President Emmanuel Macron announced Thursday that France would send Mirage 2000 fighter jets to Ukraine, in what would appear to be a significant increase in his country’s direct military support to Kyiv....
I know next to nothing about air combat, and less about the Mirage. But isn’t having more airframes in the air to shoot down more things still a net positive? It doesn’t look like anything it can carry has a long range. However even if they’re not used for anything close to Russian AA, can’t they still be quite valuable for, missile/drone defense in western Ukraine?
Estonia considers itself a front-line state, a Nato member where its border guards stare across the Narva River at the Russian fortress of Ivangorod....
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.”
It’s not an option to respond to an attack on one, it’s mandatory according to the text of the treaty.
“will assist such Party or Parties” comes right before that, though. Supporting an attacked treaty member is not optional.
And the clause which follows your quotes takes as granted that action has occurred, since it specifically states an intended result is a return to stability in North America or Europe. The action it deems necessary is predicated on the fact that it’s responding.
The way you are interpreting this quote is taken out of its context, which is not how the law works.
In any case, both of these arguments are technically valid, and it comes down to a whole lot of other factors, including political will, to enforce a response among members.
However it’s not ambiguous that an attack on a member of NATO will have a joint response, and a member neglecting to undertake such action would not have a valid legal argument for its inaction.
Edit: made a sentence real English instead of gibberish.
No? The burden is on you here to assert your point, after your first point was incorrect and you moved the goalpost.
You’re the one that says we should turn to precedent, and said there have been multiple occasions NATO could have triggered Article 5 but wasn’t. When were these other times? You made the statement, now provide evidence.
My point is that when it’s triggered, it’s not optional. And so far, that’s been the case, since it’s been triggered exactly once, and there was a universal response to it.
It’s not an option to respond, according to the words of the treaty. Any other interpretation of it would be based on politics, not the interpretation of the treaty itself. Any idea that the treaty doesn’t mandate collective action is incorrect.
… and was Article 5 triggered any of those times? Did any of those states ask for help from the alliance? And most of those examples have drawn support (or offers of support) from NATO allies.
You’re also missing the geographical scope of the treaty, which over and over again refers to the security situation in North America and Europe.
Or are you understanding what I’m saying as making it mandatory if anything happens to these countries, and the country being attacked doesn’t get a say in the matter? Because a country try still needs to actually ask for help.
In (as far as I’m aware) every single security treaty in effect across the world the first responsibility lies with the states in question, and all assistance has to be requested by those states.
Listen. You’re just incorrect, and that’s ok. But in the scope of the treaty (which, yes, must actually be triggered), a response from all member states is mandatory.
This suggests a complete misunderstanding of international law and state sovereignty, then. I was being overly charitable, apparently.
Sovereignty is a concept that is baked into the UN Charter explicitly, which the NATO treaty names over and over again.
In order for a treaty article to take effect, it has to be triggered by a member state. It’s strange that you would interpret mandatory response as being, potentially, against the actual request of the state(s) in question.
It seems either painfully lacking knowledge or as being in bad faith. In either case I would suggest you refrain from talking about international treaties in the future.
Here, you can go read the Wikipedia about NATO. If you look at the section about the various articles, you will find your questions answered, and see the myriad other ways NATO works and enables mutual assistance.
All NATO members did get involved after Article 5 was invoked, so I’m not sure what your point is.
Because yes, that’s exactly what Article 5 says. It’s mandatory to respond, it’s not ambiguous. All members respond if one is attacked, and they did after 9/11.
If you can illustrate a country that sat out of the global response to 9/11/01, I would love to hear it.
Maybe you could highlight where it says that any NATO members did not participate in NATO operations in Afghanistan? Or that any participation is voluntary?
Seriously, man, you don’t know what you are talking about. It’s not voluntary, otherwise the alliance wouldn’t exist. States have the discretion to decide the kinds of aid they would send, but any decision not to respond at all would be counter to both the letter and the spirit of the treaty. It’s mandatory, if a country wants to abide by its treaty terms. Full stop.
The only flexibility involved is exactly how it responds. Here’s a source that explains it, but I’ll quote the relevant bit for you. The excerpt follows the text of Art. 5 in the source.
“This language is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally. It does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor.”
Here’s the information about what the NATO exercises that occurred as a direct result of 9/11. It’s a lot, but here’s the relevant bit, where it outlines what the actions of the alliance were:
“After 9/11, there were consultations among the Allies and collective action was decided by the Council. The United States could also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the United Nations Charter.
