Easy_Iron6269 t1_j9h13dg wrote
I keep saying it if the attack is badly enough to disrupt the way we live, and affect NATO members economies it is enough to invoke NATO article 5.
black641 t1_j9i2jlt wrote
I'm pretty sure attacking any NATO infrastructure is an immediate act of war. That in turn, triggers Article 5 which, in turn, fucks Russia even worse than they already are.
SquarePie3646 t1_j9iekwq wrote
>That in turn, triggers Article 5 which
Article 5 does not get triggered automatically. And the treaty lays out conditions for invoking it by a country that has been attacked:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
>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.
An attack on pipelines in international waters for example might not technically be accepted as a reason to invoke article 5.
Sixcoup t1_j9j7tjt wrote
> on the Algerian Departments of France
Maybe it's time to rewrite those rules ...
Friendly-Health-4518 t1_j9k6tq8 wrote
Hmmm the key question is whether those are considered international waters? In the Pacific Indian and Atlantic Ocean international waters are easy to define. However in the Baltic, Black , Mediterranean and North seas less so because of the little concept of Exclusive Economic Zone and possibly the extended continental shelf which effectively extends some countries territorial waters.
Chubbybellylover888 t1_j9kn2si wrote
Is French Guyana under NATO protection as well or is it excluded?
SquarePie3646 t1_j9liez0 wrote
I don't believe so, but I'm not sure. The Falkland Islands weren't, and it's believed that even Hawaii would not be covered under the language of the treaty.
edit: Found this on /r/MapPorn
https://reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/ulb5mc/nato_article_5_coverage/
Chubbybellylover888 t1_j9mr5v8 wrote
Thanks!
[deleted] t1_j9ilvjq wrote
[removed]
TheBusStop12 t1_j9ink1t wrote
Denmark and Germany decided against triggering Article 5 after Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipelines.
It all depends on just how critical the infrastructure is to whether you want to risk all out war. It's a balance the attacked country must decide themselves. Same goes for Russia, they know that if they go too far they'll risk too much, so I'm very doubtful they'll damage anything critical
msemen_DZ t1_j9irlra wrote
>Denmark and Germany decided against triggering Article 5 after Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipelines.
Because there is no proof of that. Article 5 is a very big deal. Try calling Article 5 on something with no proof, you gonna get shut down by other NATO members. You don't escalate like this on hunches.
TheBusStop12 t1_j9is1xf wrote
>Try calling Article 5 on something with no proof, you gonna get shut down by other NATO members.
All of NATO came along when the US triggered article 5 after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan without proper proof (everyone nowadays knows it was mostly Saudi Arabian people behind the attack)
If Article 5 is triggered then that's it, members will have to respond in some form. Lest you risk the alliance falling apart. It's built on trust after all.
Luckily members do not throw this around willy nilly, especially where Russia is concerned, and will likely only trigger it if there's substantial proof that Russia crippled critical infrastructure
venomm1123 t1_j9ise1q wrote
> All of NATO came along when the US triggered article 5 after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan without proper proof (everyone nowadays knows it was mostly Saudi Arabian people behind the attack)
Osama bin Laden was physically in Afghanistan and Afghanistan received an ultimatum requesting to hand him over to the US, which they refused.
Quackagate t1_j9iv941 wrote
Ehh they offered to turn him over if we recognized them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. O how the would would be different if we had took that path
venomm1123 t1_j9iykkk wrote
When dealing with sociopaths, "yes if (condition)" means no. It is a test of your naivete. This is basically a fundamental part of criminal mind and traces all the way to game theory.
Would one be stupid enough to actually agree and recognize Taliban? If one is indeed naive, then they'll make sure to apologize profusely once Mr. bin Laden escapes right after you recognized Taliban.
In fact, they'll be so sorry that they will promise they'll spare no effort in finding him IF (another condition)
The length of this sequence is limited only by the stupidity of the mark.
ringobob t1_j9klonj wrote
How about "the US is prepared to recognize anyone who hands Bin Laden over to us as de facto leaders of Afghanistan at the point of transfer. Go. We'll be making a trophy."
Tongue firmly planted in cheek, if that wasn't obvious to anyone.
venomm1123 t1_j9l91xx wrote
I believe the very desire to get into these word games means you are already tricked. It's the wrong approach.
You know the Aesop's fable of "The Wolf and the Lamb"? https://read.gov/aesop/063.html
When talking to a wolf, it is not about the word games. It is about whether you look like a lamb, or a grizzly bear.
ringobob t1_j9lcx71 wrote
Hence the tongue in cheek. I agree with you.
Paintingmyfreedom t1_j9jum8m wrote
Can you source that they refused? Bc that’s not real history
msemen_DZ t1_j9ivcgw wrote
They had proof linking Al Qaeda to the event in just a few hours, that's why everyone responded.
