[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I don't think that it would really have much of a choice. Unless it decided to leave NATO in which case it would leave itself isolated and without military support.

Article 5 is forumlated to leavce a wide gat5e open for interpretation and word-turning. All member states as a matter of fact are free to decide how to react to any "incident".

what Article 5 means to imply and what people understand it as, by popular myth - and what it really states, are two very different things.

*****
Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5

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 recognised 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.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .


*********


The formulations to watch out for are "individually and in concert with the other Parties", and especially "such actions as it deems necessary".



This open a can of worms farting interpretations and arguments. You know how this kind of game is played by bureaucrats and sophisters. If Germany "deems necessary" to fall back to other, "more promising" options to support the attacked member and solve the crisis, then it may be so. That military options must be the consequence, is just one of several options countries can chose.


Do you really believe that any nation would have signed that treaty back then if that meant that in case of an attack it gives up all national sovereignty over its choice on how to react to that? If so then you know nations and governments not well.


It's word gaming, yes, I know. But that is what it was designed to be, right that: to leave open the option to weasel out of treaty obligations by playing word games. Must not necessarily the option chosen by a NATO member. But leaves open the option to chose that way.



Happens all the time in politics. Ask the Ukrainians and the guarantees given to them by France, Britain, the US and Russia in return for them giving up nuclear weapons. Legally, these guarantees were binding. But to what outcome now?

Anyhow, what should be done by NATO, and what could be done by NATO, are two totally different pairs of shoes. I have strong doubts that the German forces are in the shape for waging a major war against a determined Russian attack.