cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/59867996
German media outlets Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, and NDR also cite the report, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears intent on testing NATO’s Article 5 guarantees. The alliance’s mutual defence clause obliges member states to come to one another’s aid if attacked. The assessment suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured.
Article 5 states that an armed attack against one member will be treated as an attack against all members.
There has been no armed attack against a member state.
Correct, they would have to use the infrastructure attacks
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Baltic_Sea_submarine_cable_disruptions
They can’t use article 5 preemptively
USA did after 9/11.
What was preemptive about 9/11? The US was attacked, therefore they invoked Article 5.
The use of “after” in your statement should be a clue that you’re wrong
They could just go to war with Russia. War is not an article 5 exclusive.
Yes but that wasn’t what the person had said
A planned attack is still an attack. Waiting is stupid we should hit them with everything now if there’s proof.
If I see a local nutter known for stabbing people staring at me with a knife and bragging about he’s going to stab me later I’m stabbing him first to protect myself. Same thing imo.
You’re missing the point. It’s not a strategical decision that’s being made here.
NATO is a defense treaty, not a warfare alliance. It has specific language describing it as such.
Interestingly enough, you are paroting Kremlin talking points by treating it as anything other than a defensive agreement.
Well if I was the country that knew it was being attacked I’d not be waiting for the Russians to build up their equipment. This could be Ww3 if you wait until they’re ready or their buddies to arrive.
Might be time to end Nato and make a new alliance that is willing to do what is necessary.
Given that most of the countries in Europe have been relying heavily on their now-compromised former ally America for security, the smarter move would be to also spend the intervening years building up equipment.
You are advocating for a group of countries party to a defensive pact, going on the offensive, to perform a preemptive strike on a nuclear armed country. And arguing that the alternative could be ww3.
That is the same as saying starting ww3 is the only way to avoid ww3.
Increasingly less interestingly enough, also a Kremlin talking point.
Putin thinks we are weak we need to give him a bloody nose, Russias the one that’s weak and they’ve been proving it for 3 years.
I understand it’s a defensive pact but it still make no sense to wait in my opinion and why give the Americans a chance to switch sides then it is really ww3.
Starting wars, especially world wars, is bad. I don’t know what else to tell you.
Other than individual countries can take action if they decide to.
Perhaps you could drum up popular support amongst your citizenry and convince them to start a war.
Certainly been done before, you’d be in good company.
The thing you aren’t grasping is when they do attack a Nato country the rules are off the table they are going to be using tactical nukes definetely or possibly worse
In my opinion it’s suicide to wait for a nuclear country to make the first move especially when there’s a defense pact of 30+ smaller countries. They are going to use nukes the best we can hope for is their tactical ones on the battlefield.
It absolutely isn’t.