The point is the US still had to prove to NATO allies that the attacks were eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty Article 5. This wasn't confirmed until beginning of October even though the US invoked it on the 12th of September.
VolvoFlexer t1_j9j2fk8 wrote
>Because there is no proof of that.
Exactly, so what's stopping them from doing it again?
qtx t1_j9jdc19 wrote
That's like the dummest take ever.
There isn't even any proof that this was a sabotage attempt, let alone who was behind it.
VolvoFlexer t1_j9jfolb wrote
On 11 November 2022, Wired reported that satellite imagery revealed two large unidentified ships which had turned off their AIS trackers and had appeared around the site of the leaks in the days before the gas leaks were detected.
On 18 November 2022, Swedish authorities announced that remains of explosives were found at the site of the leaks, and confirmed that the incident was the result of sabotage.
Paintingmyfreedom t1_j9jr2r8 wrote
Why would Russia bomb the pipeline?
What evidence do you have it was them. Fuck Russia but I don’t see it likely it was them. That was bad for them
qtx t1_j9jd5fu wrote
> Denmark and Germany decided against triggering Article 5 after Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipelines.
There is as much proof that the US was behind that as there is that Russia is behind it.
All the affected countries (Norway, Germany, Denmark) have been investigating it since the start and there is no proof that Russia was behind it, or that it even was a sabotage.
Scouse420 t1_j9jhkct wrote
Hasn’t it literally just came out that it was officially the Americans that blew it up?
Edit for anyone who sees this the source for this is dubious; misinformed at best and casts massive doubt on my initial statement.
Leaving this up for transparency.
TheBusStop12 t1_j9jjhxy wrote
No it hasn't, just a single report of a once celebrated journalist who has gone of the deep end making up conspiracy theories to stay relevant. Literally no reputable media wanted to publish his "report"
He tried the same bullshit with Syria and was rightfully called out
No one else has been able to verify his claims
Scouse420 t1_j9pp075 wrote
Fair
[deleted] t1_j9j2sox wrote
[removed]
TheBusStop12 t1_j9j3ih7 wrote
No it wasn't. Maybe stop reading Russian state propaganda.
I challenge you to post some sources that support your claims, and then look for sources that dispute your claims, and then compare which sources are more reputable. This is basic education stuff, we learn this in school
[deleted] t1_j9jhl4u wrote
[removed]
TheBusStop12 t1_j9jituz wrote
As stated numerous times in recent years Seymour Hersh has fallen into the deep end of conspiracy theories and making up pure bullshit. As proven already by Bellingcat in 2017 when he was making up pro Russian bullshit in Syria
There's a reason the media ignores it. Show me another source that isn't based on the ranting of a single lunatic trying to stay relevant. No one, and I mean absolutely no one has been able to verify his claims
The pipeline was useless to Russia as it was never going to open again. It was just costing Gazprom tons of money. At least this way they could gage the Wests reaction to sabotage and see what they could get away with. Europe doesn't need Russian gas anymore, it has no purpose as leverage
[deleted] t1_j9j3zmj wrote
[removed]
mildobamacare t1_j9j53em wrote
That was never even suspected by any legitimate source. Most signs point to russia, as they did in 2008, and again in 2010.
[deleted] t1_j9jf3yy wrote
[removed]
mildobamacare t1_j9jg48b wrote
Ok. You probably meant subjective instead of objective, and it's really not. These "major media conglomerates " don't do investigations first hand to things like this, they report on the findings of third party investigators. The entire credible world agrees the usa had no involvement.
[deleted] t1_j9jh3jo wrote
[removed]
excitedburrit0 t1_j9j94hd wrote
There is no such thing as an immediate act of war with NATO.
- something happens
- nato convenes and determines if it rises to standard of article 5 and recommends action
- volunteer members of nato follow action
No member is forced to act
Foamrocket66 t1_j9j1o4y wrote
Yeah I dont think the extent of an attack on a NATO member has anything to do with article 5.
HugeHans t1_j9jd3jt wrote
The lack of casus belli is not the thing that is holding NATO back. We have just as much reason to attack now as if russia started attacking NATO. The point is that NATO is simply afraid of nukes. Which is understandable but also its understandable that russia is equally afraid. Which somehow gets removed from the calculations.
[deleted] t1_j9jop9a wrote
[removed]
Fair_Construction634 t1_j9j0rj5 wrote
Coming soon. Kick putin
DownImpulse t1_j9j97vu wrote
Calm down, let’s not forget about the nukes and the idiots who will do everything to protect themselves and if everything is lost would not think twice about bringing down the rest of the world with them.
