I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
Your mistake is disagreeing with a comment that said “NATO good”. The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant. It’s the centrist form of the tankie purity test.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.
From the nato.int website. It reads to me that if a country refuses to come to the assistance of a country legitimately invoking the article, the country is breaching the treaty.
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, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Depends what your definition of defence is though, doesn’t it. NATO could just be considered to be defence of peace in which case yeah you could have a mandate to intervene in certain situations and it would still be in defensive peace.
I think you’re trying to make a distinction without a purpose.
That was a humanitarian intervention to STOP a genocide.
I bet most were happy that the Serbians were reigned in. Even many Serbians.
NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
Well… I think a lot of people in Iran are also happy about these strikes.
But that does not change the fact that Nato is clearly not only defensive.
I don’t get the downvotes, you are correct. The OP’s comment that NATO only intervenes defensively is clearly wrong.
Should they intervene here? No, definitely not because this is a stupid, stupid war, and that’s reason enough.
I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
Your mistake is disagreeing with a comment that said “NATO good”. The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant. It’s the centrist form of the tankie purity test.
They were defending those people, no?
They were also defending themselves from a building refugee crisis.
It wasn’t a NATO operation though. It just involved NATO countries. The majority of NATO countries didn’t participate.
Participation was voluntary. If it was a NATO operation, it would have been mandatory for every member.
BREAKING: German engineer invents nanofilmant capable of precisely splitting hair
You don’t need such a device, you can just read their website.
Hair split at subatomic level, causing a massive release of energy
I know Serbians in the celebrity world of the country. They hate NATO for stepping in. We used to get into arguments about it.
ah poor genocidal serbians? Piss off.
A nation committing a genocide does tend to be aggravated by other nations interfering.
Per them. The Muslims killed Serbians. And they were armed as well. So it was only righttttttt that the Serbians killed them. /s
Ah, so it’s not a defensive alliance. Thanks for confirming.
No it is, since not every member participated.
The whole operation was voluntary. The only reason it gets a NATO sticker is because only NATO members participated.
If it was an actual NATO operation, it would have been mandatory for all 32 nations. Not just the 13 that actually intervened.
Article 5 does not mandate every nation to participate if any one nation is attached. It is voluntary.
From the nato.int website. It reads to me that if a country refuses to come to the assistance of a country legitimately invoking the article, the country is breaching the treaty.
the issue is the exact wording is
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5
“such action as it deems necessary”
assistance can mean many things, and can be very very minimal… eg purposefully ineffective sanctions would satisfy “will assist”
That’s the opposite of article 5
Depends what your definition of defence is though, doesn’t it. NATO could just be considered to be defence of peace in which case yeah you could have a mandate to intervene in certain situations and it would still be in defensive peace.
I think you’re trying to make a distinction without a purpose.
Ah, like the US.
Yes, under this ‘definition’ they could be intervening all over the world, including in Iran.
No under the NATO definition of peace. Don’t be moving the goal posts now.
lol.
Should’ve bombed Israel while there was still something left of Gaza then
Absolutely. But USA has gotten steadily worse, esp. since Bush.
They hadn’t in Serbia. Not every illegal attacking war is bad. Reality is messy.
83 upvotes for this… Man this species is doomed…
Also NATO in 1999 had used military force without the expressed endorsement of the UN Security Council and international legal approval.