Then-Nato Supreme Allied Commander Europe US Admiral James Stavridis at a press conference in 2009. Photo: AFP

 

Former Nato supreme allied commander James Stavridis suggested the military alliance recruit Asia-Pacific countries that share ‘its vision of freedom’

His list of potential allies with a similar view on democracy, liberty and human rights also included Australia, New Zealand and South Korea

 

The Nato military alliance should consider broadening its membership to include Asia-Pacific nations, said a former Nato supreme allied commander.

“Nato should think about recruiting a few new members from outside its traditional boundaries,” retired US Navy Admiral James Stavridis wrote in a Bloomberg opinion piece on Monday.

 

Stavridis served as the military alliance’s chief from 2009 to 2013. Before that, he was the Commander of the US Southern Command from 2006 to 2009, where he oversaw military operations in Latin America.

 

Widening Nato’s membership, Stavridis wrote, was a necessary response to the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine war, US-China tensions, and the territorial dispute in the South China Sea.

In his opinion piece, Stavridis suggested recruiting Asia-Pacific countries “that share the alliance’s vision of freedom, democracy, liberty and human rights”. That list of potential allies included countries like Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea.

 

Full story: South China Morning Post 2024-04-11

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe
 

 

 

The Admiral should be like Macarthur:  "old soldiers never die, they just fade away".  I have heard of two definitions of  NATO:

 

1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  When did LOS move?

2. No Action Talk Only-I heard this from a old soldier who served in Europe.  

34 minutes ago, webfact said:

Stavridis suggested recruiting Asia-Pacific countries “that share the alliance’s vision of freedom, democracy, liberty and human rights”. That list of potential allies included countries like Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea.

 I do not disagree with his thinking here, but .....

 

Quote

In addition, Southeast Asian nations like the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore could also be brought in due to their ties with the United States, Stavridis wrote.

 

Not much freedom, democracy, liberty and human rights there

Already seen the limits with Turkey and Bulgaria onboard, so to be sure we weakened our lines and exceed our capacity to support and respond in crisis bring them onboard. Great suggestion 👌 

 

 

Only problem is that Thailand is no democracy, and has no liberty, no human rights and no vision of freedom... Examples more over as look in prisons how they deal with inmates, the Thaksin soap, and of course the coming dissloving of the MFP and the refusal of Pita as PM....and many more

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

The Admiral should be like Macarthur:  "old soldiers never die, they just fade away".  I have heard of two definitions of  NATO:

 

1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  When did LOS move?

2. No Action Talk Only-I heard this from a old soldier who served in Europe.  

Well this admiral went to work for the Carlyle Group which is heavily invested in the American military industrial complex. NATO expansion is a long running scam. Each new NATO country must conform to NATO standards for all their mutations.  Corrupt politicians who receive campaign contributions from munitions manufacturers pay them back by creating these new customers.  

Thailand, Philippines & Singapore have no military capability worth recruiting.

 

And neither does NZ: It has been a taker not a giver since the 1960s (as any Oz soldier alongside them in V'nam can vouch).

 

As to Japan it's currently being worked in to the AUKUS arrangement, which is much more relevant than NATO could be in the Indo-Pacific region.

Edited April 11, 20242 yr by mfd101

That’s right. Spend billions to defend your trade with China against… China.

 

 

 

 

The geopolitical realities of SE Asia mean it's best not to pick sides. I doubt any country would be dumb enough to join NATO. As for "potential allies with a similar view on democracy, liberty and human rights", sure countries in SE Asia are just as flexible as the USA, UK etc. 

56 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Thailand, Philippines & Singapore have no military capability worth recruiting.

 

And neither does NZ: It has been a taker not a giver since the 1960s (as any Oz soldier alongside them in V'nam can vouch).

 

As to Japan it's currently being worked in to the AUKUS arrangement, which is much more relevant than NATO could be in the Indo-Pacific region.

What a load of <deleted>. 

 

Given its small size NZ has contributed whenever and wherever it can. 

 

Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor to name a few and ongoing support to NATO missions throughout the world. 

 

The NZ government may not have supported its military to the extent that it could have, I would add.  But soldiers/airmen or sailors have always done the best they could given what they had. (Beg steal and borrow does come to mind). 

Philippines are part of the frontline of defense already. Forget Thailand, because it is on the other side already.

This has been tried before.

 

It was called the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) and was started in 1954 by President Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles as an anti-communist military alliance. The headquarters were here in Bangkok. It lasted until 1977.

Sorry sir, this club has a no sandals policy

Correct me if I’m wrong but NATO was created to contain the Soviet Union. Soviet Union is no more so NATO’s raison d’etre is also no more. However the generals are greedy to continue the grift for obvious reasons. 

Haha, what a joke, everyone knows that Thailand is Chinas puppet. If China says jump, than Thailand says yes Master and jumps 🤣

Never, Thailand would be a conduit of NATO secrets to China.

Thailand should sit on the fence

(and definitely NOT jump on a sinking ship)

NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

The commodore must have been missing that particular class in geography - unless, of course, the local goons moved Thailand to the Atlantic ...... wonders never seize 😉 

10 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but NATO was created to contain the Soviet Union. Soviet Union is no more so NATO’s raison d’etre is also no more. However the generals are greedy to continue the grift for obvious reasons. 

exactly. Nato has no purpose, basically those joined countries have to jump to whatever  the US commands.

He says nations that share the alliance’s vision of freedom, democracy, liberty and human rights. 

 

Ha. As if Thailand were anything even closely approaching a democracy. With coups and stolen elections, as a regular occurrence. 

You will be sure to get a red in the bed with shower of <deleted>e 🤔

Edited April 11, 20242 yr by sammieuk1

46 minutes ago, Korat Kiwi said:

Given its small size NZ has contributed whenever and wherever it can. 

 

Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor to name a few and ongoing support to NATO missions throughout the world. 

 

The NZ government may not have supported its military to the extent that it could have, I would add.  But soldiers/airmen or sailors have always done the best they could given what they had. (Beg steal and borrow does come to mind). 

Yes, you have confirmed by view of NZ as seen from Oz and elsewhere: A taker not a giver. The beg, borrow or steal bit is notorious in the Oz military.

Only if there is a Thai ladies brigade.....😅

Former Nato Supreme Leader should rather mind his own business.

3 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

 I do not disagree with his thinking here, but .....

 

 

Not much freedom, democracy, liberty and human rights there

To be fair, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and S Korea were his first picks. The others were after thoughts and while Singapore ranks up there with the first four, the rest are a rabble. And in the case of Thailand, Russia has its claws in already, as has China.

 

Clearly NATO has no business in the Asia Pacific region. Separate military Alliances are needed for what is a quite separate theatre of operation.

 

by the by, before reaching out beyond the Atlantic, how about weeding out some countries within the current membership that are clearly at odds with NATO interests, in fact acting in concert with NATO adversaries. Looking at you Hungary.

Edited April 11, 20242 yr by wensiensheng

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Former Nato supreme allied commander James Stavridis suggested the military alliance recruit Asia-Pacific countries that share ‘its vision of freedom’

What?

37 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but NATO was created to contain the Soviet Union. Soviet Union is no more so NATO’s raison d’etre is also no more. However the generals are greedy to continue the grift for obvious reasons. 

Soviet Union is no more but the major power within the Soviet Union (Russia) certainly is, and is on the march. NATO’s flaw is not one of grift, it is one of inaction in the face of its major (only) protagonist aggressively attacking both its and NATOs neighbor. 
 

if NATO isn’t going to use it’s power now, it will probably always find an excuse to kowtow to the Soviet Union in its current guise, ie RUSSIA.

This is already well underway and is to include Japan, Korea, Philippines etc. The Empire is building its counter alliance to China/Russia.  Good luck getting Thailand to commit to a military alliance that is a thinly veiled counter to China.

7 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

Soviet Union is no more but the major power within the Soviet Union (Russia) certainly is, and is on the march. NATO’s flaw is not one of grift, it is one of inaction in the face of its major (only) protagonist aggressively attacking both its and NATOs neighbor. 
 

if NATO isn’t going to use it’s power now, it will probably always find an excuse to kowtow to the Soviet Union in its current guise, ie RUSSIA.

Didn't Putin want to join NATO at some time? So there must be something to it! 😂

46 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but NATO was created to contain the Soviet Union. Soviet Union is no more so NATO’s raison d’etre is also no more. However the generals are greedy to continue the grift for obvious reasons. 

You are correct NATO was created to contain the old Soviet Union and should have just naturally faded away.  Unfortunately Putin seems hell bent on recreating the old USSR it making NATO just as relevant today as it ever was. The only thing that will stop Putin is an overwhelming show of force if he thinks he might lose or get a bloody nose he will not start or back down just like any other bully.