Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TomWilm

(1,937 posts)
18. Runs against all international law...
Sat Jan 3, 2026, 07:10 AM
Yesterday

More important an annexation will go against the UN Charter:

- All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
- All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

These word are reflected in the NATO Treaty:
... The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. ...

So yes, your government should not be doing this against us, or even threaten do to it, thanks!

BTW. NATO article 5 does not demand, that the other countries immediately send armed troops. These parties shall be taking such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force. The action chosen is not automatically given, and could fx be a sharp diplomatic letter. All the talk about this as an Musketeers Oath is just BS!

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Danish PM strikes defiant...»Reply #18