black641 t1_j9i2jlt wrote
Reply to comment by Easy_Iron6269 in Dutch intelligence services have warned that Russia is "covertly mapping" key energy infrastructure in the North Sea, in preparation for possible sabotage attacks. by green_flash
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments