World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Not to be too snide, but we do have a plan B of sorts. It's just Estonia, that's all. Sorry Estonia. Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are all right there with you.
Poland's army is getting pretty impressive too, and this time they get plenty of prep time and only one direction to worry about. Assuming they can keep influence operations from undermining their defensive posture.
Well the plan B is NATO article 5. It's a shame Ukraine wasn't in it.
For all the bluster there's no way Russia would take on NATO.
And that’s why Putin really wants Trump to win, because I’m pretty sure that shitstain would decline to respond to an Article 5 invocation, even if he hadn’t already started to withdraw from NATO at that point.
Trump would leave NATO no doubt. But from what we've seen NATO without US can easily take Russia.
That's far from a foregone conclusion. NATO without the US is roughly the same size military as Russia, but Russia is currently massively outproducing NATO without the US and has more soldiers.
And then you have the possibility that when article 5 happens that the NATO allies pussyfoot around again and worry more about their own defense than the NATO alliance defense. In such a case, Putin can go pick off country by country and use them for cannon fodder against the next.
Russia couldn't go against fucking Ukraine, one of the poorest countries in Europe. Russia couldn't do much against NATO minus US. The only problem is the baltics have no depth.
I think everyone learnt plenty from Hitler that appeasement and country and country doesn't work. That's the whole point of NATO. Your view is antithetical to the entire doctrine of NATO.
Russia couldn't go against fucking Ukraine with the help of the entire NATO (including US) stockpile backing it up.
Imagine what those early days would have looked like without MANPADs and man portable anti tank weaponry. Imagine the rest of the war without tanks and artillery systems and air defense. It wouldn't have lasted long.
The narrative that Russia just sucks is prevalent and fun, but the reality is that it only sucks when the entire West works together to counter it. Fracture that support and it's a lot more formidable. And it's learning and becoming much more battle hardened.
Ukraine held off the initial invasion all on their own until the supply started. Then it's stalemate with slow, surplus weapons. Entire stockpile? Lol no. Ukraine is getting crumbs.
I'm not having fun with this. It's just fact that Russia couldn't do much against one of the poorestcountries in Europe. Apparently full of corruption. Hard to imagine they had any decent training over large parts of their military (a Canadian sniper went over and came back because he effectively thought they had no idea what they were doing). There's simply no comparison with any proper military.
I wonder why you're on this drumbeat of yours (doesn't take much to figure it out). Ciao.
Edit: Here is a 2019 article outlining the billions in lethal aid provided to Ukraine before the 2022 invasion. My guess is that more or less all the anti tank and anti aircraft systems you saw being used in 2022 were provided by the west.
I think you are uninformed, friend. This is the equipment that was supplied to Ukraine in the first 4 months of the war. It's nice to think that they are doing this all on their own, but it's no truer now than it is when Russia talks about winning WWII. In both cases, it's only true in the context of massive donations of arms from the west.
Ukraine had tiny amount of MANPADS and man portable anti tank weapons of it's own. They used orders of magnitude more from the west than they had on their own. Yes, the West's donations could have been more, but compared to what Ukraine had on their own, it dwarfed it in most areas where it mattered like air defense and anti tank weaponry, which is what turned the tides. Don't confuse the standard media talking points about the west not doing enough with the reality that it's still orders of magnitude more than Ukraine could do on their own, even if it is just the West's old leftovers.
Granted, Russia would have had to fight against a long guerrilla war, but without support from the west, Ukraine would have been ground down over time. I mean even without the US support for just 6 months you started to see the tides turn. Momentum has a way of increasing over time given the same situation. Even for 6 months, all of NATO without the US wasn't really able to achieve parity with Russia.
I hope this changes. In 3-4 years of grinding down Russia and building up production in Europe, it could. But it's is dangerously delusional to think that NATO without the US is at all ready for this fight on their own at the present time. No serious expert in the subject that I've heard from believes this is the case. NATO's abilities rest heavily on the US who accounts for 70% of the NATO defense spending. Without it, you are dealing with a bunch of small militaries, all subject to their individual political situations, many who are being taken over by far right parties sympathetic to Russia rather than Ukraine.
I understand that you want to delude yourself there. Ukraine managed to fight off the initial Russian push, that was run like they expected to be handed over the keys to Kiev by the third day and were suprised when their columns just endlessly running on the streets got attacked all of a sudden.
But Ukraine acknowlegdes that they would have been defeated without the western equipment over the past two years. We saw how just the US delaying their aid for a while thanks to the Republicans pushed Ukraine limits hard.
Then let's hope that Trump won't be president... For him, Article 5 seems to be kind of optional...
Article 5 is only a can-do, not a must-do. Which is also why NATO partner armies are stationed in those countries. If one of those partner soldiers gets hurt, it should make NATO's decision to intervene easier.
That’s not true, the language is pretty clear:
“Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, 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.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
It’s not an option to respond to an attack on one, it’s mandatory according to the text of the treaty.
The "as it deems necessary" is the escape hatch for those who don't want to intervene. It isn't as wishy-washy as the EU's mutual defense clause, but it certainly isn't absolute.
This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.
It’s not iron clad, but nor is it voluntary as the person I responded to made it seem to be.
"such action as it deems necessary" could be no action at all.
“will assist such Party or Parties” comes right before that, though. Supporting an attacked treaty member is not optional.
And the clause which follows your quotes takes as granted that action has occurred, since it specifically states an intended result is a return to stability in North America or Europe. The action it deems necessary is predicated on the fact that it’s responding.
The way you are interpreting this quote is taken out of its context, which is not how the law works.
In any case, both of these arguments are technically valid, and it comes down to a whole lot of other factors, including political will, to enforce a response among members.
However it’s not ambiguous that an attack on a member of NATO will have a joint response, and a member neglecting to undertake such action would not have a valid legal argument for its inaction.
Edit: made a sentence real English instead of gibberish.
Well, we can also look at precedent. Article 5 was applied only once in NATO's history, despite multiple other occasions where NATO could have done so. I do think that a deliberate Russian attack on a NATO member would trigger a response, but history shows it clearly isn't mandatory.
When has there been an attack on a member state that has not resulted in support of some kind from the alliance?
You tell me, you're the one who says Article 5 is a guarantee. It has been used only once (9/11)
No? The burden is on you here to assert your point, after your first point was incorrect and you moved the goalpost.
You’re the one that says we should turn to precedent, and said there have been multiple occasions NATO could have triggered Article 5 but wasn’t. When were these other times? You made the statement, now provide evidence.
My point is that when it’s triggered, it’s not optional. And so far, that’s been the case, since it’s been triggered exactly once, and there was a universal response to it.
It’s not an option to respond, according to the words of the treaty. Any other interpretation of it would be based on politics, not the interpretation of the treaty itself. Any idea that the treaty doesn’t mandate collective action is incorrect.
I'm sure I'm missing some, but:
… and was Article 5 triggered any of those times? Did any of those states ask for help from the alliance? And most of those examples have drawn support (or offers of support) from NATO allies.
You’re also missing the geographical scope of the treaty, which over and over again refers to the security situation in North America and Europe.
Or are you understanding what I’m saying as making it mandatory if anything happens to these countries, and the country being attacked doesn’t get a say in the matter? Because a country try still needs to actually ask for help.
In (as far as I’m aware) every single security treaty in effect across the world the first responsibility lies with the states in question, and all assistance has to be requested by those states.
Listen. You’re just incorrect, and that’s ok. But in the scope of the treaty (which, yes, must actually be triggered), a response from all member states is mandatory.
No, which is my point. Allow myself to quote... myself:
As for your other line of thought:
This is also demonstrably incorrect. If we look at the single time Article 5 was triggered, 9/11, the response was not all-in. The largest-scale combined effort I think was patrols in the Mediterranean.
Here, you can go read the Wikipedia about NATO. If you look at the section about the various articles, you will find your questions answered, and see the myriad other ways NATO works and enables mutual assistance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
This suggests a complete misunderstanding of international law and state sovereignty, then. I was being overly charitable, apparently.
Sovereignty is a concept that is baked into the UN Charter explicitly, which the NATO treaty names over and over again.
In order for a treaty article to take effect, it has to be triggered by a member state. It’s strange that you would interpret mandatory response as being, potentially, against the actual request of the state(s) in question.
