Originally Posted by
petit plateau
I don't think a NATO state can choose to become a co-belligerent in a non-NATO conflict, and then invoke NATO article 5 if it is subsequently on the receiving end of a response whether on its own soil, or against its own armed forces. If a NATO [state] chooses to engage in non-NATO adventures then the consequences of that become non-NATO in nature.
NATO certainly has used flexibility in their interpretations, i.e., 20 July – 18 August 1974; Turkey - Greece, (invasion of Cypress by Turkey).
NATO membership has a number of requirements to ensure that their states have a defensive posture, but that has been a rocky road for sure. 'Arf of the NATO countries had colonies in exotic locations, and had tiffs in them, which did not invoke NATO actions. If those uppity colonials (USA excluded) had responded back in Paris, or Marseilles, or Bournemouth, er, actually they did... and nothing much happened. Those were related to the dismantlement of colonial holdings. The colonies didn't invade, they undertook terrorist attacks at that time, but it was still a line call. In the current situation, Poland would not be acting in respect of a colonial holding, they are assisting under the UN Charter, as all UN countries are obliged to do, irrespective of the UNSC failing to do their damned job, as they at least did in 1990 and 1991.
In 2002, the UNSC passed a single resolution (1441 8Nov02) based on the WMD theory.... oops. No other action was called for by UNSCR prior to crossing the berms from Kuwait to go on the great WMD hunt. The coalition used the remnants of UNSCR 661 as the approval to go rowdy, which had they believed the "intel" flawed or otherwise, then that would have been reasonable. Colin Powell was not a very happy camper with UK intel.
The last UNSCR comment was to remain "seized on the matter". Presumably, a further warning was expected to be given, but events overtook the seat warmers.
Iraq 2.0 was not a disaster in itelf; the disaster was when W. Paul Bremer, the so-called tzar of Iraq elected to disregard all advice from the military, CIA, DOS, on keeping a structure working in Iraq, and that led to the popular uprising by the locals who were left without water, power, sanitation or security from the single stroke of a pen.
Any NATO country taking unilateral action against Belarus would not be appreciated by the rest of NATO, what would happen would be interesting. Poland supporting Ukraine within Ukraine is a UN state obligation. That doesn't alter the wording of the NATO Treaty as it stands today, and while Polish losses in Ukraine would certainly not be trigger conditions for Art. 5, attacking a NATO state that is acting in compliance with the UN Charter within the borders of Ukraine would be a difficult breach to disregard. This is consistent with the US and other UN states comments on a response to the use of WMD/TNWs in Ukraine; that response is tending towards a conventional overwhelming strike on any and all Russian (Iranian? Syrian? Chechen?) forces in Ukraine.