General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes NATO have a "red line"? Do we? Should we? If we do, should we announce it?
Short of the use of conventional nukes, i.e., not "tactical" nukes, or a serious attack on a "major" NATO country, I am not sure we would respond militarily.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that I'm not sure?
Response to Atticus (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ocelot II
(115,584 posts)and they have been pretty clear about that. Under Article 5 it wouldn't have to be a major NATO member.
If we have a specific red line that we will absolutely not allow to be crossed, we should announce it. As of now, its limited to an attack on a NATO member, but it should be broadened in my view.
David__77
(23,321 posts)Red line #1: US forces "are not engaged and will not engage in the conflict with Russian forces in Ukraine."
Red line #2: "The United States and our allies will defend every inch of
NATO territory with the full force of our collective powerevery single inch."
brush
(53,740 posts)The problem now is that Ukraine is not a member nation.
That problem might soob be adjusted though as Putin is on the verge of going to far.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,914 posts)Outside of that, I don't expect us to do much more than what we already are.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)biological weapons would not mean we'd respond?
And, would an "errant" missile that "accidentally" landed on a residential area in a NATO nation be an "attack"?
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,914 posts)So I am no stranger on losing money on poor bets and odds.
And even I wouldn't put money on NATO directly attacking Russia for anything less than a direct attack against NATO. I think its fairly obvious that NATO wants to avoid anything that could lead to a nuclear confrontation with Russia.
Torchlight
(3,293 posts)the Army of Republika Srpska, which had threatened and attacked UN-designated "safe areas" within the borders of a non-Nato member.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,914 posts)They are now. That changes things.
Torchlight
(3,293 posts)no tea leaves for me.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)The "red line" is clearly defined therein, specifically in Article 5.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
Happy Hoosier
(7,215 posts)Article 5 describes obligations. It doesnt specify limits on what individual member states can do.
Naturally, smaller states would be less likely to act independently.
MyMission
(1,849 posts)Cross the border line in a NATO country, and action will be taken.
What action? That remains to be seen.
I say you strike us, step over the line, we strike you back harder
Chainfire
(17,467 posts)It is only necessary that NATO and Putin know what the lines are. Nobody in a leadership wants crowd sourcing, by people who know don't know jack, that deal with issues that could involve the end of civilization. I am quite happy with that. If we trust your Commander in Chief to do the right thing, so should all of us.
I just thank Dog that we have a real Commander in Chief and not a damn Trump calling our part of the shots. I have complete faith that Biden will do the right thing for us.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)I do not know what the exact circumstances and capabilities are on either side and even if I did, i would not be prepared to decide the fate of the world. There have been a lot of atrocities committed by Putin so far and I am reasonably sure there are more to come and there are no "sure thing" options available.
As you said, we should all be thankful for Joe's experience, his decency and his "steady as she goes" response to a madman with his own red button.
Volaris
(10,266 posts)Putin does something stupid like flip a cruise missile into Poland and I suspect that within 6 weeks he will have his entire military destroyed and his govt crushed.
It will make Baghdad look like a flag football nerf game.