5 ms·

> So NATO members are still free to do what they want without casting any shade on NATO itself? I condemn the vast majority of the US foreign policy of the las

by qsort 5y ago

> So NATO members are still free to do what they want without casting any shade on NATO itself? I condemn the vast majority of the US foreign policy of the last 50+ years, I'm just pointing out that conflating US/NATO is a convenient parlor trick and irrelevant whataboutism. > Could France This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.

scotty79 5y ago
> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5. Really? Does it have to be unprovoked attack? And what exactly means unprovoked? Does having a peace mission in some neighbouring country and defending yourself there counts as provocation? Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?
- qsort 5y ago
  > Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen? Oh absolutely it would. The Charter is just a lot of verbiage around two promises: NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war. If you are so inclined you can also doubt Article 5 itself: are we really going to unleash the apocalypse over Latvia? Wouldn't we be tempted to bend the rules in that case as well? The point is whether you believe those promises to be credible. IMHO history implies they largely are, but that's something reasonable people can disagree on.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war. Article 4 is also important, and more actual NATO interventions have been triggered by Article 4 consultations than Article 5 direct mutual defense. NATO is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment, not a pure defensive alliance.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5. That... depends on the precise geographic location of any retaliation. The participation of a NATO state in a collective self-defense action with a non-NATO state under UN Charter Article 51 rights, outside of NATO operations, does not itself limit the applicability of Article 5. And even if it didn't trigger Article 5, well, most NATO actions have been initiated as a result of Article 4 process, not Article 5 commitments. And an attack on a member’s forces in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside of the precise area covered by Article 5 commitments would arguably be a more serious Article 4 issue than the ones that have resulted in NATO interventions.

by qsort 5y ago

scotty79 5y ago

> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5. Really? Does it have to be unprovoked attack? And what exactly means unprovoked? Does having a peace mission in some neighbouring country and defending yourself there counts as provocation? Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?

qsort 5y ago
> Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen? Oh absolutely it would. The Charter is just a lot of verbiage around two promises: NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war. If you are so inclined you can also doubt Article 5 itself: are we really going to unleash the apocalypse over Latvia? Wouldn't we be tempted to bend the rules in that case as well? The point is whether you believe those promises to be credible. IMHO history implies they largely are, but that's something reasonable people can disagree on.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war. Article 4 is also important, and more actual NATO interventions have been triggered by Article 4 consultations than Article 5 direct mutual defense. NATO is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment, not a pure defensive alliance.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5. That... depends on the precise geographic location of any retaliation. The participation of a NATO state in a collective self-defense action with a non-NATO state under UN Charter Article 51 rights, outside of NATO operations, does not itself limit the applicability of Article 5. And even if it didn't trigger Article 5, well, most NATO actions have been initiated as a result of Article 4 process, not Article 5 commitments. And an attack on a member’s forces in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside of the precise area covered by Article 5 commitments would arguably be a more serious Article 4 issue than the ones that have resulted in NATO interventions.