I don't know much of anything about geopolitical alliances, but why let that stop me?
NATO formed in an environment of two distinct, obviously competing ideologies. It was easy (easy for me to say, at least) to join one of those "teams" despite any other differences in language, culture, race, etc., because the alternative ideology was so utterly terrifying. The doctrine that "an attack on one is an attack on all" made sense when it was Commies attacking the "free world."
That said, NATO was originally very much culturally homogenous alliance -- they might have spoken different languages, but it was mostly a bunch of white-majority, Christian-majority countries as members. The integration of more diversity since 1999, combined with the loss of an easily identifiable, common enemy (communism!) has (IMO) made member nations commitment to "the team" ebb to virtual nothingness.
If I were 20 years old, would I enlist in the army to defend Turkey from Armenia? No flipping way. And this, on a larger scale, is how enlarging the alliance can weaken it.
|