[hurubaw]

I mean, if US invades Greenland, which is part of Denmark (a Nato country), all other NATO countries would be obliged to help defend Greenland under the 5th article against the aggressor... so the US.

US being the biggest contributor of NATO, effectively NATO would be no more.

Man the Russians intelligence services are good. Their subtle plays in the US politics are close to bringing them the world order they have always wanted.

[belter]

If the U.S. were to invade Denmark, Article 5 would not apply. It requires consensus, and the U.S. would never agree to collective action against itself, so any response would be blocked.

Conflicts between NATO members like happened in the past between Greece and Turkey four times, while they were both part of NATO, have never triggered Article 5. The alliance is built to deter external attacks, not wars among its own members.

In practice, after such a move, you can be sure that not a single ASML machine would ever be sold to the U.S. again.

[0928374082]

What makes you think Article 5 requires consensus?

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...

> if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, ... will assist the Party ... attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,

"Each" and "individually" imply to me that even if the US decides they could meet their Art 5 obligation by sending a strongly worded letter to themselves, every other NATO member, invoking the right of collective self-defence, should forthwith assist DK with armed force.

[belter]

https://www.government.se/government-policy/sweden-in-nato/t...

"All decisions in NATO are taken by consensus, which means all NATO member countries must agree unanimously to take decisions."

Its not automatic. After 9/11, Article 5 was not automatic. The Council met and unanimously agreed that the attacks qualified as an Article 5 case. Only then did each member decide how to assist.

In 1974 both Turkey and Greece were already NATO member, and consultations were made under article 4. Actually Greece got pissed off and did not leave NATO completely, but left the NATO command for a few years.

"...In 1974 due to the Cyprus crisis, Greece withdrew military units from NATO forces in the Southern Mediterranean, over threats of invasion of Cyprus by fellow NATO member Turkey. Later in 1974 due to the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces, Greece withdrew from the NATO military command..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO

[0928374082]

OK, that makes sense.

Luckily there's also Article 42.7 TEU, then:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/...

[Zigurd]

The US has about 80,000 troops stationed in Europe. That's a lot. But non-US NATO armies have over 3 million troops. 2026 NATO isn't anything like 1970s NATO.

[JohnFen]

> effectively NATO would be no more.

I'm not convinced this would be the automatic result, but it would certainly be the opening shots of a new world war, with the US as the bad guys this time.

[dataflow]

Please go read Article 5. It does not require a military response. I don't know how so many have been misled to believe otherwise. The text is right there.

[hdgvhicv]

It obliges country to assist.

[dataflow]

Yes, did you read the whole thing?

"The Parties agree that [...] if such an armed attack occurs, each of them [...] will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary [...]"

Each party gets to act however it deems necessary. Which could be, you know, "tweet angrily." Or "do literally nothing."