On 4 October, once it had been determined that the attacks came from abroad, NATO agreed on a package of eight measures to support the United States. On the request of the United States, it launched its first ever anti-terror operation – Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. It consisted in seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft that helped patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties. This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.
On 26 October, the Alliance launched its second counter-terrorism operation in response to the attacks on the United States, Active Endeavour. Elements of NATO’s Standing Naval Forces were sent to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean and monitor shipping to detect and deter terrorist activity, including illegal trafficking. In March 2004, the operation was expanded to include the entire Mediterranean.
The eight measures to support the United States, as agreed by NATO were:
to enhance intelligence-sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it; to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other countries which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism; to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory; to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism; to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO member countries for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures; that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.”
I have to assume you don’t have any interest in good faith argumentation at this point, and it’s time for me to call it quits on trying to convince you. But please stop spreading Russian disinformation and in the future remain silent when it comes to Article 5.
Edit: I’ll put the Wikipedia link for the ISAF, the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, too, but if you go to the tab “participants,” you’ll read this:
“All NATO member states have contributed troops to the ISAF, as well as some other partner states of the NATO alliance.”
Where does it say it’s voluntary?! And, again, you need to take it in line with literally every other treaty in effect, which emphasizes the ways that defense works.
It can’t be automatic because US domestic laws prohibit the president from declaring war without congressional approval, not because taking part in a defensive pact is somehow optional. And, again, sovereignty is baked into all international laws, especially those having to do with the United States (it’s always been really serious about maintaining this more or less absolutely).
You’re stating a “fact” that’s incorrect, and works in the interest of countries that would benefit a great deal from a lack of adherence to Article 5. Stop it. If any country decided to not participate when Article 5 is invoked, the alliance would end. It’s quite literally the cornerstone of the whole deal.
You should trust the words of experts, then, and make sure that you put pressure on your government to adhere to the text of the treaty rather than trying to inject doubt about it.
Russia has accused Nato and the US of “provoking a new level of tension” after the US and Germany became the latest allies to let Ukraine’s military to use Western-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia....
In a warehouse off Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway in an industrial area outside Dallas, the future of American military ammunition production is coming online....
I don’t think anybody ever really withheld information about how defense contracting works. It’s not a NYT thing.
It’s a big part of the way the current US Presidential administration has been talking about the Ukraine arms funding: that it will mostly be spent here, manufacturing things for war.
(May 23, 2024 / JNS) - Germany will detain Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if the International Criminal Court issues an arrest warrant against him, a German government spokesman said Wednesday....
This is kinda huge. Germany is one of Israel’s most ardent supporters. It’s really great to see such a clear and concise answer that confirms a commitment to international rule of law over international politics.
Edit: I hope I did not speak too soon, as this seems like relatively positive news. However I am having a hard time finding the original Politico source that this link refers to. I am also unaware of this source’s integrity. Does anybody else have another source; or the original Politico source that is referred to in this article?
Second edit: apparently this is coming from the Twitter/xitter of politico. I don’t have one of those, so I can’t personally verify the veracity of this statement, but it does seem as if Politico (Peter Wilke (@peterjwilke)) reported this. [I put the name and handle in here for others who may be interested in digging a bit more than me before this is more widely reported]
I mean… yes you do, since that’s a little bit how international law works? Countries who do not sign and ratify the Rome statute and then remain in there aren’t governed by the ICC in the same way.
You will see in the excerpt you quoted, the reason the ICC believes it has jurisdiction is because of events taking place in Palestine, which has taken part in the Rome Statute previously.
And the United States has a law that says it will militarily invade The Hague if any US service member is arrested and held by the court. It came about along with all the other legislative bullshit in the years after 9/11/01. The US had previously been a founding member of the ICC, but withdrew for reasons of sovereignty.
First: it’s not my logic. It’s how this part of international law works. The International Criminal Court wasn’t created until 1998, and the statute that governs it only officially came into power in 2002. Not all countries have signed, and some (including the US) have withdrawn from it. This means that technically the ICC doesn’t have any jurisdiction over things that happen within its territory.
The US codified it into a domestic law because it doesn’t believe its should be beholden to any law higher than its domestic ones, and the United States often does shady things in countries where the ICC does have jurisdiction, making it a risk that US citizens (and leaders) can be arrested for crimes that occur there. So the US Congress wrote domestic policy stating that it reserved the right to invade if its citizens were held for trial.
