.
    1
  143. They may have wanted to. But that doesn't mean they were qualified.
    1