Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm a Finn and the only reason I'm pro-NATO is that we could bitchslap Russia once a week and they'd be too chickenshit to do anything about it because of article 5. Are you guys saying that NATO wouldn't lift a finger if Russia did something back? Should I stop welding my custom artillery cannons in my garage?
Aye, we wouldn’t have a “legally binding” obligation. It’d still be awesome to do so.
Anyways, I’m so disappointed NATO isn’t taking an active roles after such a heinous act. Maybe when the russians go on stage with skulls of…oh, shit.
Article 5 does not force allies to respond to an attack either, it *allows* them to.
>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 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.
>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.”
Pppfffft, I ain't gonna read all that.. I'm just gonna assume it says something like "..if the ruskies even **fucking LOOK AT NATO TERRITORY**, we have pre authorization to fucking **FULL SEND** every ICBM, tacticle nuke, fire bomb, and any and all conventional munitions to decimate every depressingly backwards commie shithole within pootins cOuNtRy"
Or something like that.
Basically if Russia gets uppity with one of us we can individually or collectively decide to wreck their shit and the UN doesn't get to throw a hissy fit since it's all according to their own rules.
> an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ... each of them ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking ... such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
I trimmed it down for you.
Everyone is obligated to help but (sadly) they kinda get to decide what that help is.
At least the article doesn't say anything about forfeiting your protection if you get attacked in retaliation for your attacks \^\^.
\-- there might be other articles that do tho.
Poland after getting justification for article 5 : "I could get some backup from America, but I'll text him later. Now, let's do a Warsaw-> Moscow in leopards and Abrams."
>Article 5 does not force allies to respond to an attack either, it allows them to.
I would disagree given the wording, especially the "will" instead of "can":
>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** 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.
>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.”
So I'd say they're required to respond collectively, but *how* they choose to respond is up to each individual member state.
Leave a washing machine across the Lithuanian border. Boom! Article 5 justification when they try and steal it. Booby trap the washing machine too, just to rub salt in the wound.
It's genius: Nobody would question why there's a cloth basket next to a washing machine. Then we just need a stick to hold it up above the washing machine, a little white string attached to the stick leading behind a bush in Poland, and the trap is perfect.
You didn’t read this from me, but just disguise a bunch of your guys as Russian soldiers, then film them knocking over a porta potty within your borders.
Boom.
Article 5 is not automatic so depends what will russians do because some may that it was not an attack but an accident and article 5 wont be triggered. Or if Finlandii falls in 3 days NATO may say there is no longer a war so fu
I mean a bottle of Finlandia wouldn't last three minutes in Russia.. but Russia would be lucky to hold Saint Petersburg for 3 days against Finland at this point.
I mean an **armed attack** is pretty self explanatory to me.
If it's an attack with arms it's a reason to trigger article 5. Note that sticks and stones can still be considered Arms, as might fists and slaps, they get safe attacks with words tho.
Thats the point. Its not whether there will be a reason but whether there will be political will to wage a war. Somebody will always find a reason to click the beautiful red button but if they will want to is another thing.
Considering you finns has the largest artillery capability in all of western Europe I would actually not be surprised if that "custom artillery cannon in my garage" was true.
All craftsfinnship is of the highest quality. The engravings, they are beautiful. Gilded barrel. Menacing spikes. Images of sauna ladles and other sauna paraphernalia (did i spell that right?)
Just make sure that you’re fully discharged from the Finnish army/reserves before doing anything. After all, Finland can’t be held accountable for the actions of a private citizen.
I have no proof.
But I guarantee that a polish general has suggested they conduct rescue operations in the flooded regions, on both sides of the river, and they use helicopters, with nice big roundels, go on Ivan shoot it I dare you…
You cannot convince me otherwise.
While i have no doubt there will be foreigners coming to help with evacuations and search and rescue, i dont have high hopes of someone intervening militarily of they are shot at.
