- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What happens if NATO tries to invoke Article 5 and we just say no?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:40 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Countries (and people) either honor their obligations, or they do not
What is our obligation here?
1
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:41 am to Foreskinski
quote:
Article 5 stipulates that if a member nation is attacked then the members will join in their defense. If doesn't say anywhere in article 5 that member nations must join when you initiate conflict defending a non member.
The Deep State will 100% orchestrate a false flag to frame Russia (see: Syria).
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:41 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
What happens if NATO tries to invoke Article 5 and we just say no?
This would massively depend on what the alleged Article 5 violation is.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:41 am to Ag Zwin
quote:At the moment, none.quote:What is our obligation here?
Countries (and people) either honor their obligations, or they do not
But the OP asks a hypothetical question.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:43 am to SirWinston
quote:
The Deep State will 100% orchestrate a false flag to frame Russia (see: Syria).
So we can expect a Russian loss several years later. Cool.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:43 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
What happens if NATO tries to invoke Article 5 and we just say no?
1st, a NATO member who is attacked calls a special meeting with NATO members to discuss. So an actual attack woul dneed to have taken plance against NATO for this to happen. Poland did this when a missle hit their territory. that missle was later determined to be a Ukrainian AA missile that went off target.
2nd, the nato special meeting will discuss if this is a actual attack and worthy of article 5 response. short of Russian troops crossing into NATO territory this would not elicit a full article 5 response. you would likely see a diplomatic response to something like a russian drone hitting a NATO country.
3rd, if Russian troops cross into a NATO country with intent to do so, then Article 5 is in effect, and because NATO articles are a ratified treaty, it is international law and federal law that it is followed.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:45 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
What would realistically happen if we just straight up refuse to send any troops or aid?
Democrats would cry.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:47 am to AggieHank86
well Ukraine is not a NATO nation so it can't be invoked to protect them.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:48 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
What would realistically happen if we just straight up refuse to send any troops or aid?
It depends on the situation. If a NATO country took it upon itself to march their troops into Ukraine and was summarily attacked by Russian forces, that shouldn't apply to Article 5 (at least how I see it).
Now if Russia were to attack a NATO country (Lithuania, for example) and the US didn't respond?
1. NATO doesn't really exist without the US. If we're not going to uphold Article 5 in this sort of instance, we shouldn't even be in NATO.
2. The EU would shite itself as the US military and funding is essentially their regional defense.
3. It would make it extremely difficult to make new deals with other countries as the US would look like it can't be relied on to keep its word.
4. It would make us look not just too weak to keep deals, but too scared to do so (regardless of history).
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:50 am to Henry Jones Jr
Are there any articles that mention ALL nations hold up their end of the bargain on funding?
Because we’ve exceeded that mandate while they are breaching it.
Because we’ve exceeded that mandate while they are breaching it.
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 9:52 am
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:52 am to aero1126
They would sit it out anyway. NATO only covers actions in the North Atlantic. We were not required to help the UK against Argentina in the Falklands. They wouldn’t be required to help in the South China Sea.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:52 am to Bard
quote:There are easy hypotheticals and hard ones.
It depends on the situation. If a NATO country took it upon itself to march their troops into Ukraine and was summarily attacked by Russian forces, that shouldn't apply to Article 5 (at least how I see it).
If a NATO country (say, Poland) were to enter Ukraine to assist in defending the country, it would be hard to invoke Article V if the Russians strike them IN UKRAINE.
OTOH, if Russia were to respond by attacking WARSAW, you have a quandary.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:53 am to dstone12
quote:
Are there any articles that mention ALL nations hold up their end of the bargain on funding?
Because we’ve exceeded that mandate while they are breaching it.
The current spending agreement wasn't put into place until the 2000's. So that isn't going to be in the north atlantic treaty
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 9:54 am
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:53 am to Henry Jones Jr
We need to realize that NO country in the world likes us. Our "allies" don't like us, they just like our cash and our protection. The rest of the world dislikes Americans, mostly from jealousy and some because we're "brash cowboys" in their eyes.
We have spent decades throwing cash around hoping that the world would like us. Well they don't.
Now they want to openly talk shite about America. Let them do as they please on their own dime and so will we.
We have spent decades throwing cash around hoping that the world would like us. Well they don't.
Now they want to openly talk shite about America. Let them do as they please on their own dime and so will we.
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 9:55 am
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:55 am to dstone12
quote:The 2% spending goal is just a guideline, NOT a part of the NATO Treaty.
Are there any articles that mention ALL nations hold up their end of the bargain on funding?
Because we’ve exceeded that mandate while they are breaching it.
3/4 of NATO States are in compliance with the 2% spending guideline.
Slovenia is not in compliance. I suppose you could ARGUE that there is no duty under Article V to defend Slovenia, if Russia were to attack it.
All of the countries that MIGHT be attacked directly (those that border Russia or Belarus) are in compliance.
Hell, Poland is spending more than 4%. Under your theory, would we be twice as obligated to aid Poland?
Those Falling Short
1.8% Croatia
1.6% Portugal
1.5% Italy
1.4% Canada
1.3% Spain
1.3% Belgium
1.3.% Luxembourg
1.3% Slovenia
Melania needs to call home and fix that nonsense.
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 10:06 am
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:58 am to Azkiger
quote:
What would realistically happen if we just straight up refuse to send any troops or aid?
quote:
Democrats would cry.
And they will type more comments that Trump is a russian agent and blah blah blah
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:
All of the countries that MIGHT be attacked directly (those that border Russia or Belarus) are in compliance.
This. The Central and Eastern Europeans aren't the problem in this regard--they spend money.
Their militaries are little more than a national gendarmerie for the most part. There are exceptions like Poland (who spends a higher % of GDP on military than we do) but on the whole, the Baltic and Central European states don't have the numbers.
Its the larger, richer Western European nations that refuse to arm themselves appropriately.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 9:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:
No one would ever trust us again.
Trust is a two-way street Hank.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 10:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
No one would ever trust us again. Countries (and people) either honor their obligations, or they do not. It is difficult to find a complimentary adjective for the latter.
But we should trust a country that goes on the offensive, gets their hand slapped, and come running for daddy USA to save themselves?
The USA is not refusing to honor any obligations if a NATO country goes on the attack and fails. It’s for INVASION or ATTACK ON A MEMBER NATION. And that is assuming if they didn’t do anything stupid to initiate it. Ukraine is NOT a member nation.
Remember to cut your check to Z this month.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 10:07 am to Indefatigable
quote:
The current spending agreement wasn't put into place until the 2000's. So that isn't going to be in the north atlantic treaty
And it is more of a suggestion rather than a hard guideline.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News