Exactly, and even the definition of "attack" depends on whether one bombs Serbs or Ukrainians.


And speaking of gas supply..

"Biden promised that sanctions will destroy economics, but did not specify whose" (C)

Maybe tested isn't the right word, but after the 9/11 attacks in the USA, article 5 was invoked/used as an argument for NATO countries to get involved in Afghanistan. That worked out well, didn't it?

For those who like reading, I've been reading two books that are pretty interesting. Both are by Tim Marshall. One is Prisoners of Geography and the other The Power of Geography. In the sections about Russia, the author argues that it's not necessarily about one person's power. It's about the geography that limits Russia's access to the rest of the world, particularly its lacking of a warm-water port (unless you count the Black Sea). It's fascinating to look at so many world conflicts through the eyes of geography instead of politics alone.

"Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;

on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/o...xts_17120.htm?

I thought you claimed you had read it.

Slammer, I think I asked you pretty fair questions here, because I would like to understand your way of thinking, but you seem to answer quite selectively now in that thread.
Please try to answer if you can, so we can all meet together on some common "page", and not only argue endlessly without getting to the origin of our differences.

Sorry, committing to help fight bearded barbarians on pick up trucks does not count.

Russia keeps changing the reason for invading Ukraine, the newest;
""Since the beginning of the second phase of the special operation, which began literally two days ago, one of the tasks of the Russian army is to establish full control over Donbas and southern Ukraine.
This will provide a land corridor to Crimea," Maj. Gen. Rustam Minnekaev, the acting commander of Russia's Central Military District, said according to TASS, a Russian state news agency."

Protecting this new Southern land corridor that is around 400 Km long will be a challenge for the Russians, plus the existing 200Km corridor in the East to be protected.
Over a year ago it was estimated that Russia had stationed 40,000 troops in Crimea and East Ukraine, assumng now they will need to keep at least another 40,000 protecting this Southern corridor in the future that will be a huge drain on their resources.

Ooooo! I´ll bet your google-fu was taxed to the maximum for that.
But still you are missing the point.

Perhaps I´m just not getting the point you are trying to make. It is true what you are saying I am in no way disputing what you say, but also:
The famous mis-quote from Lincoln is not true. I say: "You can fool all the people all the time, those who you can´t fool get liquidated."
Because here is another fitting quote from Herman Göring:

It is quite obvious what the parties meant by armed attack at the time, namely an attack on territory or armed forces. It may be that in today's world, cyber could potentially qualify as well. I doubt supply of any goods could be argued.

All this is pretty much irrelevant as in any event NATO members will have to decide how specifically they would assist under Article 5, or outside of Article 5. There is no automatism here.

And now you are quoting Goering ...

I think that was just hysteria fanned by parts of the media in an attempt to feed the groups that think outrage and emotionality are their own argument and validation, and put them above everything else. You can see it in these threads as well.
Of course. We'll manage.
Given the current stance this looks like a real possibility.

I wonder how Finland is planning to square that circle, especially if they join Nato (Sweden as well). Apparently their natural gas (some 5-10% of the total energy) is 100% Russian and mostly used to heat homes. The uranium source may be replaceable but is there enough production capacity worldwide? A nice share of its oil will be Russian as well given the proximity, you can't replace pipelines by ship transports without the port capacity.

Did not need to google that, known that quote for a long time, it explains a lot of things done by bellicose governments and how they spin their agenda to the people. WMD´s, for instance, 11/9 and Afghanistan, Gulf of Tonkin, the Jews in Germany etc.... this list is endless.

That by definition makes the application of Article 5 fuzzy, don´t you agree?
However I have been reading a bit more on gas supply and Article 5 in the scenario I have described.
It seems that, yes; it could be seen as an attack, triggering Article 5, depending on how badly Nato wants a war. Or, if the gas tap were to be closed nato could determine that it is a EU problem and that the EU shall be responsible to supply the affected country with energy.
It could go both ways.

__________________
Back in Bavaria, god´s own belly button.

An attack on one shall be considered an attack on all". Show me one example of a contemporary defensive pact that is more clear than NATO Art. 5.

"Depending on how badly NATO wants a war"??? You realize NATO Art. 5 commitment forms a defensive alliance, right?

The latest from RTR Planeta.. I don't even know why I bother.. Pictures of Ukranian women and children throwing flowers at the Russian tanks... a bending over the toilet moment 🤢

Whoever is responsible for PR in the Kremlin is not doing a very good job..

And great that you memorize Goering quotes. In particular ones that put democracies in the same bucket as fascist dictatorships.

There was much tooth-gnashing and hand wringing and wailing on a BBC radio program and why, oh why is the government not doing something about it, all those poor people on benefits will freeze to death and staaaaarve.

It was rather cringy to listen to listen to some of the public calling in.
But I do quote one exasperated "economic" expert on the panel in saying that:

Annnd pray tell me what defense was needed in Afghanistan?

Well you tell me why Nato is in Iraq, do you really believe it´s "Just" a training mission?

That's probably one reason why Syria is important to Russia, it's home to the only (remaining?) Russian military base in the Mediterranean Sea.

It's worth looking at China/Taiwan through the same lens. Despite its lengthy coastline China's access to the deep seas should be relatively easy to restrict (the South China Sea is a cul-de-sac).

Btw while Russia and the US were on opposite sides in Syriah, they nonetheless coordinated their actions in order to avoid killing each other's soldiers and potentially trigger a direct confrontation. The coordination shows that neither side wanted a direct confrontation, the same will apply to Ukraine today.
(IIRC the only "hot" encounter was comparatively few US soldiers against a much larger number of (at least officially) Wagner mercenaries, with devastating consequences for the latter.)

You gotta be kidding.

Well, it is capacity building of the type that also Ukraine got. And without which the Ukrainian army would probably be much weaker today.

The existence of Article 5 does not mean that NATO can only act in accordance with Article 5.

Not really.

Analysis here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legiti...oslav%20forces.

So article 5 will trigger a response. but NATO can choose to respond if, e.g. there's a need to protect civilians from targeted attacks, rape camps, snipers firing on people queuing for water - you know that sort of thing.