Originally Posted by
petit plateau
If you go and read the NATO articles you will definitely find that it specifically excludes the vast majority of the colonial posessions of all NATO countries, precisely so as to not make NATO Art 5 hostage to foreign adventures during the retreat from empire phase. I'm not 100% certain where the vestigial pieces stand wrt NATO articles - I'm thinking for example of Gibraltar (UK); Guantanamo (USA); or the various French DoMs and ToMs, but there are many more - and I think they mostly remain technically excluded from Art 5 matters.
Turning to the example you repeat of (say) Poland committing military forces into Ukraine thereby becoming a co-belligerent, and then being on the receiving end of Russian responses in Poland itself, I think that too is excluded from Art 5. If NATO collectively were to intervene - for whatever reason - then that would be a different matter. However any individual NATO-state voluntarily becoming a co-belligerent I believe puts itself outside Art 5 for this purpose. This is precisely why NATO as a whole is taking a qualitatively cohesive stance on this conflict. How is it that you read the NATO articles dfferently ?
(I think the various Iraq and Afghanistan episodes you cite are qualitatively different in nature due to the invocation of UN resolutions, so I think they are a red-herring in the current situation. Regrettably the UN structures suffer from the same drawbacks as the League Of Nations in the limit.)
P2:
The adjective belligerent is "
hostile and aggressive". A party defending another's right to exist in the face of an aggressor nation conducting an illegal war "Special Military Operation" is not a belligerent. If you defend your family from an intruder, do you refer to yourself as a belligerent?
The noun belligerent, which you are using is "a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law." As Russia went out of their way to commit criminal acts, and has not declared a war, I think using the term belligerent while correct in a war is somewhat inappropriate for a country undertaking self defence against a criminal act, and that would include any country assisting in the collective defence of the victim. "Belligerent" has connotations of aggression in all uses.
If Russia can call a criminal act an SMO, I see no reason not to call Ukraine a defender and those countries that support Ukraine co defenders.
The UN Charter permits collective defence, what that may mean to NATO is anyones guess, but Poland and presumably Estonia if they get involved within Ukraine would make that an interesting question for Vlad to sleep on. An attack of Belarus itself is high stakes, and would come with baggage. assisting Ukraine repeal the uninvited crime would be consistent with the UN Charter and a response directly against the country concerned would be a guessing game for Vlad as to where NATO may draw a line. So far he has been drawing blanks on his assumptions of world response to his summer vacation plans.
Should you wish to double cross this bride, you can PM me and we can take the discussion off line. Any assumption that NATO may not not respond assists Vlad, and I don't consider that appropriate in light of his barbaric actions with Ukraine and even his own citizens.