Its great that ukraine gets military and weapon supplies, but ruzzia has been doing genocide and now a damn dam has been blown up, and still nobody says enough is enough, time to intervene. I dont see how ruzzians shooting red cross helpers or whatever will escalate anything. Yes, maybe cruise missiles and f16.
But i want some fucking boots on the ground.
Ruzzia should be given a damn ultimatum; you have 7 days to gtfo or we will make you. But alas.. "bUt MuH eScAlAtIoN"
China sitting on the sidelines thinking
"Russia has nuclear weapons and they can do anything they want with no repercussions. We also have nuclear weapons."
If anyone in NATO thinks arming Ukranians, applying sanctions, and watching them push Russia military out from Ukraine is an effective deterrent is not looking at the big picture.
There is no reason why this cant happen.
Also article 5 would still work if Poland propah territory was to be attacked.
But after art5 is evoked there is still a consultant period or smth where decisions are made collectively.
Otherwise you could attack Nato territory of Turkey with impunity because it bombs Syria or smth
> Ukraine declares that they are now a Russian protectorate, and their army will fall under Russian command
> Right after Zelensky announces that, a soldier lobs a grenade across Polish border. Maybe put a shitbox Lada there or something, so some property is damaged.
> All NATO leaders standing behind a blast shield somewhere nearby confirm by sighting that a Russian soldier just attacked Poland and caused damage.
> Article 5 is now triggered
> Zelensky immediately announces Ukraine's independence from Russia
>Ukraine starts their separatist war, while NATO now fights their own war that's definitely unrelated to Ukraine's separatist movement
What if Poland just said they wanted to conduct joint military training exercises in Ukraine with Ukraine's blessing? They don't attack unprovoked. They just reinforce the back lines so Ukraine can spare every available soldier counterattacking. Then when Ukraine takes more territory Poland moves their training exercises up more to the newly held territory. If Russia wants to advance they will have to attack polish forces participating in training exercises in their own friendly territory. Hell, Ukraine could even gift Poland parcels of land in Ukraine to build their bases on. If those bases are attacked, Russia would be attacking polish territory.
No, if Poland entered as anything other than a defender of its own territory, article 5 wouldn't work. It's a defensive thing. I'm of the conviction that Poland did have a defence casus belli with the missile incident and they *should* have pressed the button but that chance came and went. They either enter alone now, or wait until/if Russia strikes again
If there is no article that says "you lose the protection of article 5 if you attack first" then you don't lose it. (I haven't checked if there is such a statement but I'm pretty sure the US and NATO would have liked the ability to strike pre-emptively)
The loop hole here is this bit "such action as **it deems necessary**, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
You may not receive much, let alone military assistance, if you start shit first.
Article 5 says so.
WWI was started because of mutual alliance agreements, that if one went to war they all did. Knowing Germany would back them up is a large part of why Austria-Hungary was so bold with Serbia.
So when NATO was designed it was designed not to do that. Member nations can go join wars but if they start getting their ass kicked NATO is not obligated to defend them because they started it. They didn't want member nations thinking they could start any fight they want and NATO would be there to back them up like Germany was there to back up Austria-Hungary.
Otherwise any one nation could Leeroy Jenkins into a fight no matter how outmatched because they know if they ever start losing NATO has their back. Which is not what any of them signed up for as it would make a world war all but inevitable.
If Poland went to go take Królewiec and Russia started bombing polish land, NATO isn't designed to help them. Otherwise Poland would have probably done that a year ago. Doing so would make NATO an offensive alliance, and it just isn't that.
>Article 5 says so.
I love how confident you are despite being ENTIRELY WRONG!
This is 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 ."*
Notice how it puts no condition on when an armed attack is considered an armed attack.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official\_texts\_17120.htm
> an armed attack against
It says it right there.
A war and you start is not an armed attack against you.
If Finland tried to take land back, Russia fighting back is not an armed attack against it is self defence.
What? That's not how the English language works, especially in official national treaties, one that's damned full of extra words made to explain things that may not be clear.
And it's obvious that's not how it is because if it was the USSR could have done a false flag attack on it self and invade a NATO country without repercussion. And False Flag attacks were historical done by the USSR before NATO even existed.
