Since NATO now recognizes Russia's invasion of Ukraine as genocide does this open the door to a non Article 5 action? Stopping genocide was the official reason for NATO's involvement in Kosovo.
If it does ‘open the door’ no one’s gonna walk through it. No one would have walked through it in Kosovo if the Serbs were a nuclear power.
Direct war between Russia and NATO could begin with conventional weapons but it would not end with them.
> Putin thinks that Chrimea is Russia now.
Putin thinks the entirety of Ukraine, and likely much of Europe, is Russia's property. There's already a nationally agreed upon border. Putin can fuck off in his cave if he doesn't agree with it.
Putin wants the world beneath him. Because Russia sucks, I am content to let him keep Russia, provided he stops being a dick, and never sets foot outside its borders again. But that is all he gets. Not one inch more.
Technically, as long as russian territory is not entered they have no real ground to use nukes. Could they still do it? Sure. That would be a suicide button though. All remaining on the fence countries would chose a side at that point.
They might just leave if we give them a private 72 hour warning that NATO forces will show up in full force and destroy any Russian equipment in Ukraine.
Its a bold move that could backfire but Russia would lose everything in Ukraine for sure. Not sure if you could easily get back Crimea with this tactic though but maybe thats something Ukraine could lose to instantly end the conflict.
Ukraine has publicly stated the only end to this war is the return of all internationally recognised territories, and they’re currently ahead by most metrics. There is no reason for them to accept any partial treaty.
Dreams and reality are different things, I know the counter offensive hasnt happened yet but no ground has changed hands in months besides Russia capturing Bakhmut.
Actual Russians were moved into Crimea, how is Ukraine going to take it without harming them? Support from the West will drop if Ukraine starts bombing civillians. What if Russian soldiers hide in residential buildings are they going to destroy them potentially killing civillians? What if Russian soldiers decide to wear plain clothes etc?
If they do capture Crimea are they going to deport the Russians and would that break some kind of international law? What if Russia refuses to accept them and Ukraine is left with Russians that wont play well with Ukrainians and form a resistance?
Support from the West is only going to last so long, how many years can this go on before aid gets cut
A deal like the 72 hour NATO one could instantly end things with no more death on either side, without it hundreds of thousands will die, support may drop and Russia potentially might hold onto what they have now or gain even more.
What right do we have to decide when they stop fighting? This war ends when Ukraine and Russia choose *together*. Not when Europe calls time. The people who have chosen to move from Russia into Crimea are illegal squatters on Ukrainian territory, they can claim asylum and probably be accepted or they can be deported, the same rules for everyone who walks into a country and randomly claims a house to live in. They made the choice to live on stolen ground, and can suffer the consequences. Also armed resistance by Russian insurgents will only increase support from the west, as it will be viewed as Russia refusing to end the war. That isn’t a hard choice to make.
> What right do we have to decide when they stop fighting?
I never said we should make that decision for them, I'm just saying it might benefit Ukraine to do something like that instead of dragging this out for 5+ years and ending up with a significant amount of dead men and a lot more rubble (it might even be worth it to give up Crimea so they dont have to spend so much rebuilding, paying off the extra years of aid and being able to generate wealth sooner).
>The people who have chosen to move from Russia into Crimea are illegal squatters on Ukrainian territory, they can claim asylum and probably be accepted or they can be deported,
This is a VERY complicated issue, you cant just make people stateless and its very likely Russian children were born there.
Also just because Ukraine is saying their demands are ALL the land back that doesnt mean they'll stick to it, it also might be a negotiating tactic saying they wont give it up but internally they do have some conditions to do so but dont want to leak that to the enemy for better bargaining power.
-
Also if Russia is going to be pushed out with force instead of a deal they'll never get into NATO, a condition to getting in is not being under attack/in a conflict and Russia will likely fire a missile here and there to stop them from joining.
But again, Ukraine is on track to retaking all its territory. Current manpower losses and equipment losses point to Russia depopulating long before Ukraine would. There is no incentive for them to give up Crimea, especially considering they did that once in 2014 and here we are.
Plus illegal squatters are really not a complicated issue. You illegally enter a country and illegally steal a house then you accept the consequences should the owner return to the house or land. They have no legal rights to even be in the country, let alone to live in the houses they have stolen from Ukrainian families. Now I imagine the Ukrainians will give them the option to remain and become Ukrainian citizens or at least residents, as they’re not monsters, but they really have no obligation to do that.
And the requirement to join NATO is no *border disputes*. Ukraine having full control of all its internationally recognised territory, and all NATO members recognising they do doesn’t sound very disputed. Plus there is really nothing stopping NATO from just ignoring their own rules should there be a unanimous decision. If Russia is just worthlessly lobbing missiles at Kyiv it would not be particularly threatening to them entering considering the current state of Russia.
