4 ms·

I think the closest call we've had since the end of the Cold War was the Russian cruise missile that crashed in Poland near the beginning of the war in Ukraine.

I think the closest call we've had since the end of the Cold War was the Russian cruise missile that crashed in Poland near the beginning of the war in Ukraine. There was a world where that hit something more important (or at least the Russians thought it did), which would potentially lead to an Article 5 call, which if the Russians anticipated, the rational move could well be a preemptive strike. But as you said, that's miles from the "One act of open defiance by a subordinate from armaggedon" type scenarios.

jopsen 1y ago
An article 5 call wouldn't trigger an invasion of Russia. Besides the best response is to simply gift more toys to the Ukrainians.
- fractallyte 1y ago
  Your second sentence signals a slide into a dangerous mindset pushed by the MAGA lobby. Weapons and other support are certainly not regarded as "toys" by Ukrainians who are subjected to horrific daily (and nightly) bombardments from Russia and Russian-occupied territories. This is life-or-death seriousness. Secondly, and more importantly, these are not "gifts". After coercing Ukraine to surrender its nuclear deterrent to Russia, the US took upon itself an obligation to provide for Ukraine's defense. As many will point out, it's not specified in the Budapest Memorandum. However, the 42nd President of the United States made a promise that should not be taken lightly (https://youtu.be/pC5yYZ_o__s?feature=shared https://youtu.be/pC5yYZ_o__s?feature=shared). The spirit of the Budapest Memorandum was that each party should uphold and enforce every other party's commitment to the memorandum. A violation would cause it to collapse, which would be antithetical to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Upholding and enforcing those commitments is therefore implicit in the memorandum. Finally, as someone rightfully said: "It's our moral, if not legal, obligation." (https://x.com/JSchneid99/status/1959715219468607529 https://x.com/JSchneid99/status/1959715219468607529)
vayup 1y ago
Good time to remind everyone that Article 5 does not really commit the member states automatically into a war. It will be insane for any country to sign such a treaty. The language in Article 5 permits each NATO member to decide for themselves what action they want to take when Article 5 is invoked. This is what it says: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one .. shall be considered an attack against them all and ..that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ...will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
- DoctorOetker 1y ago
  does "it" refer to the attacked country?
  - vayup 1y ago
    it = country that is evaluating its response to an attack on another member
el_zilcho 1y ago
Except it wasn’t a cruise missile nor was it Russian. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Poland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Po...

jopsen 1y ago

An article 5 call wouldn't trigger an invasion of Russia. Besides the best response is to simply gift more toys to the Ukrainians.

fractallyte 1y ago
Your second sentence signals a slide into a dangerous mindset pushed by the MAGA lobby. Weapons and other support are certainly not regarded as "toys" by Ukrainians who are subjected to horrific daily (and nightly) bombardments from Russia and Russian-occupied territories. This is life-or-death seriousness. Secondly, and more importantly, these are not "gifts". After coercing Ukraine to surrender its nuclear deterrent to Russia, the US took upon itself an obligation to provide for Ukraine's defense. As many will point out, it's not specified in the Budapest Memorandum. However, the 42nd President of the United States made a promise that should not be taken lightly (https://youtu.be/pC5yYZ_o__s?feature=shared https://youtu.be/pC5yYZ_o__s?feature=shared). The spirit of the Budapest Memorandum was that each party should uphold and enforce every other party's commitment to the memorandum. A violation would cause it to collapse, which would be antithetical to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Upholding and enforcing those commitments is therefore implicit in the memorandum. Finally, as someone rightfully said: "It's our moral, if not legal, obligation." (https://x.com/JSchneid99/status/1959715219468607529 https://x.com/JSchneid99/status/1959715219468607529)

vayup 1y ago

Good time to remind everyone that Article 5 does not really commit the member states automatically into a war. It will be insane for any country to sign such a treaty. The language in Article 5 permits each NATO member to decide for themselves what action they want to take when Article 5 is invoked. This is what it says: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one .. shall be considered an attack against them all and ..that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ...will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

DoctorOetker 1y ago
does "it" refer to the attacked country?
- vayup 1y ago
  it = country that is evaluating its response to an attack on another member

el_zilcho 1y ago

Except it wasn’t a cruise missile nor was it Russian. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Poland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_missile_explosion_in_Po...