[Goose]

Check out Freedom House's country reports for Freedom in the World.
Turkey's rating, for example, is far below Hungary's:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/...world/2023
https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary...world/2023

If NATO is going to kick out countries for being anti-democratic, then NATO also should kick out Turkey and probably some Balkan states too.

Agree with you there. However, AFAIK there is no mechanism to "kick out" members of the Alliance. Clearly, many members have not lived up to spending plans and military strength requirements established by NATO. They are all still there. Türkiye has always had issues with human rights and political freedom, from the day they were admitted. Türkiye is arguably worse today, but they were never "good".

NATO, however, needs these countries as members more than it needs unanimity most of the time.  Having lots of countries in the alliance increases the alliance's deterrent value.  The key value of the alliance is deterring an attack that every member of the alliance would abhor, regardless of the political bent of each county's government.

The above is arguable. The way Article 5 works allows member countries to do absolutely nothing in response to it's invocation if they so chose. In the event of war, lack of "unanimity" can lead to a disastrously feeble response.

It is definitely arguable that the Balkan states and some of the former Warsaw Pact states deter nobody. They are militarily weak and contribute little to NATO's ability to defend against aggression. They do however greatly increase the probability that NATO will have to defend them due to their military weakness (and in some cases their aggressive tendencies). Obviously, NATO is a good deal for these nations, as they at least in theory have "collective defense" available to them. The US supported these nations NATO membership because we feared their weakness might force them to realign with Russia. Many of the European nations had to be dragged along to support these memberships. In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. They don't want Russia to invade these nations, but it is uncertain they "abhor" it enough to fight. Some of other states actually would abhor it (because it is too close to them for comfort) but are military ciphers and can't really do anything.

All that doesn't really matter now, except to the degree it affects NATO's strategy. We are stuck with the countries that are in NATO and have to live with it.

[Goose]

Check out Freedom House's country reports for Freedom in the World.
Turkey's rating, for example, is far below Hungary's:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/...world/2023
https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary...world/2023

If NATO is going to kick out countries for being anti-democratic, then NATO also should kick out Turkey and probably some Balkan states too.

Agree with you there. However, AFAIK there is no mechanism to "kick out" members of the Alliance. Clearly, many members have not lived up to spending plans and military strength requirements established by NATO. They are all still there. Türkiye has always had issues with human rights and political freedom, from the day they were admitted. Türkiye is arguably worse today, but they were never "good".

NATO, however, needs these countries as members more than it needs unanimity most of the time.  Having lots of countries in the alliance increases the alliance's deterrent value.  The key value of the alliance is deterring an attack that every member of the alliance would abhor, regardless of the political bent of each county's government.

The above is arguable. The way Article 5 works allows member countries to do absolutely nothing in response to it's invocation if they so chose. In the event of war, lack of "unanimity" can lead to a disastrously feeble response.

It is definitely arguable that the Balkan states and some of the former Warsaw Pact states deter nobody. They are militarily weak and contribute little to NATO's ability to defend against aggression. They do however greatly increase the probability that NATO will have to defend them due to their military weakness (and in some cases their aggressive tendencies). Obviously, NATO is a good deal for these nations, as they at least in theory have "collective defense" available to them. The US supported these nations NATO membership because we feared their weakness might force them to realign with Russia. Many of the European nations had to be dragged along to support these memberships. In point of fact, these nations don't much care what happens to Bulgeria (for example) and regard the Baltics as lost causes from day one. They don't want Russia to invade these nations, but it is uncertain they "abhor" it enough to fight. Some of other states actually would abhor it (because it is too close to them for comfort) but are military ciphers and can't really do anything.

All that doesn't really matter now, except to the degree it affects NATO's strategy. We are stuck with the countries that are in NATO and have to live with it.