And Bibi didn’t join the US military. But the US has shown it’s willing to support his administration through an awful lot of shit, and the US doesn’t have any ambiguity about how it regards the ICC.
Finally, are you referring to the Nuremberg trials? Nazis weren’t tried in The Hague court we are discussing, and I’m not sure any nazi trials happened there at all.
Edit: I don’t understand the downvotes. This is literally just how the International Criminal Court works.
Yes, the origin of one of the international courts in The Hague, specifically the one that prosecutes individuals, the International Criminal Court, comes from the Nuremberg Trials. I never disputed that lineage. Those nazi trials happened in Nuremberg, not The Hague, and before the ICC existed.
DUBAI, May 19 (Reuters) - A helicopter carrying Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and his foreign minister crashed on Sunday as it was crossing mountain terrain in heavy fog, an Iranian official told Reuters, and rescuers were struggling to reach the site of the incident....
It’s the same story. I believe the first official Iranian statement had language like “involved in a hard landing” without anything else.
They have since turned to asking for prayers for their safe recovery, and apparently asked the EU for satellite imaging to help with search and rescue. [this is from a New York Times timeline that I recently read.]
President Volodymyr Zelensky believes that Ukraine’s partners “are afraid of Russia losing the war” and would like Kyiv “to win in such a way that Russia does not lose,” Zelensky said in a meeting with journalists attended by the Kyiv Independent....
People deserve to have their views confronted violently, sometimes. If you disagree that’s your prerogative as a moderator, and I’ll tone it down.
But can you please do your job and clean up the insulting comments? There should be plenty from the same user for you to choose from. They’re clearly just starting shit, without a single inkling of good faith argumentation. It should be glaringly obvious.
A NATO country can do whatever it wants with its troops, even engaging in a war overseas, without any kind of implications for the wider alliance.
The only way it would further escalate is if Putin thinks he can then attack/invade those countries in response, which may trigger the mutual defense article of NATO.
Sure. But he’s done an awful lot swinging his nuclear dick already.
But that is true. It would obviously be perceived by Russia as a massive escalation for any other country to send troops into Ukraine. I’m just making the point that just because a NATO member is involved doesn’t necessarily mean all NATO members would be involved, even if they suffered casualties.
Russia is a threat to NATO member states, not NATO. NATO is aware of how easily it can stomp the Russian military, and so do all the NATO members.
What’s worrisome is how close some NATO members are to Russia, a country that has made its willingness to invade other countries based on made up justifications very well known, and actively sows disunity propaganda and actively influences politics on other countries, explicitly as acts of hybrid war (as in, based on state war fighting doctrine).
It’s also very clearly able to undertake large scale war, which its neighbors don’t necessarily have.
I don’t know exactly what you’re arguing here… that Russia actually isn’t a threat to NATO? Or are you seeking some kind of “gotcha” moment when people acknowledge that Russia is both dangerous, but not as fierce as analysts initially expected? Maybe you can clarify what you mean by “NATO lies,” for starters?
I take part in conversations not for their benefit, necessarily, but observers’ benefit. And one of the most effective ways of fighting propaganda is to shine a light on it.
If you just delete every dissenting worldview without engaging, then it runs the risk of making the other positions more legitimate to others watching but not engaging, or gives fodder to the ideas that “we” in the more open parts of the world are just as bad as authoritarians at silencing dissent, which isn’t usually true.
I’d agree if the other poster was only spamming ad hom attacks all over, but there’s enough logic laced in there that I find it’s worth discussing and trying to understand, if only to better understand where Russian disinformation is.
NATO allies are inching closer to sending troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, a move that would be another blurring of a previous red line and could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war....
It might be that aggressive wannabe regional power that has already invaded several of its neighbors over the last decade or two, and makes continuous threats directed towards the rest of Europe?
The person I was responding to was comparing it to cum hoc which means that the two events being considered simultaneously, which I don’t think is correct.
Then by the logic of modern capitalism, doesn’t Unity (and thus, modern gaming) need a hard reboot? It sounds like there is t enough competition in the market, and one company has become “too big to fail” without massive repercussions.
Alternatively, you mention another engine. I don’t know shit about the nuts and bolts of gaming: but if another engine exists, then it should take up space. And if Unity fails, then other games should have a stake in making sure they hire the right talent to keep their games going. Or they risk going under themselves.
I saw this on another instance, so I figure it’s ok if I repost my response to that here, too.