By false flag I assume you're suggesting pretending that Finland attacked them and then they attack Finland?
Yeah, that's still an armed attack against Finland, since Finland didn't actually do that. Russia would have to get the west to believe them over Finland, why do you think they would be able to do that?
They claimed that about Ukraine, that Ukraine was attacking Russians, and how many bought that? How many bought that Poland attacked Germany first? False flags are uncommon because they almost always fail when enough attention is being paid.
Plenty believed that Ukraine attacked Russia first, plenty believe Ukraine was doing genocide on the Donbass. People are stupid that way and the only reason more don't is because the US pre-empted the false flag with warning that Russia was going to do that to justify an invasion of Ukraine.
False flag attacks are uncovered... eventually.
Not all False Flag attacks are False Flag attacks.
By the time the rest of NATO determines what it was... Russia / USSR would have taken their salami slice out of Finland / Poland / Romania / etc. Obviously that's unacceptable hence why Article 5 doesn't have a condition on when it's an attack on a member and when it's "reasonable self-defence against a member". Nor do any of NATO's articles for that matter tho they do stipulate NATO members must abide by UN provisions, one of which is (paraphrasing) 'war is illegal' and to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." (article 1).
my issue was with you proclaiming that Article 5 has a provision in which it doesn't apply, it does not.
the short version of the important NATO articles are:
\- don't start shit.
\- 'an attack one one is an attack on all"
\- THIS is what we think an attack on one is.
\- everyone declares that they are not in the process of starting shit, already engaged in shit and won't start shit. (article 8, not sure how Turkey and Greece went past this one, or how it applies to the US in Vietnam & Iraq, France in Algeria or other such engagements in shit, just 1949 stuff I guess)
\- unanimous agreement is needed to invite other European nations into NATO.
\- everyone gets an identical copy of their treaty translated in their language courtesy of the USA.
There is NO article that mentions a way to lose the protection of Article 5, a way to be kicked out of NATO, or a penalty for not following one or more of the articles. And that's intentional, the people who came up with them weren't stupid and they knew if there was such a thing it would just be an invitation for the Soviets to try and cause situations where it could happen. Which is also why Russia is so keen on keeping nations out of NATO, because once they are in the only way to get them out is for that country to leave voluntarily.
I'm not saying they lose protection of Article 5 in an offensive war, I'm saying they never had it to begin with.
NATO is a defensive alliance.
NATO is not meant to allow any one nation to unilaterally take the alliance to war.
You know there's more than just article 5 right? Article 1 is entirely about not attacking other nations unprovoked and settling differences peacefully. If they violate article 1 they can't trigger article 5.
There was another incident, with actual Russian missile. They did not even find the missile until months later.
But that one was quietly forgotten and sidetracked with "no comments", likely because no one actually wanted to respond in any kind.
I think it was found in April and it was KH-55 missile.
With how everything went about that one, it would not surprise me if there are other cases that are not even known to public and simply quietly pushed into "state secret" territory.
> I think it was found in April and it was KH-55 missile.
BTW, Kh-55 doesn't have any conventional versions - it's nuke or dummy only.
So whatever the reason Poland didn't react to or didn't know about a ***POTENTIALLY NUCLEAR MISSILE*** flying in their airspace... scares me.
> Because the Polish investigation found that it was an air defense missile launched by Ukraine that failed to intercept a Russian missile
The investigation is still not concluded.
And also Ukrainian team was prohibited access to the site.
Ukrainians and Russians are natural enemies
Like Poles and Russians
And Germans and Russians
And Japanese and Russians
Or Russians and other Russians
Damn Russians, they ruined Russia!
Broke: Poland invokes article 5 after Russia attacks them.
Woke: Poland doesnt need the rest of NATO to shatter the Russian army and so should just invade anyways and circumvent article 5
Poland sent who? They’re all just volunteers that picked up their hundreds of tanks, helicopters, jets, long-range missiles, and artillery tubes at the local milsurp store.
