Could France just deploy it's army in the Ukraine and push out Russian occupiers saying "don't worry we are not NATO, we are here privately" and Russia would have to accept that and hold no additional grudge against NATO, knowing that if it retaliates it will trigger article 5?
I don't in any way condone what Russia is doing and I wish that invasion on Ukraine will safely end with NATO having a parade on Red Square and demilitarization of Russia.
I'm just arguing that you can't pretend that labels and formalities is all than counts when things start happening.
Russia can hold all the grudges it likes, with or without any kind of justification.
Not that it matters to the international legitimacy of France (or even NATO, without Article 5 being triggered) directly militarily supporting Ukraine’s self-defense against Russian aggression, see UN Charter, Article 51.
I condemn the vast majority of the US foreign policy of the last 50+ years, I'm just pointing out that conflating US/NATO is a convenient parlor trick and irrelevant whataboutism.
> Could France
This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.
That... depends on the precise geographic location of any retaliation. The participation of a NATO state in a collective self-defense action with a non-NATO state under UN Charter Article 51 rights, outside of NATO operations, does not itself limit the applicability of Article 5.
And even if it didn't trigger Article 5, well, most NATO actions have been initiated as a result of Article 4 process, not Article 5 commitments. And an attack on a member’s forces in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside of the precise area covered by Article 5 commitments would arguably be a more serious Article 4 issue than the ones that have resulted in NATO interventions.
Really? Does it have to be unprovoked attack? And what exactly means unprovoked? Does having a peace mission in some neighbouring country and defending yourself there counts as provocation? Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?
Oh absolutely it would.
The Charter is just a lot of verbiage around two promises: NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.
If you are so inclined you can also doubt Article 5 itself: are we really going to unleash the apocalypse over Latvia? Wouldn't we be tempted to bend the rules in that case as well?
The point is whether you believe those promises to be credible. IMHO history implies they largely are, but that's something reasonable people can disagree on.
Article 4 is also important, and more actual NATO interventions have been triggered by Article 4 consultations than Article 5 direct mutual defense.
NATO is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment, not a pure defensive alliance.
USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, Italy and Spain (and Turkey threatened to invade in 2007 too), the fact they are all members of NATO is just coincidence, it is not NATO piling up on a single country.
Or Afghanistan:
US, UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, Italy, New Zealand
or Libya, france gave them weapons first, and invited the rest of NATO, that responded:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Turkey, USA, UK.
NATO can claim to be defensive and only about article 5, but the fact remains NATO will happily use their forces offensively and working in a cohesive group. You can't just say it isn't NATO because NATO is supposed to be defensive.
Australia isn't a member of NATO (neither is New Zealand, which you claim at another point), and there were NATO members opposed to the invasion; NATO works by consensus, but isn't a supergovernment that dictates the outside-of-NATO foreign policy of its members.
> NATO can claim to be defensive and only about article 5
It could, but it actually doesn't.
It claims to be a regional security organization, and Article 4 is just as important as Article 5.
NATO kept us out of nuclear war for 70 years. It kept Soviet tanks from overrunning western Europe. It enabled stable democracies to gain a foothold safely in western Europe.
NATO is literally the only thing that stands between democratic states, which are the minority in the world (the North Atlantic region + some small states in Asia) and totalitarian regimes.
Mysteriously, a non-NATO nation is currently having a genocidal war waged on them. While NATO nations are free and safe. NATO is keeping the Free World safe.
If you hate freedom and representative government, if you find debates "too messy" and like easy-answer dictatorships, you should be anti-NATO.
Are you sure?
I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state".
>>>Iraq was not a NATO operation.
And yet there is very significant overlap of Multi-National Forces- Iraq countries with NATO member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93...
>>>Libya was not a NATO operation.
Have you taken a look at the Wiki article on that conflict? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...
A couple of choice quotes: On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya
24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest
I'm always amazed at the number of emphatically stated positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are so easily challenged with a 30-second internet search.
US != NATO
> very significant overlap
ah yes the overlap
> On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya
You must have forgotten to paste the text after the comma, let us retry together:
On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity” ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters.
I'm always amazed at the number of snarky know-it-all positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are based on conveniently projecting away inconvenient pieces of information.
This is so much the case that until the invasion of Ukraine, France and other NATO members states were saying that Article 5 was effectively unenforceable for any member state save the U.S!
They also have more of a population base than any other member state (4x Germany, 4.8x UK, 5x France...)
If NATO only needs whatever vote it deems necessary to attack a completely uninvolved country because of a completely internal conflict, you realize that literally proves that it is not the type of neighbor you want to have?
What a completely self defeating argument lol. And that's ignoring the totally defensive strikes against serbia. Which for the record I personally think were justified, but supporting an intervention does not mean the intervention suddenly becomes defensive.
(I could tangent into Russia...)
There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier". NATO is an alliance. NATO does not declare war as a block. Iraq was not a NATO operation. Libya was not a NATO operation.
The only time NATO has intervened outside of self defense as per Article V of the Charter was Yugoslavia (and with good fucking reason).