re: What happens if NATO tries to invoke Article 5 and we just say no?

quote:

---

Where has anyone asserted that Article V requires us to defend Ukraine?

---

I didn’t, moron. It was the period on the fact that Turkey, or any other NATO country going to Ukraine (a non NATO country), getting their whipping, and causing Russia to retaliate, should be ignored when they try to invoke anything for others to come tj their aid either in Ukraine or their own country,

So answer the question Forrest.

quote:

---

It was the period on the fact that Turkey, or any other NATO country going to Ukraine (a non NATO country), getting their whipping, and causing Russia to retaliate

---

In conventional arms, Turkey is equal to Russia, if not better.

quote:

---

CleverUserName

---

Your grammar and syntax are so bad that I am not entirely sure what you are trying to ask, but ...

For purposes of this hypothetical, we will say that a NATO country (let's call it Belgium) sends troops to fight alongside the Ukrainians.

My personal opinion on Article V is as follows:

1) If Belgium sent its troops onto Russian soil and the Russians destroyed them in Russia (OR even bombed Bruges), the US would CLEARLY have no obligation to Belgium under Article V.

2) If Belgium sent its troops ONLY into Ukraine and the Russians destroyed them IN UKRAINE, the US would have no obligation to Belgium under Article V.

3) If Belgium sent its troops ONLY into Ukraine and the Russians responded by bombing Bruges, the US WOULD have an obligation to Belgium under Article V.

Anywhere other than this forum, most analysts would agree with this assessment.

quote:

---

Your grammar and syntax are so bad that I am not entirely sure what you are trying to ask

---

Grammar smack on a message board? I accept your surrender.

quote:

---

My personal opinion on Article V is as follows:

---

Literally no one gives a flying shite. Your time for writing that is time you will not get back.

quote:

---

Anywhere other than this forum, most analysts would agree with this assessment.

---

Same folks that said Trump would never be in office again? Go back to Gen Milley, John Bolton, and Chris Christie to give you more insight.

If NATO allies put troops on the ground in Ukraine, they're on their fricking own.

We have no obligation to stand behind someone who jumps into a fistfight because their buddy is getting his arse kicked. Especially when the guy kicking their buddy's arse has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth with hypersonic delivery capability.

If NATO jumps into Ukraine, which I don't really think they will (but nothing surprises me any more), we can kiss the world as we know it goodbye.

WE FUND NATO. If it is capable of doing anything without our explicit approval, then we are getting a bad deal and need to stop funding it.

The bullshite they’ve done this week without including our President is probably sufficient reason to leave it until they get better leadership.

quote:

---

At the moment, none.

But the OP asks a hypothetical question.

---

Fair enough, but I’ve often wondered something about NATO (and don’t have the time to become an internet expert on it): What happens if a member country simply FAFO’s with something really stupid on their part, and provokes an attack from a nonmember?

Let’s say Poland goes rogue and lines up all their troops on the Russian border, then Putin slaps them around. Is it “go” time for everybody?

quote:

---

Let’s say Poland goes rogue and lines up all their troops on the Russian border, then Putin slaps them around. Is it “go” time for everybody?

---

I addressed this above.

My analysis (which syncs with the vast majority of those who understand treaty obligations) is that we would have no Article V obligation, so long as Russia limits its kinetic action to the Polish troops IN UKRAINE. If OTOH Russia responds by bombing Bialystok, Poland, it is MUCH less clear. MOST (but not all) experts seem to think that Article V DOES come into play by virtue of the Russian escalation.

What if Trump told these judges to FO

quote:

---

I think where some people get confused on Article 5 is that they believe it means countries have to contribute by putting boots on the ground. Which isn't the case. The US could still be in adherence to Article 5 without a single US troop ever stepping foot in Ukraine.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

"Each Party will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary"

---

The boldface text makes it clear that each Member state is REQUIRED to "do something," but the underscored languages leaves it to the discretion of each Member state to determine WHAT that "something" might be.