Dying For Montenegro

[_honorentheos]

Yes, if Montenegro invoked article 5, we should hit the ____ attacking them hard and send them back to wherever they came from.

Should we start a war with Russia is a different question. Article 5 is defensive. If Montenegro started a war with Russia and then asked for help, they wouldn't be able to invoke Article 5.

Feels like you want to have your cake and eat it too. We can game out plenty of scenarios where someone provokes another into attacking.

How about this situation?

The Turkey question is a more reasonable question, and one that points to the changing dynamic in Europe in the last 5 or so years. Erdogan is another dictator consolidating power in the broad move towards more authoritarian, nationalist actors on the world stage. We've managed to see Turkey move much closer to Russia in the last few years and it could be argued their continued NATO membership is more about trying to keep some separation between them and Russia. If push came to shove and your hypothetical scenario 1 played out with Israel and Turkey at war with Israel attacking them, it would get complicated fast. Or, very very simple and the other NATO nations would move to censor whichever of the two was the one believed to be at fault.

I don't want to get too far off into the weeds, though. Here's where I really wanted to take this. The response seems to be unanimous, everybody is saying, yes, we will send our children off to die for Montenegro if they were hypothetically attacked by Russia. If that's true, we really mean it, those aren't just Big Words, kindly explain the Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_ ... Assurances

Perhaps a quick review is in order. We ____ the Ukraine. We entered into an agreement with the Ukraine, very similar to NATO article 5 obligations, promising we'd protect them. In exchange, as part of the agreement, they did things like turn over huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland, and the United States Of America. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Before that, Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical if not operational control....

Following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, the US, Canada, the UK, along with other countries, stated that Russian involvement was a breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, a Memorandum transmitted to the United Nations under the signature of Sergei Lavrov, amongst others, and in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Not only that, but then fast forward several years. Russia starts flexing its muscles at the Ukraine. Ukraine goes to EU for help, EU responds by discouraging them from resisting Russia. EU is honest with the Ukraine that they aren't going to lift a finger to help. The USA does the opposite, beats the drum, and talks the Ukraine into starting a big fight. Ukraine assumes USA has its back, I mean we have a treaty after all, and we're talking them into this. Russia calls the bluff, invades, we do nothing. Ukranians die. Lots of them. Russian special forces stage a fake indigenous uprising, even shooting down a passenger jet at one point. Crimea is taken over, a referendum is held where armed mercs are stationed at polling centers, etc. Crimea "freely" votes to be a part of Russia.... which is how things stand today.

Where was Obama during all this? Oh that's right, not giving a ____, and for sure not going to war with Russia over it, our treaties and obligations be damned.

How is this different than the hypothetical situation with Montenegro?

If you all say, which you have, that we should go to war with Russia IF they were to attack Montenegro, owing to our Article 5 NATO obligations, why aren't you already calling for war against Russia owing to our obligations to the Ukraine?

Dog, you know that the treaties with Ukraine aren't an equivalent to the NATO charter. I know you know that. So you also know this is just attempting to muddy water that doesn't need muddying. The US rhetoric in 2014 was for sanctioning Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Leading up to it, with the ouster of Yanukovych there was a political battle going on over Ukraine maintaining alignment with Russia or with western Europe. When Russia invaded, Obama made it clear in interviews that Russia had an advantage of the west when it came to the Ukraine where Russia could use escalation to their advantage while the western world could only lose in scenarios where US involvement turned militant rather than economic or political.

And therein lies the crux of the issue with Montenegro. So long as the counter to Russian aggression is full scale war with the west, he lacks that escalation advantage.

But what's crazy is your decision to be both pro-Russia and anti-NATO now. That's...huh. Amazing where partisanship will take a person.

[_MeDotOrg]

Just out of curiosity...look at a map and tell me which neighbor of Montenegro is going to invade, and how does that army stack up against NATO?

[_Chap]

Show of hands, who thinks this Article 5 NATO thing makes sense and is prepared to seriously argue that we should send men off to die for the balkan state of Montenegro?

Below is the North Atlantic Treaty of 4 April 1949.

In the history of NATO, only one country has so far invoked article 5, which provides for mutual defence in the event that a member country is subject to armed attack. That was the US, after 9/11. A number of other countries subsequently sent men off to die in response to that invocation of Article 5.

No-one from any Nato country is ever likely to be sent to 'die for the Balkan state of Montenegro'. There are two reasons for that:

1. The rational belief of the likely attackers (who are unlikely to be anybody but Russia) that such an attack would provoke a decisive and unanimous response from Nato members. That belief has prevented any state-level attack on the territory of any Nato member since 1949, without the need for a shot to be fired against an attacker. (Yes, I know that Trump is trying to chip away at that belief, for reasons best known to himself and Putin. However, since the US chiefs of staff are rational men and women well aware of the way this dangerous world works, such talk is unlikely to get any nearer reality than Fox and Friends.)

