5 ms·

Was it covering Yugoslavia back in 90s?

ceejayoz 5y ago
Irrelevant. That was a voluntary intervention, not an invocation of the Treaty's mutual defense aspects. Individual NATO members were not required to participate; three (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) did not. A similar scenario with Taiwan would not mean "Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too" as you asserted; they'd have the option to join in if they saw fit.
- klawcode 5y ago
  NATO also only covers the North Atlantic Area - this is explicit. https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/ https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  > Irrelevant. That was a voluntary intervention, not an invocation of the Treaty's mutual defense aspects. Individual NATO members were not required to participate; three (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) did not. I'm not saying it would be a verbal and written requirement to participate, and yet, they might have to for other political reasons, like a supply of additional defensive equipment or maintenance programs. For instance, some countries did participate in wars on the side of NATO even though they are not even a part of the alliance. All at the expense of human lives and taxpayers' money [1][2]. Before you say that the US interventions are not NATO interventions, could you name at least one instance from this list [3] where the US was not an active participant of and was actually disapproving of other members' actions? I'm asking because there's a valid growing sentiment with an element of truth in it that NATO without the US is not a potent alliance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > For instance, some countries did participate in wars on the side of NATO even though they are not even a part of the alliance. Well, now you're arguing something entirely different - that NATO will rope you in without being a member. Hard to say it's a downside of joining if it happens anyways.
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      yes, I'm asking because there's a valid growing sentiment with an element of truth in it that NATO without the US military influence is not a potent alliance.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        No, you said this: > if NATO gets into a conflict with China over Taiwan, there's a highly chance that Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too Nothing in NATO's organization or the Treaty itself supports that assertion; in fact, it explicitly says otherwise.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Was it covering Yugoslavia back in 90s? Yugoslavia was not an Article 5 action, it arose out of Article 4 regional security consultations. It is important to remember that NATO is not, even in theory, a “defensive alliance” it is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment.

Irrelevant. That was a voluntary intervention, not an invocation of the Treaty's mutual defense aspects. Individual NATO members were not required to participate; three (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) did not. A similar scenario with Taiwan would not mean "Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too" as you asserted; they'd have the option to join in if they saw fit.

klawcode 5y ago
NATO also only covers the North Atlantic Area - this is explicit. https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/ https://www.westernjournal.com/nato-loophole-attack-hawaii/
ghostwriter 5y ago
> Irrelevant. That was a voluntary intervention, not an invocation of the Treaty's mutual defense aspects. Individual NATO members were not required to participate; three (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) did not. I'm not saying it would be a verbal and written requirement to participate, and yet, they might have to for other political reasons, like a supply of additional defensive equipment or maintenance programs. For instance, some countries did participate in wars on the side of NATO even though they are not even a part of the alliance. All at the expense of human lives and taxpayers' money [1][2]. Before you say that the US interventions are not NATO interventions, could you name at least one instance from this list [3] where the US was not an active participant of and was actually disapproving of other members' actions? I'm asking because there's a valid growing sentiment with an element of truth in it that NATO without the US is not a potent alliance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > For instance, some countries did participate in wars on the side of NATO even though they are not even a part of the alliance. Well, now you're arguing something entirely different - that NATO will rope you in without being a member. Hard to say it's a downside of joining if it happens anyways.
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    yes, I'm asking because there's a valid growing sentiment with an element of truth in it that NATO without the US military influence is not a potent alliance.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      No, you said this: > if NATO gets into a conflict with China over Taiwan, there's a highly chance that Finland and Sweden would have to send their troops to fight and die there too Nothing in NATO's organization or the Treaty itself supports that assertion; in fact, it explicitly says otherwise.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Was it covering Yugoslavia back in 90s? Yugoslavia was not an Article 5 action, it arose out of Article 4 regional security consultations. It is important to remember that NATO is not, even in theory, a “defensive alliance” it is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment.