• [object Object]@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.

    Ah, so it’s not a defensive alliance. Thanks for confirming.

    • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

        • iglou@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            the issue is the exact wording is

            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.

            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”

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • [object Object]@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        defence of peace

        Ah, like the US.

        Yes, under this ‘definition’ they could be intervening all over the world, including in Iran.