Many thanks to Rey Gonzalez for today’s topic.
The North Atlantic Treaty, signed on 4 April 1949, following the Second Great War, constitutes a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. So says the interwebz sites and NATO.INT Its purpose was to secure peace in Europe, to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom, all of this in the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union.
NATO’s essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defence (sic) is at the heart of the Alliance and creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among its members. NATO – Topic: NATO’s purpose
Below, I’ve included the wording of both, Article 4 and Article 5, the latter being much discussed lately by pundits on all media platforms. I’ve highlighted some verbiage that I believe (and we should all be attentive to) will receive much scrutiny and will be interpreted and defined based on one’s political agenda, with little consideration given to the actual intended purpose.
Under Article 4, any member state can convene a meeting of NATO members to consult when it feels its independence or security are threatened. In practice, it has rarely been used and sends a strong political symbol to the greater world that NATO is concerned about a particular situation. Sure it does. Ok.
Article 5 is known as the “one-for-all and all-for-one” article, the keystone of NATO as an organization. It states that an armed attack against one member is an attack against all and sets in motion the possibility of collective self-defense. However, it only commits members to assist the party or parties so attacked and to take such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…. It does not automatically result in military action. What Are NATO’s Articles 4 And 5? (rferl.org)
This post came to mind shortly after learning that Russia had bombed a military base in Ukraine, near Poland, housing and providing NATO (personnel) training to a non-NATO nation. What we have not heard, as of yet, is if any non-Ukranian military personnel were killed or wounded in this attack. Is it fear of pissing of Putin and he retaliates by escalating? That seems to be the on-going talking point by pundits on all sides. Don’t piss the aggressive bear who is already creating havoc in the campground. Play dead, let him have his way; let the angry bear maul others and, when he’s done, hopefully we and others will remain unharmed and the big bad furry bear goes away, back into the forest.
So I ask, as this war escalates. At what point does Putin’s escalated atrocities affect the world and the reaction is more than just “Putin bad man” and “history will remember bad Putin’? At this point, and as he moves forward, the world’s reaction will be just that. Putin is a bad man. Who remembers Stalin? Lenin? Mao? Asks the libtard woke’d Harvard/Yale/MIT educated Kerry, Biden, Bernie folks. Who?
Ok, going off the rail here a bit. Back to NATO, its Articles and how they will be interpreted and defined. As Guy would utter and pronounce with a slap on a courtroom table telling the judge, “I present to you and the jurors, Exhibit 2A: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Interpreted? defined? Re-defined? “But just wait there, just a minute your Honor, as we who labor here seek only justice; blind justice form Lady Justice. Here is another exhibit, your highness. Exhibit 14A: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” At what point did we re-define “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? Yes, And Justice For All…”you’re out of order, you’re out of order…..this whole courtroom is out of order!
It all boils down to this my friends. NATO members can consult when it feels its independence or security are threatened and NATO make take such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…. It does not automatically result in military action. And in this case, it won’t. Russia will be Russia. Reminds me of the “parenting” article and the kid throwing his tantrum on the store floor. He’s just being Putin. He’ll grow out of it.
So, the next time a Russian missile drops on Romanian (other NATO European) soil, it will be explained away, not by Putin, not by Russia, but our own media platforms, as “oooopsy, they didn’t mean to do that. It was their bad, but no war intention on their part.” Our current Administration will be up front and leading the charge in diffusing and deescalating such oopsy by the Russians, with US $$$ and oil purchases.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Talk amongst yourselves.
