Estonia considers itself a front-line state, a Nato member where its border guards stare across the Narva River at the Russian fortress of Ivangorod.

This tiny Baltic state, once a part of the Soviet Union, is convinced that once the fighting stops in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin will turn his attention to the Baltics, looking to bring countries like Estonia back under Moscow’s control.

To help stave off that possibility, Estonia’s government has poured money and weapons into Ukraine’s war effort, donating more than 1% of its GDP to Kyiv.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You’re the one that says we should turn to precedent, and said there have been multiple occasions NATO could have triggered Article 5 but wasn’t. When were these other times? You made the statement, now provide evidence.

    I’m sure I’m missing some, but:

    • Soviet blockade of Berlin
    • Argentine attack on the Falklands
    • Iraqi attacks on Turkey
    • Syrian attacks on Turkey
    • Russian missile landing in Poland last year
    • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      … and was Article 5 triggered any of those times? Did any of those states ask for help from the alliance? And most of those examples have drawn support (or offers of support) from NATO allies.

      You’re also missing the geographical scope of the treaty, which over and over again refers to the security situation in North America and Europe.

      Or are you understanding what I’m saying as making it mandatory if anything happens to these countries, and the country being attacked doesn’t get a say in the matter? Because a country try still needs to actually ask for help.

      In (as far as I’m aware) every single security treaty in effect across the world the first responsibility lies with the states in question, and all assistance has to be requested by those states.

      Listen. You’re just incorrect, and that’s ok. But in the scope of the treaty (which, yes, must actually be triggered), a response from all member states is mandatory.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        … and was Article 5 triggered any of those times?

        No, which is my point. Allow myself to quote… myself:

        Well, we can also look at precedent. Article 5 was applied only once in NATO’s history, despite multiple other occasions where NATO could have done so.

        As for your other line of thought:

        in the scope of the treaty (which, yes, must actually be triggered), a response from all member states is mandatory.

        This is also demonstrably incorrect. If we look at the single time Article 5 was triggered, 9/11, the response was not all-in. The largest-scale combined effort I think was patrols in the Mediterranean.

        • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          This suggests a complete misunderstanding of international law and state sovereignty, then. I was being overly charitable, apparently.

          Sovereignty is a concept that is baked into the UN Charter explicitly, which the NATO treaty names over and over again.

          In order for a treaty article to take effect, it has to be triggered by a member state. It’s strange that you would interpret mandatory response as being, potentially, against the actual request of the state(s) in question.

          It seems either painfully lacking knowledge or as being in bad faith. In either case I would suggest you refrain from talking about international treaties in the future.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            You perhaps missed the second part of my reply about the post-9/11 response. If I understand what you’ve been trying to say here, you’re implying that all NATO members must participate after Article 5 is invoked, which is not the case.

            • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              All NATO members did get involved after Article 5 was invoked, so I’m not sure what your point is.

              Because yes, that’s exactly what Article 5 says. It’s mandatory to respond, it’s not ambiguous. All members respond if one is attacked, and they did after 9/11.

              If you can illustrate a country that sat out of the global response to 9/11/01, I would love to hear it.

                • nahuse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  None of that says what you are saying.

                  Maybe you could highlight where it says that any NATO members did not participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan? Or that any participation is voluntary?

                  Seriously, man, you don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not voluntary, otherwise the alliance wouldn’t exist. States have the discretion to decide the kinds of aid they would send, but any decision not to respond at all would be counter to both the letter and the spirit of the treaty. It’s mandatory, if a country wants to abide by its treaty terms. Full stop.

                  The only flexibility involved is exactly how it responds. Here’s a source that explains it, but I’ll quote the relevant bit for you. The excerpt follows the text of Art. 5 in the source.

                  “This language is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally. It does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor.”

                  https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained

                  Here’s the information about what the NATO exercises that occurred as a direct result of 9/11. It’s a lot, but here’s the relevant bit, where it outlines what the actions of the alliance were:

                  “After 9/11, there were consultations among the Allies and collective action was decided by the Council. The United States could also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the United Nations Charter.

                  On 4 October, once it had been determined that the attacks came from abroad, NATO agreed on a package of eight measures to support the United States. On the request of the United States, it launched its first ever anti-terror operation – Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. It consisted in seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft that helped patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties. This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.

                  On 26 October, the Alliance launched its second counter-terrorism operation in response to the attacks on the United States, Active Endeavour. Elements of NATO’s Standing Naval Forces were sent to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean and monitor shipping to detect and deter terrorist activity, including illegal trafficking. In March 2004, the operation was expanded to include the entire Mediterranean.

                  The eight measures to support the United States, as agreed by NATO were:

                  to enhance intelligence-sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it; to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other countries which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism; to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory; to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism; to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO member countries for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures; that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.”

                  https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/110496.htm

                  I have to assume you don’t have any interest in good faith argumentation at this point, and it’s time for me to call it quits on trying to convince you. But please stop spreading Russian disinformation and in the future remain silent when it comes to Article 5.

                  Edit: I’ll put the Wikipedia link for the ISAF, the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, too, but if you go to the tab “participants,” you’ll read this:

                  “All NATO member states have contributed troops to the ISAF, as well as some other partner states of the NATO alliance.”

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

                  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    stop spreading Russian disinformation

                    WTF? I sincerely don’t understand why you’re so averse to what I’m saying. I’m not anti-NATO by any means — I’m only stating a fact that I thought would be very cut and dry.

                    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

                    With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

                    This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies.** It is not necessarily military** and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

                    At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.