BlueJinjo t1_j9idf6s wrote
Why is this sub so obsessed with the most sensationalist rage induced type of comments such as this?
Russia won't risk a true escalation into article 5. They will likely do a very minor attack which would yield minimum disruptions leading to future admonishments /sanctions by NATO members without any real major change to the current state of affairs.
The reality is that no western country would ever risk a direct military conflict against a country with nuclear weapons capabilities. Furthermore , historically , there is a repeated underestimation of the effects /challenges of an invasion into Russia . The loss of life on natos end would be catastrophic. Redditors have to stop masturbating to the notion that Russia has to be taken down by a unified western presence... It would be utterly catastrophic
Despite Russia's recent failures, they still have nukes which means no country can effectively drive them into a corner.
This isn't a game of civ... You can't just start a war against one of the largest countries in the world with enough nukes to blow half the world to hell on the idea that they haven't maintained their nuclear capabilities...
If reddit is looking for Russia to collapse due to either Ukraine fighting back and advancing into Russia, or due to a unified NATO response, then you guys are dumber than civ ai ( which is 100% true. I reckon 90% of you haven't even read a Wikipedia page about Russia's history in the Soviet era)
..IF the Putin regime will fall, it will be due to an internal collapse due to deteriorating economic conditions afflicting their population. The NATO countries know this. In the meantime, expect more of these headlines about devastation coming out of Ukraine. Additionally, expect Russia to escalate matters in the winter with a strengthened Chinese supplied backing. NATO has to slowly bleed Russia out and the nukes they have become effectively useless.. Putin can't just nuke his own country .. they have over 140 million people to feed. Once Putin can't do that... He will fall.
This is precisely why bidens speech mentions Ukraine never surrendering and saying nato support won't wane. He doesn't expect an end to the war. Just an elongation.
ferrdek t1_j9jaifa wrote
I agree expecting NATO invasion on Russia (or even better Ukraine armed with western weapons invasion on Russia) is insane and dumb idea (too much video games or Hollywood movies) but if Russia can collapse because of war with Ukraine is another problem. Soviet Union collapsed partially becauseof their failed invasion on Afghanistan.
mistaekNot t1_j9ivuo7 wrote
conventional nato military would absolutely decimate russian forces it would be iraq 2.0 - a true special military operation.
psioniclizard t1_j9je8u6 wrote
NATO forces would win in a conventional battle, but that is different from fighting a war against Russia. Also where will this take place because if you mean in Russia it won't come to that. Their doctrine clearly states they will use nukes to defend Russian homeland. Also NATO has no real desire to invade Russia, it would he nothing like Iraq. It would be very costly for both sides and what would be the long term plan once you oust Putin?
I want to see Russia fail as much as anyone else but the person you are replying to is right. People see this like seem Hollywood movie/computer game but it's not. It's real life. Causalities would be massive on both sides even without nuclear war, which more that likely would happen as soon as NATO started to march on Moscow.
One_User134 t1_j9kknob wrote
I disagree only on the idea that fighting Russia conventionally will lead to massive casualties. IF we imagine a fairy-tale world which Russia does not use nukes, I don’t see too many reasons why the result of an invasion of Russia will not be similar to an invasion of Iraq. Even the planners of Desert Storm expected high casualties and a long stalemate before eventual victory…we know that the exact opposite happened; and Iraq was a formidable enemy.
I’m not saying I’m sure it’ll be a cake walk, but nato, and the US in particular has the technology, the weaponry, and the operational conduct to win these conflicts not involving nukes.
mistaekNot t1_j9kvxr5 wrote
casualties would be massive on the russian side. russia wouldn’t be able to inflict casualties on the nato side, simply because it wouldn’t have the means to do so. russian air force is no match for nato air force, russian anti air would be destroyed either by stealthy planes or nato artillery which is more precise and out ranges the russian artillery. russian tanks would be destroyed from air. there wouldn’t even be much troop on troop engagement as russian equipment would just keep blowing up and they wouldn’t even know how or where the rounds or missiles are coming from. this won’t happen because nukes, but don’t kid yourself that there would be any kind of even matchup between nato/russia military
psioniclizard t1_j9l8s69 wrote
Ok, if that is what you want to believe don't let me stop you.
mistaekNot t1_j9la99d wrote
it’s not a matter of belief. you can already see this with himars. russia is unable to destroy these launchers, as they outrange russian artillery and russian planes can’t get overhead them either. so himars is invulnerable. the damage ukraine is able to inflict with himars is only limited by himars ammunition and the number of launchers they have, which is both low. nato has hundreds of himars launchers and virtually unlimited ammo. that’s just one weapon system….
DrumAway9009 t1_j9j9oyt wrote
That’s what Hitler thought too when Russia was humiliated by Finland in the Winter War. Look how that ended for him.
