NATO Solidarity (not...)

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

Article 5 is generally invoked by request, Pontious. No deniability there.

The deniability to which I refer is that of "it wasn't us".

If the politicians then hold back from claiming that it was, then you don't have a recognised attack on one.

To take a not wholly improbable scenario.

There are a series of cross border incursions. Your camps ars attacked, your soldiers killed, and you blame your neighbour. You have no evidence except for spent ammunition known to be used by your neighbour. You have no prisoners. Your neighbour denies the attacks.

Is that war?

That actually happened and it was never publicly admitted.

[Courtney Mil]

Pontious,

Article 5 is rather more detailed than that and doesn't mention the word "war" at all. Rather it uses the word "attack", which your incursion clearly would be. In such a case, the Article states that member states can then excercise the right to individual and collective self defence, taking such actions that are deemed necessary. Whilst those actions can include the use of military force, it doesn't mean everyone goes to war.

So, in the case of your mystery attack by an unseen enemy, the state that was attacked could invoke Article 4 on the grounds that its security had been threatened. Thereafter, it would be for member nations to decide what action should or could be taken. That may be anything from a stiffly worded rebuke to offering security assistance to armed deployments. Every situation is different and it is for NATO to decide how to handle each one accordingly.

Articles 4 and 5 are rarely used partly because they send very strong signals that may not be the most appropriate course of action. Deliberate escalation is not generally considered a fitting immediate response (as agreed in Article 1) unless in extremis.

As for deniability, an aggressor can deny all they want, that wouldn't necessarily prevent NATO from offering, for example, security assistance to the victim. If memory serves correctly, the USA invoked Article 5 after 9/11 before an enemy had been identified, so I don't think denials would necessarily confound the Treaty.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, thank you for that concise explanation, I am sure others will find it interesting too. I confess to a complete lack of knowledge in that area until late in the day I became a member of a NATO committee.

[handysnaks]

CM, I am making a general observation on why the survey, which was the point of this thread, may have produced the results it did, not an assertion that all of the populations in all of the NATO states are fully aware of all of the provisions of the NATO treaty and when and where any provisions of the treaty may have been used.

[KenV]

Still scared, KenV?

Naaah. Wasn't scared before either. I just find it typically self serving to on the one hand say "no" to helping to defend my neighbors, but on the other to expect non neighbors an ocean away to come to my defense.

So while many Europeans are saying "no" to helping their immediate neighbors, Americans are signing defense agreements with a communist nation (that was recently an enemy who took the lives of 50,000+ Americans) to help them defend against a neighboring communist nation, with both on the other side of the planet. Go figure.

===============Controversy Alert!!!==================

Maybe this is part the US gun culture. Many here who own guns do so to defend themselves AND their neighbors. Maybe we have a different mindset over here about using violence or the threat of violence to deter aggressors/predators. I'm making no judgements about whether this is "good" or "bad", just making an observation.

[skippedonce]

Article 5 is rather more detailed than that and doesn't mention the word "war" at all. Rather it uses the word "attack"

Actually, the phrase you're looking for, which is very contentious in a hybrid scenario (particularly involving cyber) is 'armed attack'.

So, in the case of your mystery attack by an unseen enemy, the state that was attacked could invoke Article 4 on the grounds that its security had been threatened. Thereafter, it would be for member nations to decide what action should or could be taken. That may be anything from a stiffly worded rebuke to offering security assistance to armed deployments. Every situation is different and it is for NATO to decide how to handle each one accordingly.

However, as CM says obliquely, what constitutes an Article 5 precedent? Answer: whatever 28 nations agree consensus on in the NAC.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by skippedonce

Actually, the phrase you're looking for, which is very contentious in a hybrid scenario (particularly involving cyber) is 'armed attack'.

However, as CM says obliquely, what constitutes an Article 5 precedent? Answer: whatever 28 nations agree consensus on in the NAC.

Any given NATO state needs to be prepared to fight alone for at least three days while the 's in Brussels overdose on coffee and meetings. All any of them can hope for is a few bilateral agreements with selected NATO allies who have shown a propensity for actually fighting if they expect any assistance before that.

[skippedonce]

Any given NATO state needs to be prepared to fight alone for at least three days

Which is what Article 3 is all about, though most of the 'new joiners' (and some of the 'Old Guard') don't seem to have read that one and taken the 'peace dividend' instead!