Comment by Havoc
5 hours ago
That’s exactly the issue. If Putin provokes a measured reaction it’s a win, if NATO does nothing it’s also a win
The defender is fundamentally at a disadvantage with all or nothing clauses like article 5
5 hours ago
That’s exactly the issue. If Putin provokes a measured reaction it’s a win, if NATO does nothing it’s also a win
The defender is fundamentally at a disadvantage with all or nothing clauses like article 5
Every hybrid attack will increase spending towards Ukraine.
Or reduce spending because countries feel the need to station more defences on their own borders
So hybrid attacks are incentivised for someone else besides Russia.
Europe could respond without invoking article 5 though, so it's not really "all or nothing".
That's why USA is bombing Iran without everyone else bombing Iran. Article 5 hasn't been invoked.
> Europe could respond without invoking article 5
What would this hypothetical response look like?
The whole doctrine itself is built on the idea that you as an attacker don’t get to decide where the line is. The principle of ambiguity. Russia desperate wants to know where the line is, because they know very well that when they cross it it won’t end.
This is a fundamental principle of NATO as a defensive alliance, have always been and will continue to be.
Now you have voices, coming mostly from outside, that are trying to make this out to be a bad thing and to show some kind og weakness in the alliance, when it is one of the core tenants of the alliance itself.