Maybe the Russian military would be easily destroyed while they’re in Ukraine but that’s MOSTLY due to the non existent Russian morale. Attacking their military within mainland Russia would be a completely different story though.
batmansthebomb t1_j9jwhv0 wrote
Russia also had the support of US manufacturing and logistics during WW2 though.
misyo t1_j9lumad wrote
Whoa whoa whoa, you can't just walk in here with facts and expect everyone to listen to you
orlandrescu t1_j9kgsye wrote
Just like now it has China‘s.
batmansthebomb t1_j9kkju7 wrote
Not even close. Nor will it ever be.
fatpandana t1_j9j0kpi wrote
And then what? U overthrow a wolf that keeps other wolf's in check. It will exactly be same as iraq 2.0. On many fold worse scenario. NATO Coalition control all cities but cant control country side. Russia is too vast for an occupation like iraq. And if you leave some radicals will take over a country that has a lot of nukes or has resources to make nukes.
BlueJinjo t1_j9jjw21 wrote
You think NATO wouldn't suffer losses as well when supply chains are interrupted due to the harsh winters + when a unified Russian front defends itself?
NATO would win but it would burn so much money and most importantly lives on both sides.
There's essentially 0% chance this happens. For whatever reason, this sensationalist sub is rooting for it.. it's similar to the propensity of this sub to expect a full on militaristic invasion between India and china every time there's a border dispute which will continue to happen for the next 10+ years. Stop snorting crack
Open_Blackberry_4901 t1_j9k3y7p wrote
I prefer to smoke my crack, thank you very much.
BadYabu t1_j9jn4nd wrote
A Ukraine being supplied with weapons and training at a trickling pace is embarrassing Russia but the full force of NATO in a non-nuclear war would be a pyrrhic victory. Logic checks out.
BlueJinjo t1_j9jo6xm wrote
Invading a country is significantly harder than defending a country.. If Russia was invaded they'd also use nukes.
If the loss of life would definitely be NONCATACLYSMIC, NATO forces would already be at Moscow's doorsteps..
I don't think you've ever opened a history book. Finish high school and college and then maybe we can have a discussion
[deleted] t1_j9kwrz2 wrote
[deleted]
Bubbly_Lab_9356 t1_j9j7tyh wrote
Hell I might even pick up a rifle for my country if that happens.
GrizzledFart t1_j9kwfdh wrote
The approach Russia generally takes is to act in ways that give them plausible deniability. Not believable deniability, but plausible deniability. Who was really convinced that the little green men invovled in Crimea in 2014 weren't Russian soldiers? That sort of thing generally makes it politically more difficult to respond because there are always groups of people who fall into one of two categories: blithering idiots, and the willfully blind. Combine those groups of people with the groups that would oppose any sort of reaction even if it was a deliberate and publicly announced act of war and it can be more difficult to react.
[deleted] t1_j9h47op wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9i8nm9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9jkqqx wrote
[deleted]
CG3HH t1_j9jr5rp wrote
Is that something anyone wants? And regardless of article 5 or not, nato could just collectively decide to fuck russia, couldn’t they?
wart365 t1_j9i41sb wrote
It's really up to Europeans. Would Swedes tolerate their Internet speeds dropping in half, or being forced to route all communications through satellites launched by USA? Would Swedes tolerate rolling blackouts or the occasional railroad derailment? What about interdiction and filtering of Swedish ferries for "terrorists" that are detained and then sent to Russia for imprisonment? Or hijackings of Swedish planes so their passengers can be used in human medical experiments?
All of this requires a large and effective military to respond to such incidents. Europe lacks this, except for countries with border problems like Spain, Italy and Poland. All conservative-leaning countries whose security policies have long drawn the ire of more left-leaning politicians. Europe would have to admit that many on the right are correct, and concede that not everyone has a right to live within Europe.
skofan t1_j9ia7p9 wrote
I'm guessing you're american.
Off the top of my head, Europe's largest and most well maintained armies are the french, the British, and the German.
And after looking it up, Spain, Italy, and Poland does come in at 4'th, 5'th and 6'th, with half the combined military spending of the liberal economies, despite similar population sizes.
For christs sake, France, the most left leaning country in Europe has an enormous weapons industry, and exports everything from battleships and fighter planes, to rifles and munitions, while also being one of the worlds major nuclear powers.
[deleted] t1_j9io9x7 wrote
[removed]
lollow88 t1_j9ivhx8 wrote
>For christs sake, France, the most left leaning country in Europe
Curious about this, what makes you say that? If I had to say, I'd place Sweden and even Spain (especially in the last decade) more to the left of France.
[deleted] t1_j9k0edh wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments