Adding new members adds to the capabilities of the Alliance, but it also adds a new drag risk to its decision making. In some ways, the structural drag is inherent. The initial rush of enthusiasm in joining the Alliance fades. Opportunities arise for making domestic political gain by obstructing a decision supported by the other allies.
And it is the nature of countries to make trouble. NATO has had decision-making trouble of all sorts—not just decisions blocked, but decisions delayed for a damagingly long time, decisions paid for by blackmail concessions, and decisions never even considered because it was supposed that someone would block them. The trouble has come from a number of countries. Some countries have made only occasional trouble. Others have become well known as troublemakers; it led in the 1990s to this unofficial NATO slogan about its impending expansion: “no more Frances, Spains, Greeces, or Turkeys.” And then there are the blockages that are simply never heard of—needful steps are dropped before ever making it to the stage of visible argument, because it’s assumed they’ll be blocked.
Thus, the need for deepening when widening. Läs artikel
Läs också kommentar tidigare på den här sajten om Nato:s beslutsprocess.