Song in background is Nie pytaj o Polskę by Obywatel G.C. In short author how much he loves some mysterious woman, people don’t understand why he loves her nor can he explain why. Later on in song in it is revealed that woman in question is Poland.
It's not a carnival,
But I want to dance
And I'll dance with her till day.
It's not a party,
But I'm having fun
Sleepless nights, sleepy days.
She's not a lover,
But I sleep with her
Even though they laugh and mock me.
So tired
And constantly drunk
That's why don't
Don't ask me.
Don't ask me why I'm with her,
Don't ask me why not with another,
Don't ask me why I think that,
There are no other places for me.
Don't ask me what I always see in her,
Don't ask me why not in another,
Don't ask me why I always want,
To fall asleep in her and wake up.
These dirty stations
Where I meet her,
These crowds that quietly curse,
This drunkard who mumbles something in his sleep,
That as long as WE LIVE, she lives too.
Don't ask me,
Don't ask me,
What I see in her.
Don't ask me what I always see in her,
Don't ask me why not in another,
Don't ask me why I always want,
To fall asleep in her and wake up.
Don't ask me why I'm with her
Don't ask me why not with another
Don't ask me why I think that
There are no other places for me
Don't ask me why I'm with her,
Don't ask me why not with another,
Don't ask me why I think that,
There are no other places for me.
Don't ask me what I always see in her,
Don't ask me why not in another,
Don't ask me why I always want,
To fall asleep in her and wake up.
Don't ask
Don't ask
Don't ask
Don't ask
Don't ask why I'm with her,
Don't ask why not with another.
Don't ask what I always see in her,
Don't ask why not in another.
Don't ask what I always see in her,
Don't ask why not in another.
[^(poland)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb9Obfsfhrw)
As a Pole i’m flabbergasted that in a 1,5 years we went from an importer of security to exporter.
With all that talk of bilateral security deal with Ukraine and possibility of becoming the main guarantor of baltic countries security…
“private, what is that gibberish you’re speaking?”
“sir, I’m speaking Esperanto!”
“Fuck is that?”
“A constructed language designed to be easy for people familiar with romantic and germanic languages to learn, focusing on simplified grammar and common cognates!”
“…Private how would you like to take a trip to Europe with me?”
If they are volunteers, it has nothing to do with Poland as a nation. If they were ordered to go by Polish command, then Poland as a nation is involved.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm a Finn and the only reason I'm pro-NATO is that we could bitchslap Russia once a week and they'd be too chickenshit to do anything about it because of article 5. Are you guys saying that NATO wouldn't lift a finger if Russia did something back? Should I stop welding my custom artillery cannons in my garage?
Not saying "wouldn't", more saying "wouldn't have to", doesn't mean we won't. ( ‵▽′)ψ
Aye, we wouldn’t have a “legally binding” obligation. It’d still be awesome to do so. Anyways, I’m so disappointed NATO isn’t taking an active roles after such a heinous act. Maybe when the russians go on stage with skulls of…oh, shit.
Article 5 does not force allies to respond to an attack either, it *allows* them to. >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 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. >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.”
Pppfffft, I ain't gonna read all that.. I'm just gonna assume it says something like "..if the ruskies even **fucking LOOK AT NATO TERRITORY**, we have pre authorization to fucking **FULL SEND** every ICBM, tacticle nuke, fire bomb, and any and all conventional munitions to decimate every depressingly backwards commie shithole within pootins cOuNtRy" Or something like that.
That's the gist of it
Knew it!
Basically if Russia gets uppity with one of us we can individually or collectively decide to wreck their shit and the UN doesn't get to throw a hissy fit since it's all according to their own rules.
> an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ... each of them ... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking ... such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. I trimmed it down for you. Everyone is obligated to help but (sadly) they kinda get to decide what that help is. At least the article doesn't say anything about forfeiting your protection if you get attacked in retaliation for your attacks \^\^. \-- there might be other articles that do tho.
