• Ranvier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Possibly, but also keep in mind article five doesn’t say that any hostile act leads to automatic full scale war in response:

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Emphasis on “such action as it deems necessary,” meaning a country can individually respond with its own discretion on what it thinks is a proportional response. Though in practice any response and individual contributions would be heavily negotiated within NATO. Theoretically a country could say it deems no action necessary even if article five was invoked. Just another reason why electing pro Russian leaders like Trump, Orban, or now Fico in Slovakia are dangerous and threaten the existence of NATO, even if they don’t technically leave NATO.

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

    • roguetrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s particularly tough with kalingrad because the proportional response is bombing their jammers and air defenses, but kalingrad has a whole metric shit ton of air defenses, a large stockpile of nuclear weapons, and support against such an attack would overfly poland so even that has a very high chance of leading to nuclear war.