Nato, Sweden, Vilnius, Ukraine etc.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because times have changed and NATO should change with it, if it wants to be effective in forestalling and preventing conflicts that can lead to massive human suffering from breaking out in the first place, like the human suffering now tragically unfolding in Ukraine. Beside, Turkey has been a NATO member for a very long time, and Turkiye is essentially an Asian country; the vast majority of it's landmass is in Asia, and its also about 6500 km from the North Atlantic Ocean, so there is historical precedent.

Controlling the Mediterranean is vital to European security, and that naturally requires Turkish involvement. I think you're overestimating the distance, too, by about 50%. (Istanbul -- Gibraltar is about 4000 km).

And pls note, I am speaking only of Asia-skeptics within NATO. I highly commend Stoltenberg for his good work these last few years, both in Europe and then in outreach to Asia. I condemn only those like Macron who, to appease the CCP, are opposing this logical and necessary expansion of NATO into Asia. South Korea and Japan want to ensure what is happening in Europe today not only does not happen in Europe ever again but also does not happen in Asia tomorrow. Nothing less than preventing a possible World War III by Peace through Strength and Constructive Alliances is at stake. 

No argument with this part.

Guardian: "Yoon’s attendance reflects a growing interest among members in stepping up their dialogue with countries in the Asia-Pacific.

In an op-ed published on Monday, Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary general, said: “China, in particular, is watching to see the price Russia pays, or the reward it receives, for its aggression” in Ukraine. Leaders in South Korea and Japan were clearly concerned that what was “happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow”, he added." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/j...-to-engage

That is not an argument for expanding NATO into Asia.

Not only in Asia first, but then in the entire Global South, including Oceania, Latin America and Africa. The goal should be to unite all Democratic Countries that respect Human Rights against all Autocratic countries that do not, in order to put pressure on the latter to finally do the same.

Bringing all those nations into NATO would scatter its focus and undermine its unity, because these nations have differing and sometimes conflicting interests.

That's a fair point, but the solution is obvious. Instead of 30 countries having veto, which already greatly hampers, slows down the process, and limits effectiveness, something like a 90% majority should suffice. The vast majority of countries would still have to approve, but 1 or 2 dissenting votes would not matter.

This would be unworkable, because you'd either force a nation to go to war against its will, or else expose fissures within NATO that any opponent could exploit.

 The point is NATO needs some reforms to adapt to the modern world. NATO is hardly aware of what is going on the Asia-Pacific, not to mention the Middle East and similar regions, which accounts for some of its mistakes in those regions.

You think NATO is "hardly aware" of events in Asia? Where do you get this idea from? And what mistakes has NATO made in that are? Be specific.

NATO's combined GDP is in the order of 40 Trillion. It can be a powerful force for good in the world if it recognizes its moral obligations in a spirit of universal brotherhood.

NATO is not a charitable organization, it is a mutual-security alliance.

European Countries are increasingly waking up to the fact that China under the CCP is likely to be the greatest threat in the next decade after Russia retreats. Strong Alliances in NATO are thus also in NATO's self-interest. 

NATO can be allied to non-NATO nations without inducting those allies into NATO.

You should first of all have allied with those African Countries and treated them as peers and equals in every way.

Even when they aren't peers? When they're ruled by juntas and not committed to human rights themselves?

If those countries had been welcomed into NATO after the age of colonialism officially ended (though that's practiced in various ways still today, clearly), like Eastern European countries rightly were after the downfall of Communism in the erstwhile Soviet Union, if there had been proper co-ordination between Europe and Africa on these things, that genocide was absolutely preventable or at least could have been severely reduced. How many more have to die before all NATO wakes up to the fact that security has to be global, not regional, as Stoltenberg said?

Many of those countries wanted absolutely nothing to do with their former colonial masters, which seriously undermines your thinking here.

I am all in favor of Taiwan's Independence. They should formally vote on it, and officially secede from the CCP in China, as is their democratic right. They won't do this as long as Europe is dithering, getting itself so dependent on China that it can hardly break that off if needed etc.

Nothing Europe does can make Taiwanese independence without a war possible. Taiwan is not awaiting European action before declaring independence. They are trying to not get invaded.

Not to mention wanting Asian countries to be concerned about Europe's problems, but refusing for Europe's countries to be concerned about Asia's problems.

You think Europe isn't concerned about events in Asia? What do you base this claim on? Got any good articles supporting this PoV?

 

And they should provide similar help to South Korea, and also take its concerns about North Korea, and Japan's on China more seriously.

No European power can project power that far afield. And in case you haven't noticed, the main power in NATO -- the US -- is formally allied to both SK and Japan, and bound by treaty to their defense. We also sell arms to Taiwan, for that matter.

NATO members should keep their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on Defense. There are both benefits and obligations of being members of the Alliance. Countries with a large population, such as India (which has a larger population than all Europe and North America combined) can also contribute a significant portion of their population as a standing Army: "It is the largest standing army in the world, with 1,237,117 active troops and 960,000 reserve troops." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army A strong international democratic Army would deter conflicts.

None of that addresses my point about power projection from European powers.

Again, this is all clearly in NATO's own long-term self-interest. It's only those like Macron and appeasers of the CCP who sadly don't want to see it.

Macron's a fool -- but he is not NATO. He's the leader of one member nation. Take care not to confuse the two.