2. If Montenegro were to be attacked, it would not simply be an attack on one small country (what's the point of that?), but would be part of a major movement by Russia to change the map of not just the Balkans, but a large part of Europe and probably the Middle East too. The disruption of the world economy and of the world political and military order that would follow the success of such a move would be hugely against the political and economic interests of the US. (For instance, try defending Israel when the Mediterranean has become a Russian lake, and you have no European allies or bases. And as for the oil flow from the Gulf ...)

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

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 .

Article 6 1

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.
Article 7

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 8

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Article 9

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

Article 10

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Article 11

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)

Article 12

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

Article 14

This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.

The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.

[_Kevin Graham]

My god, you are truly an ass clown of the lowest order. I literally just described the 2014 revolution you inbred.

You never once mentioned the revolution of 2014 you dumb “F”, who do you think you're talking to, a FOX News audience? You talked about the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and then went on to say we screwed Ukraine because we didn't prevent Russia from attacking. You ignore the fact that the 1994 agreement was with the Ukraine government which no longer exists because the people overthrew it. We don't make agreements with geographical areas you dunce. Doesn't matter what you heard from Brietbart.

[_EAllusion]

Wait. Are the Liberals who are in favor of cutting our military by half or 2/3 because it's the biggest "make work" boondoggle there is, now in favor of funding the military because it provides an invaluable security agreement with European partners?

Phew. That's gotta be one helluva headache trying to hold mutually exclusive and contradictory notions about our military.

- Doc

The US spends more on its military than the next 7 closest nations combined, 5 of which are our close military allies. The US can cut its military budget while still having a adequately threatening mutual defense commitment with NATO nations.

[_Some Schmo]

Wait. Are the Liberals who are in favor of cutting our military by half or 2/3 because it's the biggest "make work" boondoggle there is, now in favor of funding the military because it provides an invaluable security agreement with European partners?

Phew. That's gotta be one helluva headache trying to hold mutually exclusive and contradictory notions about our military.

- Doc

The US spends more on its military than the next 7 closest nations combined, 5 of which are our close military allies. The US can cut its military budget while still having a adequately threatening mutual defense commitment with NATO nations.

This is far too complex an idea for cammie, since, ya know, he's pretty daft.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Some Schmo pointing out someone is daft is akin to the Trailer Park Boys pointing out someone is stupid. While one can appreciate an abjectly retarded potato complaining about something, you just kind of pat it on the head and move on.

Anyway.

I doubt our resident alien could qualify for military service, what with his club foot and all.

- Doc

[_MeDotOrg]

I'd like to say some general things about alliances. The United States does not need Montenegro for its defense. Montenegro would definitely appreciate the help of the United States. So it's an unequal relationship, right?

If you look at the relationship as bilateral zero-sum game, we are on the short end of the stick. But an organization like NATO helps prevent local conflicts from flaring into major conflicts. Without NATO, what would have happened to the residents of Kosovo? When the strong get together to protect the weak, that makes aggressor nations think twice.

There is a price for coming to the defense of our allies. Ultimately, there is a much greater price to pay if we do noting to invest in a world where the strong do not prey upon the weak.

[_Themis]

I'd like to say some general things about alliances. The United States does not need Montenegro for its defense. Montenegro would definitely appreciate the help of the United States. So it's an unequal relationship, right?

Yes it's unequal in regards to each other sizes and certainly the US need not fear other countries invading as Montenegro might, but right now the largest aggression from Russia towards NATO has been directed at the US with huge success.

If you look at the relationship as bilateral zero-sum game, we are on the short end of the stick. But an organization like NATO helps prevent local conflicts from flaring into major conflicts. Without NATO, what would have happened to the residents of Kosovo? When the strong get together to protect the weak, that makes aggressor nations think twice.

The US is not really on the short end of the stick. IT's not costing the US and other countries much if anything to agree to defend each other. As you say the purpose is to avoid aggression and being the largest military alliance by far, no country will invade any NATO country as long as they know NATO members like the US are dead serious in defending all members. It's why Russia is going hard core in cyber attacks and trying to manipulate the populations of NATO countries. It's why they really went hard at getting Trump elected and other data points that suggest they have some control over Trump.

There is a price for coming to the defense of our allies. Ultimately, there is a much greater price to pay if we do noting to invest in a world where the strong do not prey upon the weak.

So far there has not been any price because of having an alliance, but if there was no NATO after the Soviet Union fell I would say Russia would have much more control of eastern Europe then they do now, and letting aggressor dictators have more power will eventually come back to hurt the West. If all the world had western democracies you would have no real wars going on right now. The promotion of western democracies have made the world more free with less war and conflict.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ultimately, there is a much greater price to pay if we do noting to invest in a world where the strong do not prey upon the weak.

That's a nice sentiment, but that's just not reality in any meaningful sense when it come to human nature. No matter how many norms one creates they begin to collapse once a standard is created. The strong and/or clever will always find a workaround to ensure they get theirs. Utopia and, really, fairness just isn't going to happen.

- Doc