3 ms·

Absolutely. But if a NATO member is attacked, then member states are obligated to come to the member's aid. It's essentially tantamount to saying, if you are at

• Arubis 5y ago
  > if a NATO member is attacked, then member states are obligated to come to the member's aid. It's essentially tantamount to saying, if you are at war with a NATO member, you are at war with the whole bloc, This is the deterrent—and it also rhymes with the Triple Entente v. Triple Alliance tensions that set off the Great War.
• _puk 5y ago
  The scary thing is if NATO decide to get involved, and it turns into war between NATO and Russia, then the security of the Baltic States plummets. Currently, as NATO members, they are not likely to be attacked, but if NATO declares war then that deterrent is gone. Hopefully not a likely scenario, but who knows.. There's been a lot of tension lately, especially with the likes of Belarus bussing migrants across the border into Lithuania etc, but no idea where this will end.
  • rmk 5y ago
    NATO is a defensive alliance, so there has to be a provocation for them to act.
    • aszen 5y ago
      Not necessarily see their previous involvement in conflicts. What kind of defence was nato doing in Afghanistan
      • bluejekyll 5y ago
        Whether you believe it was right or wrong to get involved in Afghanistan, NATO’s involvement there (not Iraq) was a direct response to the 9/11 attacks and the government (at the time) of Afghanistan’s refusing to allow the US to directly target the group responsible that was based there.
        • aszen 5y ago
          Their response was invading a country for 20 years, you can hardly count it as defensive. Invading afghanistan was always about more than 9/11, it was far more than that.
          • epgui 5y ago
            The difference between a defensive response and an offensive is not how long it lasts.
      • favorited 5y ago
        The idea was that the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, so NATO members were assisting the US in response to the 9/11 attacks.
        • aszen 5y ago
      • marvin 5y ago
        The attack on Afghanistan was literally an invocation of NATO's Article 5, the only time this has happened: "Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked." So, the 9/11 attacks were considered an armed attack on the United States, and the alliance deemed it necessary to overthrow the Taliban in order to prevent Al-Qaeda from perpetrating similar attacks again. One can disagree with the rationale behind the decision, or the cost-benefit ratio. But it did follow the protocols of the alliance.
• ggreg84 5y ago
  Note that every member can decide how it aids. Germany aid to Ukraine was to send them 5k helmets. Those helmets didn't do anything against Russia's missiles. --- That is, attacking a member of NATO just means that all other members must help it, but how they help, is up to them, and that help can be just a pat in the back.
• toyg 5y ago
  Turkey has complained for years that NATO would be required to help them with this or that conflict in the area, and it didn't. In the end, there is no supranational tribunal for military allegiances - in matters of conflict, Hobbes' jungle is still very much there.
• throw10920 5y ago
  > if a NATO member is attacked, then member states are obligated to come to the member's aid Are they really? > So while the use of armed force is one way to respond to aggression, the NATO has several options, for example: > Nothing. They might decide that the best way to "restore and maintain security" is to just let the attacker have that country. https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/32686 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/32686
  • mrep 5y ago
    Well, in this case, Biden vowed to defend ‘Every Inch’ of NATO Territory so I don't think we have to worry about that.