141
Venezuela - The Lesson for Canada (charlieangus.substack.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 10 months ago (20 children)

Canada is in NATO. NATO countries are obligated to defend Canada if it is attacked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Except when it's been members, maybe?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    If a NATO nation attacks another NATO nation they're supposed to get kicked out. That's why back in the 1990s there was so much mumbling about Russia joining NATO. Obviously it was never really considered seriously and then Putin's "election" put a kibosh on that idea, but there was some suggestion that it might happen, and one of the questions that it raised was how do we handle that possibility. Because if any nation was going to attack any other nation it would be Russia.

    It's a bit pointless to talk about really because if the US actually attacked Canada things would get out of hand almost instantly with other nations taking preemptive steps, so any agreements on process would essentially be irrelevant anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Cyprus was in NATO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (10 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Article 5 isn't voluntary.

    NATO’s Article 5 is consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which recognises that a state that is the victim of an armed attack has the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence, and may request others to come to its assistance. Within the NATO context, Article 5 translates this right of self-defence into a mutual assistance obligation.

    https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    "may request others" doesn't make it sound very obligatory. The actual obligation as written is for each nation to take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force", leaving it up to each nation to decide for themselves what is necessary.

    What exactly is Canada going to do to other NATO countries that don't respond sufficiently? There is no penalty clause.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    That's Article 51, not 5. If you read the very first thing from the link:

    Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago

    And when they don't come to Canada's assistance? When they decide that necessary assistance is to condemn US aggression and send Canada a "get well" card?

    Article 5 was written with Russia in mind. The penalty for noncompliance would be a natural consequence that Russia would feel free to pick NATO countries off one at a time. It's entirely ineffective against a US that literally could fight off the rest of NATO if it had to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Funny. You seemed to have completely ignored the part where it finishes with "mutual assistance obligation". Or maybe you just didn't read far enough.

    Care to try again?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Maybe you'll believe the Center for European Policy Analysis

    The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

    In other words, Article 5 does not commit member states to deploy military assets if an ally is attacked. It only commits them to some form of response.

    But, what do they know anyways?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago

    Did you miss where "mutual assistance" is completely undefined. I'll stick with my original answer. I'm sure NATO will come right to Canada's assistance with an angry condemnation of US aggression at the UN.

    Laws with no penalty clauses aren't really laws, they are suggestions. Penalty clauses that can't be enforced would be worthless anyways. Article 5 is an aspersion, nothing more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)