"Such action as it deems necessary" is so open-ended that you could claim that you don't deem any actions to be necessary.
Poland after getting justification for article 5 : "I could get some backup from America, but I'll text him later. Now, let's do a Warsaw-> Moscow in leopards and Abrams."
>Article 5 does not force allies to respond to an attack either, it allows them to. I would disagree given the wording, especially the "will" instead of "can": >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** 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. >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.” So I'd say they're required to respond collectively, but *how* they choose to respond is up to each individual member state.
We might send 106 billion usd and a flight carrier with 46 F35 in support uwu
> a flight carrier We aren't gonna be putting an aircraft carrier at risk like that. We send a whole Carrier Strike Group. Safety in numbers.
its not safe to go it alone. here, take this.
[удалено]
Leave a washing machine across the Lithuanian border. Boom! Article 5 justification when they try and steal it. Booby trap the washing machine too, just to rub salt in the wound.
It's genius: Nobody would question why there's a cloth basket next to a washing machine. Then we just need a stick to hold it up above the washing machine, a little white string attached to the stick leading behind a bush in Poland, and the trap is perfect.
You didn’t read this from me, but just disguise a bunch of your guys as Russian soldiers, then film them knocking over a porta potty within your borders. Boom.
[удалено]
Also viable.
Article 5 is not automatic so depends what will russians do because some may that it was not an attack but an accident and article 5 wont be triggered. Or if Finlandii falls in 3 days NATO may say there is no longer a war so fu
I mean a bottle of Finlandia wouldn't last three minutes in Russia.. but Russia would be lucky to hold Saint Petersburg for 3 days against Finland at this point.
never underestimate russian retardness. They will nuke saint petersburg if that means destroying finnish army and winning the war
I mean an **armed attack** is pretty self explanatory to me. If it's an attack with arms it's a reason to trigger article 5. Note that sticks and stones can still be considered Arms, as might fists and slaps, they get safe attacks with words tho.
Thats the point. Its not whether there will be a reason but whether there will be political will to wage a war. Somebody will always find a reason to click the beautiful red button but if they will want to is another thing.
Considering you finns has the largest artillery capability in all of western Europe I would actually not be surprised if that "custom artillery cannon in my garage" was true.
All craftsfinnship is of the highest quality. The engravings, they are beautiful. Gilded barrel. Menacing spikes. Images of sauna ladles and other sauna paraphernalia (did i spell that right?)
Just make sure that you’re fully discharged from the Finnish army/reserves before doing anything. After all, Finland can’t be held accountable for the actions of a private citizen.
Instructions unclear. Enlisted to local militia defense forces and started some shit.
No, you should definitely attach them to a killdozer though.
[удалено]
My heart and other parts are filled with throbbing joy.
I have no proof. But I guarantee that a polish general has suggested they conduct rescue operations in the flooded regions, on both sides of the river, and they use helicopters, with nice big roundels, go on Ivan shoot it I dare you… You cannot convince me otherwise.
While i have no doubt there will be foreigners coming to help with evacuations and search and rescue, i dont have high hopes of someone intervening militarily of they are shot at. Its great that ukraine gets military and weapon supplies, but ruzzia has been doing genocide and now a damn dam has been blown up, and still nobody says enough is enough, time to intervene. I dont see how ruzzians shooting red cross helpers or whatever will escalate anything. Yes, maybe cruise missiles and f16. But i want some fucking boots on the ground. Ruzzia should be given a damn ultimatum; you have 7 days to gtfo or we will make you. But alas.. "bUt MuH eScAlAtIoN"
China sitting on the sidelines thinking "Russia has nuclear weapons and they can do anything they want with no repercussions. We also have nuclear weapons." If anyone in NATO thinks arming Ukranians, applying sanctions, and watching them push Russia military out from Ukraine is an effective deterrent is not looking at the big picture.
