When should NATO use military force against Russia

[ColinC]

13 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	When spillover results in deaths on NATO territory -intentionally or not
	0 (0%)
	When more than a hundred NATO citizens are killed from spillover (intentionally or not) due to Russia terrorizing Ukraine
	1 (8%)
	When Russia directly kills NATO citizens on NATO territory
	10 (77%)
	When Russia invades NATO directly -but denies they are doing it.
	0 (0%)
	When Russia invades NATO territory and annexes it as a "military operation" but not "invasion"
	1 (8%)
	After Russia annexes Poland
	0 (0%)
	Only after Russia annexes half of the European Union
	0 (0%)
	Never. Absolutely never. No military forces should ever be used against Russia regardless of the amount of aggression Russia imposed on Europe or the amount of territory they invade on NATO territory.
	1 (8%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[marble falls]

1. Not in the forseeable future. Ukraine is doing just fine on its own. Russian armed forces are ...

... being degraded every minute of every day. Its moving towards a table. As the worlds richest man, Putin DOES NOT want to degrade his fortune by drawing in NATO, and we do not want to be drawn in any further than we are.

[Ocelot II]

2. Only if the subject member country or the North Atlantic Council invokes Article 5

because it is determined that Russia intentionally attacked the member country.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

[ColinC]

6. I think this is interesting. The last time article 5 was invoked...

Was it actually determined that the country NATO invaded intentionally attacked us?

[Ocelot II]

9. 9/11 resulted in NATO authorizing itself to be involved in defensive military actions

against terrorist groups. However, the March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm

[ColinC]

11. I was referring to afghanistan

Which I think you answered with your first sentence. Thank you.

[TomWilm]

24. It was never really invoked, only formally ...

.. as far as I remember. NATO told the US they could get article 5 help, and the US said No, thank you.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. When specific DUers say it should.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. LOL.

Thread winner!!!!

[Ocelot II]

10. Hahahaha!

[Sneederbunk]

5. Whenever NATO feels like it.

[sarisataka]

7. When an attack on a NATO member

Results in the invocation of, and the collective decision is made to use military force, Article 5.

[ColinC]

8. So if the decision you described was made on faulty evidence

With little consideration or thought and results in world war 3, you would agree with the decision?

[sarisataka]

12. If the decision was made I would support it.

If later it turns out the evidence was faulty I would agree the decision was made in error however at that point it would likely be a moot point. It is very hard to un-start a war and ask for a redo.

I take comfort in the fact that NATO has historically been very cautious when it come to Article 5.

[ColinC]

13. I would disagree that the Post-9/11 decision was "cautious"

I do not think military force should have been authorized by NATO in that circumstance. Nor do I think it was helpful in the long term.

[sarisataka]

14. NATO thought otherwise

Regarding military force but they did not immediately jump to that conclusion.

On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.

The North Atlantic Council – NATO’s principal political decision-making body – agreed that if it determined that the attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it would be regarded as an action covered by Article 5. On 2 October, once the Council had been briefed on the results of investigations into the 9/11 attacks, it determined that they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5.

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.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

20/20 hindsight always gives us the opportunity to critique what may have been the best course of action. Unfortunately actions taken at the time have to be taken without such knowledge.

For example, while all supported Biden's move to withdraw from Afghanistan, many believed the promises of a new, kinder, gentler Taliban. It was said the Taliban saw the advantages offered by participating in the modern world and would not go back to their old ways. Afghanistan would be a better place for all Afghans with US troops gone. You may have noticed a lack of Taliban supporters lately.

[ColinC]

15. I was a sophomore in high school and knew it was a bad idea

Pretty sure NATO could’ve figured that out too.

[Ocelot II]

18. Jens Stoltenberg is stepping down as SecGen next year.

Maybe you should apply for the job.

[ColinC]

19. Or perhaps the people appointed in those positions can utilize common sense

More effectively, as children often seem more apt in doing without decades of experience and advanced degrees. It is their job, after all. Not mine.

[Ocelot II]

20. Or Internet message board commenters who claim to know more about

international relations than the professional staff at NATO?

[ColinC]

22. Having a moral compass and common sense is

Not a claim to superiority or greater knowledge. Nor is it a claim to being more qualified than those in those positions. It is just a hope that those elected and appointed to those positions utilize the same common sense and moral principals they are equally equipped with. 2001 was a disappointment in this regard -as seems to be the consensus.



However, the current situation is admittedly more complicated, and all I can hope is that the best decisions are made.

Although, I’m sure sly insults and passive aggressive attacks will go far in convincing people they are wrong in their critiques.

[TomWilm]

25. 👍

[sarisataka]

21. I was an SNCO at that time

And could see some flaws but unfortunately I wasn't consulted.

The problem was less the decision to use force and more how it was focused- or more accurately, unfocused. Mission creep very quickly overshadowed the original operational objectives.

[ColinC]

23. This sounds accurate from what we seem to know right now

There was nothing wrong or immoral about utilizing resources to target criminal and terrorist organizations. But when the decision became instead to invade Afghanistan entirely, I imagine that is where the misstep began.

[Kennah]

16. 1945

[Baggies]

17. No War!!

The answer is we don’t need to be getting into any type of war right now.