[ghostwriter]

> That wasn't NATO

what is a framework to distinguish NATO and non-NATO intervention? Let's say a conflict is small enough for a single country like the US to handle it. Is it still NATO or is it only the US with other members not objecting to it?

[Xylakant]

The NATO has no power to restrict actions of its members - it can just decide not to support them, which is common. Any action unilaterally taken by a member state or a group of member states that is not explicitly adopted by the NATO council is not a NATO mission.

[ghostwriter]

I know that. I am asking about a framework to distinguish between a NATO intervention from the sole US intervention for the side on the receiving end of it.

[Xylakant]

Has the nato council voted on it and unanimously accepted the mission? It’s a NATO mission. Has it not? It’s not. Turkeys actions in Syria? Not a NATO mission. Germany and France providing troops to the Minusma mission in Mali? Not a NATO mission. German soldiers getting killed in Mali doesn’t trigger Article 5.

Many NATO interventions happen because the UN Security Council asked the NATO to take leadership on them, others without UN involvement, but all of them require that there’s a political decision before the intervention happens.

Of important note: there is currently no NATO support for Ukraine - many NATO member states do support Ukraine, but others are very reluctant- Hungary for example. NATO certainly is a body that acts as coordinator and supports states that feel threatened by Russia at the moment, even backfilling for capabilities that they’re handing over to Ukraine, so that distinction is mostly political - but it has real effects. Should any of Ukraines neighbors decide to unilaterally send troops into Ukraine and they get attacked there, it’s not an automatic trigger for Article 5 either.