It seems either painfully lacking knowledge or as being in bad faith. In either case I would suggest you refrain from talking about international treaties in the future.
You perhaps missed the second part of my reply about the post-9/11 response. If I understand what you've been trying to say here, you're implying that all NATO members must participate after Article 5 is invoked, which is not the case.
All NATO members did get involved after Article 5 was invoked, so I’m not sure what your point is.
Because yes, that’s exactly what Article 5 says. It’s mandatory to respond, it’s not ambiguous. All members respond if one is attacked, and they did after 9/11.
If you can illustrate a country that sat out of the global response to 9/11/01, I would love to hear it.
Afghanistan would be a good example. This explains it in better detail than I could, especially since I've been forbidden from discussing international treaties: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/five-myths-about-nato-and-afghanistan
None of that says what you are saying.
Maybe you could highlight where it says that any NATO members did not participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan? Or that any participation is voluntary?
Seriously, man, you don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not voluntary, otherwise the alliance wouldn’t exist. States have the discretion to decide the kinds of aid they would send, but any decision not to respond at all would be counter to both the letter and the spirit of the treaty. It’s mandatory, if a country wants to abide by its treaty terms. Full stop.
The only flexibility involved is exactly how it responds. Here’s a source that explains it, but I’ll quote the relevant bit for you. The excerpt follows the text of Art. 5 in the source.
“This language is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally. It does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor.”
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained
Here’s the information about what the NATO exercises that occurred as a direct result of 9/11. It’s a lot, but here’s the relevant bit, where it outlines what the actions of the alliance were:
“After 9/11, there were consultations among the Allies and collective action was decided by the Council. The United States could also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the United Nations Charter.
On 4 October, once it had been determined that the attacks came from abroad, NATO agreed on a package of eight measures to support the United States. On the request of the United States, it launched its first ever anti-terror operation – Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. It consisted in seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft that helped patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties. This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.
On 26 October, the Alliance launched its second counter-terrorism operation in response to the attacks on the United States, Active Endeavour. Elements of NATO's Standing Naval Forces were sent to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean and monitor shipping to detect and deter terrorist activity, including illegal trafficking. In March 2004, the operation was expanded to include the entire Mediterranean.
The eight measures to support the United States, as agreed by NATO were:
to enhance intelligence-sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it; to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other countries which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism; to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory; to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism; to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO member countries for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures; that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.”
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/110496.htm
I have to assume you don’t have any interest in good faith argumentation at this point, and it’s time for me to call it quits on trying to convince you. But please stop spreading Russian disinformation and in the future remain silent when it comes to Article 5.
Edit: I’ll put the Wikipedia link for the ISAF, the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, too, but if you go to the tab “participants,” you’ll read this:
“All NATO member states have contributed troops to the ISAF, as well as some other partner states of the NATO alliance.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force
WTF? I sincerely don't understand why you're so averse to what I'm saying. I'm not anti-NATO by any means — I'm only stating a fact that I thought would be very cut and dry.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Where does it say it’s voluntary?! And, again, you need to take it in line with literally every other treaty in effect, which emphasizes the ways that defense works.
It can’t be automatic because US domestic laws prohibit the president from declaring war without congressional approval, not because taking part in a defensive pact is somehow optional. And, again, sovereignty is baked into all international laws, especially those having to do with the United States (it’s always been really serious about maintaining this more or less absolutely).
You’re stating a “fact” that’s incorrect, and works in the interest of countries that would benefit a great deal from a lack of adherence to Article 5. Stop it. If any country decided to not participate when Article 5 is invoked, the alliance would end. It’s quite literally the cornerstone of the whole deal.
Edit: I went ahead and found another source that explains what I have been saying: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10238
What the action is, is indeed ambiguous, not the requirement to take action, which is not.
I truly hope you're right! I'm doubtful, but I do hope so.
You should trust the words of experts, then, and make sure that you put pressure on your government to adhere to the text of the treaty rather than trying to inject doubt about it.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10238
I don't know why someone down voted you. Given the current political environment. Trump if he wins would absolutely use that as a loop hole if the US is even still in NATO at that point.
People here will downvote the most objectively factual statements... I've stopped wondering what goes through their head.