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.
That’s not true, the language is pretty clear:
“Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, 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.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
It’s not an option to respond to an attack on one, it’s mandatory according to the text of the treaty.
The “as it deems necessary” is the escape hatch for those who don’t want to intervene. It isn’t as wishy-washy as the EU’s mutual defense clause, but it certainly isn’t absolute.
I don’t know why someone down voted you. Given the current political environment. Trump if he wins would absolutely use that as a loop hole if the US is even still in NATO at that point.
People here will downvote the most objectively factual statements… I’ve stopped wondering what goes through their head.
This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.
It’s not iron clad, but nor is it voluntary as the person I responded to made it seem to be.
“such action as it deems necessary” could be no action at all.
“will assist such Party or Parties” comes right before that, though. Supporting an attacked treaty member is not optional.
And the clause which follows your quotes takes as granted that action has occurred, since it specifically states an intended result is a return to stability in North America or Europe. The action it deems necessary is predicated on the fact that it’s responding.
The way you are interpreting this quote is taken out of its context, which is not how the law works.
In any case, both of these arguments are technically valid, and it comes down to a whole lot of other factors, including political will, to enforce a response among members.
However it’s not ambiguous that an attack on a member of NATO will have a joint response, and a member neglecting to undertake such action would not have a valid legal argument for its inaction.
Edit: made a sentence real English instead of gibberish.
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. I do think that a deliberate Russian attack on a NATO member would trigger a response, but history shows it clearly isn’t mandatory.
When has there been an attack on a member state that has not resulted in support of some kind from the alliance?
You tell me, you’re the one who says Article 5 is a guarantee. It has been used only once (9/11)
No? The burden is on you here to assert your point, after your first point was incorrect and you moved the goalpost.
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.
My point is that when it’s triggered, it’s not optional. And so far, that’s been the case, since it’s been triggered exactly once, and there was a universal response to it.
It’s not an option to respond, according to the words of the treaty. Any other interpretation of it would be based on politics, not the interpretation of the treaty itself. Any idea that the treaty doesn’t mandate collective action is incorrect.