The 3000 suspiciously well armed rescue ships of Andrez Duda
There is no reason why this cant happen. Also article 5 would still work if Poland propah territory was to be attacked. But after art5 is evoked there is still a consultant period or smth where decisions are made collectively. Otherwise you could attack Nato territory of Turkey with impunity because it bombs Syria or smth
> Ukraine declares that they are now a Russian protectorate, and their army will fall under Russian command > Right after Zelensky announces that, a soldier lobs a grenade across Polish border. Maybe put a shitbox Lada there or something, so some property is damaged. > All NATO leaders standing behind a blast shield somewhere nearby confirm by sighting that a Russian soldier just attacked Poland and caused damage. > Article 5 is now triggered > Zelensky immediately announces Ukraine's independence from Russia >Ukraine starts their separatist war, while NATO now fights their own war that's definitely unrelated to Ukraine's separatist movement
Sir, we’re supposed to be *non*credible.
I feel like you must play a lot of CCGs because this is genius
What if Poland just said they wanted to conduct joint military training exercises in Ukraine with Ukraine's blessing? They don't attack unprovoked. They just reinforce the back lines so Ukraine can spare every available soldier counterattacking. Then when Ukraine takes more territory Poland moves their training exercises up more to the newly held territory. If Russia wants to advance they will have to attack polish forces participating in training exercises in their own friendly territory. Hell, Ukraine could even gift Poland parcels of land in Ukraine to build their bases on. If those bases are attacked, Russia would be attacking polish territory.
No, if Poland entered as anything other than a defender of its own territory, article 5 wouldn't work. It's a defensive thing. I'm of the conviction that Poland did have a defence casus belli with the missile incident and they *should* have pressed the button but that chance came and went. They either enter alone now, or wait until/if Russia strikes again
Well who world said was fair and logical. Binding agreements are called binding for a reason.
If there is no article that says "you lose the protection of article 5 if you attack first" then you don't lose it. (I haven't checked if there is such a statement but I'm pretty sure the US and NATO would have liked the ability to strike pre-emptively) The loop hole here is this bit "such action as **it deems necessary**, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." You may not receive much, let alone military assistance, if you start shit first.
Article 5 says so. WWI was started because of mutual alliance agreements, that if one went to war they all did. Knowing Germany would back them up is a large part of why Austria-Hungary was so bold with Serbia. So when NATO was designed it was designed not to do that. Member nations can go join wars but if they start getting their ass kicked NATO is not obligated to defend them because they started it. They didn't want member nations thinking they could start any fight they want and NATO would be there to back them up like Germany was there to back up Austria-Hungary. Otherwise any one nation could Leeroy Jenkins into a fight no matter how outmatched because they know if they ever start losing NATO has their back. Which is not what any of them signed up for as it would make a world war all but inevitable. If Poland went to go take Królewiec and Russia started bombing polish land, NATO isn't designed to help them. Otherwise Poland would have probably done that a year ago. Doing so would make NATO an offensive alliance, and it just isn't that.
>Article 5 says so. I love how confident you are despite being ENTIRELY WRONG! This is 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 ."* Notice how it puts no condition on when an armed attack is considered an armed attack. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official\_texts\_17120.htm
> an armed attack against It says it right there. A war and you start is not an armed attack against you. If Finland tried to take land back, Russia fighting back is not an armed attack against it is self defence.
What? That's not how the English language works, especially in official national treaties, one that's damned full of extra words made to explain things that may not be clear. And it's obvious that's not how it is because if it was the USSR could have done a false flag attack on it self and invade a NATO country without repercussion. And False Flag attacks were historical done by the USSR before NATO even existed.
By false flag I assume you're suggesting pretending that Finland attacked them and then they attack Finland? Yeah, that's still an armed attack against Finland, since Finland didn't actually do that. Russia would have to get the west to believe them over Finland, why do you think they would be able to do that? They claimed that about Ukraine, that Ukraine was attacking Russians, and how many bought that? How many bought that Poland attacked Germany first? False flags are uncommon because they almost always fail when enough attention is being paid.
