NATO on NATO violence
February 3, 2025 12:39 PM Subscribe
Are NATO’s collective defense obligations triggered if the attacker is itself a NATO country? (Asking for not-a-friend.)
Response by poster: Lest this question get zapped as chatfilter, we can narrow the focus to what it is written down in the NATO charter.
If there is text there saying the attacker gets kicked out of NATO, a cite would answer the question.
posted by Lemkin at 12:54 PM on February 3
If there is text there saying the attacker gets kicked out of NATO, a cite would answer the question.
posted by Lemkin at 12:54 PM on February 3
Best answer: I assume you’re making reference to Greece and Turkey’s well known dispute over Cyprus, right? (Ha ha but no really, this has come up before). Article 5 says (with my italics):
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 12:55 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
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 recognized 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.The obligations would be triggered, yes; but the measures taken might also include ‘nothing’.
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.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 12:55 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
Furthermore, it's absurd to consider NATO anything beyond an embodiment of the United States' geopolitical aims over the past half century. It otherwise does not serve any purpose.
Why does anyone still repeat such a bad, obviously counterfactual take?
Every country that's in NATO joined of its own free will. This includes the many former Warsaw Pact states with well-justified fears of renewed Russian imperialism, and the alliance's newest members, Finland and Sweden, who abstained for decades but joined after Putin's recent ferocious assault on Ukraine.
NATO membership is enormously popular in these countries.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:37 PM on February 3 [21 favorites]
Why does anyone still repeat such a bad, obviously counterfactual take?
Every country that's in NATO joined of its own free will. This includes the many former Warsaw Pact states with well-justified fears of renewed Russian imperialism, and the alliance's newest members, Finland and Sweden, who abstained for decades but joined after Putin's recent ferocious assault on Ukraine.
NATO membership is enormously popular in these countries.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:37 PM on February 3 [21 favorites]
There's nothing in the treaty - which is short and sweet and pretty easy to read - about how one might compel another member to leave the treaty, and nothing specific about inter-ally issues.
I guess 'such action as deemed necessary' could be read to include expulsion, if the group considered that likely to resolve, or help resolve, the matter. Given how it leaves the state in question suddenly undefended by their allies it's certainly quite a threat.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 7:03 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
I guess 'such action as deemed necessary' could be read to include expulsion, if the group considered that likely to resolve, or help resolve, the matter. Given how it leaves the state in question suddenly undefended by their allies it's certainly quite a threat.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 7:03 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
NATO membership is enormously popular in these countries.
This is a case where both things are true. NATO’s establishment enabled the US to park a ton of personnel, weapons and equipment right at the door of the USSR. The Soviets had no comparable ability to have that much offensive capability on the US doorstep; the Cuban Missile Crisis involved missiles but there was no way the USSR was going to bring a land war into America. So in that sense, NATO was a huge part of the US global war strategy and it likely doesn’t exist otherwise. On the other side, if you’re a NATO member country in Europe, you’re going to reap a lot of benefits, namely in the form of protection against Soviet (and now Russian) aggression. It’s been a win-win relationship for the most part on all sides.
posted by azpenguin at 7:36 AM on February 4
This is a case where both things are true. NATO’s establishment enabled the US to park a ton of personnel, weapons and equipment right at the door of the USSR. The Soviets had no comparable ability to have that much offensive capability on the US doorstep; the Cuban Missile Crisis involved missiles but there was no way the USSR was going to bring a land war into America. So in that sense, NATO was a huge part of the US global war strategy and it likely doesn’t exist otherwise. On the other side, if you’re a NATO member country in Europe, you’re going to reap a lot of benefits, namely in the form of protection against Soviet (and now Russian) aggression. It’s been a win-win relationship for the most part on all sides.
posted by azpenguin at 7:36 AM on February 4
I really don't think you can talk about countries having "free will" in a world where the CIA can just kill anyone for opposing US interests.
posted by jy4m at 4:56 PM on February 4
posted by jy4m at 4:56 PM on February 4
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Furthermore, it's absurd to consider NATO anything beyond an embodiment of the United States' geopolitical aims over the past half century. It otherwise does not serve any purpose.
posted by so fucking future at 12:43 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]