From mediabiasfactcheck.com
“Founded in 2005, La Nueva Televisora del Sur (teleSUR, English: The New Television Station of the South) is a multi-state funded, pan–Latin American terrestrial and satellite television network sponsored by the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia that is headquartered in Caracas, Venezuela. TeleSUR has been accused of being a propaganda tool for Hugo Chavez and his successors.”
It’s not deemed to be a credible source given its direct governmental control and routine lack of transparency in its sources, if it provides any sources whatsoever.
There is also a long list of provably false reporting from this website.
I’m not saying that these kinds of actions don’t take place, just that this source is not reliable and I would guess that systemic theft from an incredibly scrutinized entity in a hostile country would be subject to a little bit more widespread reporting and corroborating evidence.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders have applauded the US for passing a vital €89 billion aid bill which has been struggling to make it through the House of Representatives for months....
You’re correct about the missteps of US foreign policy.
But your argument is a nonstarter because the people you’re talking about were literal dictators in authoritarian systems.
Ukraine is literally fighting to engage with the liberal West, over authoritarian East, against a foreign aggressor. And it’s done a very good job of keeping and even improving its democratic institutions through this war (I’m referring more to transparency of laws and changes to how corruption is dealt with, specifically).
Ah, so you’re just not inclined to see reason, and toss in a little bit of whataboutism with your replies that minimalize a full scale invasion of a sovereign country as a “turf war.”
It’s my mistake for engaging with an obviously disingenuous poster. You can go fuck yourself.
France will send Mirage fighter jets to Ukraine, Macron says (www.politico.eu)
President Emmanuel Macron announced Thursday that France would send Mirage 2000 fighter jets to Ukraine, in what would appear to be a significant increase in his country’s direct military support to Kyiv....
Lebanon: Shots fired at US Embassy in Beirut (www.dw.com)
One assailant has been hospitalized after being shot and wounded by the Lebanese army. The embassy said no staff were harmed in the incident....
Skibidi Biden (www.youtube.com)
Ukraine war: We have no Plan B if Ukraine falls, Estonian PM says (www.bbc.com)
Estonia considers itself a front-line state, a Nato member where its border guards stare across the Narva River at the Russian fortress of Ivangorod....
Moscow warns West of escalation after Ukraine told it can hit Russia (www.bbc.com)
Russia has accused Nato and the US of “provoking a new level of tension” after the US and Germany became the latest allies to let Ukraine’s military to use Western-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia....
Pentagon Opens Ammunition Factory to Keep Arms Flowing to Ukraine (www.nytimes.com)
In a warehouse off Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway in an industrial area outside Dallas, the future of American military ammunition production is coming online....
Chinese Spaceplane Releases Mysterious Object in Orbit Months After Launch (gizmodo.com)
Germany: We will execute ICC warrant against Netanyahu (www.jns.org)
(May 23, 2024 / JNS) - Germany will detain Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if the International Criminal Court issues an arrest warrant against him, a German government spokesman said Wednesday....
EXCLUSIVE: ICC seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu for war crimes over October 7 attack and Gaza war | CNN (edition.cnn.com)
Helicopter carrying Iran's President Raisi crashes, search under way (www.reuters.com)
DUBAI, May 19 (Reuters) - A helicopter carrying Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and his foreign minister crashed on Sunday as it was crossing mountain terrain in heavy fog, an Iranian official told Reuters, and rescuers were struggling to reach the site of the incident....
Zelensky: 'Our partners fear that Russia will lose this war' (kyivindependent.com)
President Volodymyr Zelensky believes that Ukraine’s partners “are afraid of Russia losing the war” and would like Kyiv “to win in such a way that Russia does not lose,” Zelensky said in a meeting with journalists attended by the Kyiv Independent....
Russia lacks 'numbers for strategic breakthrough' in Ukraine: NATO (www.euronews.com)
Moscow says it will keep pushing its offensive in Ukraine, though NATO doubts Russia has the resources to make a significant breakthrough....
As Russia Advances, NATO Considers Sending Trainers Into Ukraine (www.nytimes.com)
NATO allies are inching closer to sending troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, a move that would be another blurring of a previous red line and could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war....
Germany may introduce conscription for all 18-year-olds (www.telegraph.co.uk)
Cum (lemmy.world)
Unity's New CEO Nets Millions Months After Layoffs and Scandals (insider-gaming.com)
deleted_by_moderator
Zelenskyy thanks US after House passes aid bill (www.euronews.com)
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders have applauded the US for passing a vital €89 billion aid bill which has been struggling to make it through the House of Representatives for months....