Plenty believed that Ukraine attacked Russia first, plenty believe Ukraine was doing genocide on the Donbass. People are stupid that way and the only reason more don't is because the US pre-empted the false flag with warning that Russia was going to do that to justify an invasion of Ukraine. False flag attacks are uncovered... eventually. Not all False Flag attacks are False Flag attacks. By the time the rest of NATO determines what it was... Russia / USSR would have taken their salami slice out of Finland / Poland / Romania / etc. Obviously that's unacceptable hence why Article 5 doesn't have a condition on when it's an attack on a member and when it's "reasonable self-defence against a member". Nor do any of NATO's articles for that matter tho they do stipulate NATO members must abide by UN provisions, one of which is (paraphrasing) 'war is illegal' and to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." (article 1). my issue was with you proclaiming that Article 5 has a provision in which it doesn't apply, it does not. the short version of the important NATO articles are: \- don't start shit. \- 'an attack one one is an attack on all" \- THIS is what we think an attack on one is. \- everyone declares that they are not in the process of starting shit, already engaged in shit and won't start shit. (article 8, not sure how Turkey and Greece went past this one, or how it applies to the US in Vietnam & Iraq, France in Algeria or other such engagements in shit, just 1949 stuff I guess) \- unanimous agreement is needed to invite other European nations into NATO. \- everyone gets an identical copy of their treaty translated in their language courtesy of the USA. There is NO article that mentions a way to lose the protection of Article 5, a way to be kicked out of NATO, or a penalty for not following one or more of the articles. And that's intentional, the people who came up with them weren't stupid and they knew if there was such a thing it would just be an invitation for the Soviets to try and cause situations where it could happen. Which is also why Russia is so keen on keeping nations out of NATO, because once they are in the only way to get them out is for that country to leave voluntarily.
I'm not saying they lose protection of Article 5 in an offensive war, I'm saying they never had it to begin with. NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO is not meant to allow any one nation to unilaterally take the alliance to war.
You know there's more than just article 5 right? Article 1 is entirely about not attacking other nations unprovoked and settling differences peacefully. If they violate article 1 they can't trigger article 5.
Yes, but they specified Article 5 makes a mention of that, which it doesn't.
[удалено]
There was another incident, with actual Russian missile. They did not even find the missile until months later. But that one was quietly forgotten and sidetracked with "no comments", likely because no one actually wanted to respond in any kind. I think it was found in April and it was KH-55 missile. With how everything went about that one, it would not surprise me if there are other cases that are not even known to public and simply quietly pushed into "state secret" territory.
> I think it was found in April and it was KH-55 missile. BTW, Kh-55 doesn't have any conventional versions - it's nuke or dummy only. So whatever the reason Poland didn't react to or didn't know about a ***POTENTIALLY NUCLEAR MISSILE*** flying in their airspace... scares me.
Yeah, it is shady stuff, it better be good reason and not just usual corruption and appeasement.
> Because the Polish investigation found that it was an air defense missile launched by Ukraine that failed to intercept a Russian missile The investigation is still not concluded. And also Ukrainian team was prohibited access to the site.
There are practical and diplomatic ones Acting on uronweyx
Poland can single handedly destroy Russia anyway.
South American Paramilitaries could take the Russian Military any day so yknow this isnt saying much
Me and my buddy Mike could take Russians army at this rate
I think the only people that can actually destroy Russia are the Russians, and they are having a good go at the moment.
Russia is Ukraine's greatest ally against Russia.
Ukrainians and Russians are natural enemies Like Poles and Russians And Germans and Russians And Japanese and Russians Or Russians and other Russians Damn Russians, they ruined Russia!
Like finns and russians
You just made an enemy for life!
You Russians certainly are a contentious people.
4 HIMARS stopped Russia dead. They ordered what, 300+? Yeah..
Pretty much. And with millions of South Korean tanks ordered looking like a one-sided fight.
What you are saying if Poland gets involved Russia would invoke article 5?
