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.
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.