[scotty79]

So NATO members are still free to do what they want without casting any shade on NATO itself?

Could France just deploy it's army in the Ukraine and push out Russian occupiers saying "don't worry we are not NATO, we are here privately" and Russia would have to accept that and hold no additional grudge against NATO, knowing that if it retaliates it will trigger article 5?

I don't in any way condone what Russia is doing and I wish that invasion on Ukraine will safely end with NATO having a parade on Red Square and demilitarization of Russia.

I'm just arguing that you can't pretend that labels and formalities is all than counts when things start happening.

[dragonwriter]

> Could France just deploy it's army in the Ukraine and push out Russian occupiers saying "don't worry we are not NATO, we are here privately" and Russia would have to accept that and hold no additional grudge against NATO, knowing that if it retaliates it will trigger article 5?

Russia can hold all the grudges it likes, with or without any kind of justification.

Not that it matters to the international legitimacy of France (or even NATO, without Article 5 being triggered) directly militarily supporting Ukraine’s self-defense against Russian aggression, see UN Charter, Article 51.

[qsort]

> So NATO members are still free to do what they want without casting any shade on NATO itself?

I condemn the vast majority of the US foreign policy of the last 50+ years, I'm just pointing out that conflating US/NATO is a convenient parlor trick and irrelevant whataboutism.

> Could France

This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.

[dragonwriter]

> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.

That... depends on the precise geographic location of any retaliation. The participation of a NATO state in a collective self-defense action with a non-NATO state under UN Charter Article 51 rights, outside of NATO operations, does not itself limit the applicability of Article 5.

And even if it didn't trigger Article 5, well, most NATO actions have been initiated as a result of Article 4 process, not Article 5 commitments. And an attack on a member’s forces in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside of the precise area covered by Article 5 commitments would arguably be a more serious Article 4 issue than the ones that have resulted in NATO interventions.

[scotty79]

> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.

Really? Does it have to be unprovoked attack? And what exactly means unprovoked? Does having a peace mission in some neighbouring country and defending yourself there counts as provocation? Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?

[qsort]

> Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?

Oh absolutely it would.

The Charter is just a lot of verbiage around two promises: NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.

If you are so inclined you can also doubt Article 5 itself: are we really going to unleash the apocalypse over Latvia? Wouldn't we be tempted to bend the rules in that case as well?

The point is whether you believe those promises to be credible. IMHO history implies they largely are, but that's something reasonable people can disagree on.

[dragonwriter]

> NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.

Article 4 is also important, and more actual NATO interventions have been triggered by Article 4 consultations than Article 5 direct mutual defense.

NATO is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment, not a pure defensive alliance.