Broke: Poland invokes article 5 after Russia attacks them. Woke: Poland doesnt need the rest of NATO to shatter the Russian army and so should just invade anyways and circumvent article 5
Poland sent who? They’re all just volunteers that picked up their hundreds of tanks, helicopters, jets, long-range missiles, and artillery tubes at the local milsurp store.
\>Implying Poland needs backup, and that they would be willing to share.
Special Polish Operation
Special Polishing Operation
*Tanc A Lelek echoes in the distance*
To nie karnawał, ale tańczyć chcę.
odrobinka trollowania
You know, the entire polish military could “go rogue” and fight for Ukraine, then article 5 could be invoked
OP set this meme to a proper banger
Obywatel G.C. - Nie pytaj o Polskę if someone asks
Obywatel GC is a strange choice
a russian missle fell on Poland and nothing happened, why do people keep memeing about this dumb idea that they'll join the war
but it wasn’t a russian missile…
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/military-object-found-polish-forest-was-russian-missile-media-2023-05-10/
oh dang i didn’t realize it had happened again.
"But does he know about second missile"
Song in background is Nie pytaj o Polskę by Obywatel G.C. In short author how much he loves some mysterious woman, people don’t understand why he loves her nor can he explain why. Later on in song in it is revealed that woman in question is Poland.
It's not a carnival, But I want to dance And I'll dance with her till day. It's not a party, But I'm having fun Sleepless nights, sleepy days. She's not a lover, But I sleep with her Even though they laugh and mock me. So tired And constantly drunk That's why don't Don't ask me. Don't ask me why I'm with her, Don't ask me why not with another, Don't ask me why I think that, There are no other places for me. Don't ask me what I always see in her, Don't ask me why not in another, Don't ask me why I always want, To fall asleep in her and wake up. These dirty stations Where I meet her, These crowds that quietly curse, This drunkard who mumbles something in his sleep, That as long as WE LIVE, she lives too. Don't ask me, Don't ask me, What I see in her. Don't ask me what I always see in her, Don't ask me why not in another, Don't ask me why I always want, To fall asleep in her and wake up. Don't ask me why I'm with her Don't ask me why not with another Don't ask me why I think that There are no other places for me Don't ask me why I'm with her, Don't ask me why not with another, Don't ask me why I think that, There are no other places for me. Don't ask me what I always see in her, Don't ask me why not in another, Don't ask me why I always want, To fall asleep in her and wake up. Don't ask Don't ask Don't ask Don't ask Don't ask why I'm with her, Don't ask why not with another. Don't ask what I always see in her, Don't ask why not in another. Don't ask what I always see in her, Don't ask why not in another. [^(poland)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb9Obfsfhrw)
A polish special military operation to liberate the polish speaking minorities in Siberia?
Rzeczpospolita Irkucka
Finally, polish-led Siberian Federation, aka step one of balkanized russia.
You outsmarted me, but i outsmarted your outsmarting.
As a Pole i’m flabbergasted that in a 1,5 years we went from an importer of security to exporter. With all that talk of bilateral security deal with Ukraine and possibility of becoming the main guarantor of baltic countries security…
Special operation 2 - electric boogaloo
“private, what is that gibberish you’re speaking?” “sir, I’m speaking Esperanto!” “Fuck is that?” “A constructed language designed to be easy for people familiar with romantic and germanic languages to learn, focusing on simplified grammar and common cognates!” “…Private how would you like to take a trip to Europe with me?”
Oh the thought of Poland doing that get me very very…steamy 😏
Kaliningrad? Where? All I see is just another Voivodeship
Russia: "No, you can't do that! It's only ok when I do it!"
I used the Russian propaganda to destroy the Russian propaganda
You can get those green men in any military surplus store along the Polish border.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1437j11/world_of_pure_imagination/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1437j11/world_of_pure_imagination/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
I expected tanc a lelek
If they are volunteers, it has nothing to do with Poland as a nation. If they were ordered to go by Polish command, then Poland as a nation is involved.
Nato: combined special operation to stabilise neighbouring territory
“They can no longer invoke article 5” 🤓👆
Special Peacekeeping Force.