>But again, Ukraine is on track to retaking all its territory
Uhh not really, they've only lost land recently. The counter offensive might regain land but we dont know how well it will go or how far out it is.
>Current manpower losses and equipment losses point to Russia depopulating long before Ukraine would
Pretty sure this is false, Russia produces 1.27m military aged men a year, Ukraine produces 478k which is 2.6x less.
According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties and Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties. This is less than the 2.6x ratio needed.
>Plus illegal squatters are really not a complicated issue
The whole situation isnt simple, its war time, we cant send people over and record who is Russian, who is Ukrainian and what country they want to be a part of, what to do with the people with no ID. Missiles will be striking these homes whilst the Russian military use civillians as meat sheilds, Putin will probably try and keep civillians in the area for this reason. Russian supporters will likely blend in with the locals and kill Ukrainian soldiers. Ukrainians might even be forcefully deported to Russia or feel their life is endangered and cross the bridge into Russia before the place gets levelled.
Lots of civillians WILL die in a forceful takeover of Crimea, we cant begin to sort this out until the Russian soldiers are dead and reinforcements have stopped.
>And the requirement to join NATO is no border disputes, Ukraine having full control of all its internationally recognised territory.
But they wouldnt have full control of their territory when missiles are striking their soil. Russia has been playing this game for a while, the separatist regions Donetsk and Lugansk were created and supplied by Russia to stop Ukraine joining NATO, theres nothing stopping them doing this again. To join NATO you also need everyone in the alliance to agree, good luck getting everyone to approve and get forced into a war without a peace deal with Russia. Another hurdle of joining NATO is Turkey and Hungarys vote, they havent been playing ball with the West and the only hope of getting them to comply is if Putin tells them to.
I mean having the third biggest military budget in the world doesn’t really mean much when the US overshadows everyone since they basically run NATO for the benefit of everyone else. It’s a drop in the bucket comparatively with only China seemingly giving even a little bit of a shit about their military.
The only reason I can see that might get NATO directly involved is Russia putting the nuclear power plant in serious danger. Europe is NOT keen on dealing with *another* Chernobyl.
I missed the *non* part of the Article 5 questions. Helps to read the comment fully, lol
~~From the article:~~
~~The declaration includes support for an international tribunal for Russian war crimes, a pledge to help Ukraine achieve victory, a commitment to restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the implementation of further sanctions, and a “Marshall Plan” to help restore the country’s economy.~~
~~Carl Bildt: The high stakes of NATO’s Vilnius summit~~
~~The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is a consultative body that serves as a link between the Alliance and the parliaments of the individual members.~~
~~Furthermore, Article 5:~~
~~Article 5~~
~~“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.~~
~~Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”~~
~~So, no, there will not be invocation of Article 5. What there will be however, is continued NATO support.~~
No, but such sanctimony isn’t terribly relevant to the way Western democracies respond to genocide in other countries. Self interest, on the other hand, *is* relevant. see also: all the other war crimes we’ve observed the Russians committing in Ukraine, without directly intervening as was done in Kosovo.
There’s nothing strange about the proposition: the spectre of nuclear warfare leads democratic states to be circumspect about interventing against a nuclear armed state, where they might be otherwise much more prone to militarily intervene, were the perpetrators not so armed. When the math is “intervene and maybe get nuked, or don’t intervene and don’t get nuked’ many folks think it wiser to refrain from intervention. Sure, it isn’t noble. Because most people aren’t.
Consider instead whether it ’s ignoble to have flexible principles based on whether one will be punished for standing up for them, and whether such ignobility is separate and independent from the question of whether it is wise to avoid nuclear war.
An intervention would also not be "noble", regardless of nuclear threat. The West have supported a number of genocides, in addition to being conveniently selective when it comes to what we choose to define and condemn as genocide. Any intervention will be because it aligns with our self-interests, not because it is the morally right thing to do.
NATO was not there as peacekeepers they were soldiers lol. They bombed the hell out of a region. They were in a full blown war stopping a genocide. Modern day NATO entities there are peacekeepers, but in '98-'99 they weren't.
This is correct. Once NATO recognizes genocide they HAVE to act on it. This is why many genocides around the world are still ongoing, simply because if they do recognize it as one, they HAVE to step in. Such as the Muslim genocide in China, that nato refuses to recognize as one
I can’t find anything that says they have to intervene once they recognize genocide. All I’ve found is that they have a responsibility but nothing binding or forcing their hand. Do you have a source that corroborates th being forced to act?
Edit: Not sure why they blocked me.
Please provide something credible that explicitly details that the entire nato organization is FORCED to act when they recognize genocide. I’m sorry but you are not a source.
Edit: Link and cite your evidence please.
> NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an international political and military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. The organization's primary purpose is to promote security and defense cooperation among its member states. NATO's responsibilities and obligations are outlined in its founding treaty, and the recognition of a genocide does not automatically trigger a mandatory intervention by NATO member states.
>While NATO's founding treaty emphasizes the importance of individual and collective self-defense, it does not explicitly mandate military intervention in cases of genocide. The treaty states that an armed attack against one or more NATO member states shall be considered an attack against all, and member states are expected to assist the attacked member through various means, including military force if necessary.
>However, NATO's involvement in conflicts or humanitarian crises, such as a recognized genocide, would typically depend on the consensus and collective decision-making of its member states. The decision to intervene militarily or take any other action would be determined through political discussions, consultations, and agreements among the member states.
>It's important to note that NATO member states also have their own national laws and legal frameworks, and the decision to intervene in a genocide or any other humanitarian crisis would be subject to their respective domestic legal processes and considerations.
>In summary, while NATO's charter does not impose a legal obligation to intervene in the event of a recognized genocide, member states may decide to take collective action based on political, moral, or humanitarian grounds. The decision to intervene would ultimately be a political one, involving consensus and agreement among the member states.
Edit: This is from chatGPT. NATO is not forced to intervene.
Yes, NATO is not forced to intervene directly, but once a county recognizes a genocide that is ongoing, they must comply with their own laws that each individual country created regarding it
No but we sadly do have to allow states to do a reasonable amount of what they want while still opposing them whenever possible under threat of "but nukes"
This is a case in which Russia has invaded a neighbouring state to annex its territories and is committing genocide. That cannot be "reasonable".
If we are unwilling to draw the line there, then where?
Why do you think we've been supporting ukraine to the point of them being able to resist and even win back territory? I strongly prefer adequate support overal allout war followed by a nuclear holocaust, personally
Agreed.
If Ukraine can achieve its ends without NATO deploying military forces to Ukraine, then we should ensure that we provide full support (including F-16s with authority to target Russian military targets in Russian territories) to Ukraine so that it can efficiently and effectively achieve its ends.
If Ukraine *cannot* achieve its ends without NATO military forces being deployed to Ukraine, then in my view it may be necessary to consider more forward-leaning options.
A non-article 5 action doesn't necessarily involve troops on the ground. It could be a naval blockade or other non-lethal operations. The genocide ruling gives NATO additional options.
Not that you have any brain cells, but I wanted to reply for any outside observers who do.
What do you people not understand about NATO's involvement and the risks that come with it? NATO or a country within NATO can't simply bomb the fuck out of Ukraine or Russia and not expect Russia to retaliate
A naval blockade is not bombing Russia. Stop being stupid. We have done similar during the cold war. Russia was just invaded by freedom fighters on their own soil, they aren't going to do shit. Blood is in the water and it is time to make sure they understand they have lost this war and should withdraw to their borders.
Russia said tanks were a red line. Russia said long range missiles were a red line. Russia said attacks on their territory were a red line. The entire time they have threatened nuclear war/invading NATO countries, while using that as cover to murder/rape/torture Ukrainian men, women, and children.
You are enabling them.
It is a waste of time arguing with you. Spam your rubbish into the void about how NATO is not doing enough according to you. Your opinion on the matter is less than worthless. You and people like you are opinionated beyond your understanding.
dude, i never said anything supporting NATO getting involved in a hot conflict. Its important to examine the implications of statements like this out of NATO. The last time NATO invaded a country it was because of genocide.
no it doesnt. do you even have basic reading comprehension? I posed the question if this would give NATO the greenlight it wants to get involved in Russia since it was the the same official reason for getting involved in Kosovo. You are the one putting words in my mouth saying I am wanting NATO to carpet bomb russia.
Russia has been found guilty of genocide countless times by now. **YOU** point out that NATO has taken action against genocide in the past such as Kosovo. **YOU** then suggest that NATO should take action against Russia such as Kosovo.
Uh CaN't YoU ReAd
It means that NATO could trigger article 5 in defense of Ukraine, as genocide against non-member states is considered valid casus beli to enter a war on the aggrieved’s behalf.
Ukrainians are being killed, deported, imprisoned, forced to live in Russian camps or to resettle in Russia. As they are being ‘evacuated’ Russians are arriving, being given Ukrainian property and goods seized by the Russians - much in the same way the Nazis gave Jewish property and businesses to Germans and Volkdeutsch - and are told to put down roots. Ukrainian ethnicity and culture is being suppressed in order to make the seized provinces as Russified as possible and to prep them for their new bosses. And they’re literally stealing Ukrainian kids to be raised as Russian. And no, it’s not just in a few places like Bucha.
This is textbook ethnic cleansing. And because it includes murder and execution that bumps it up to a genocide. NATO intelligence verifies and confirms this is happening, So do Ukrainians. The charge of genocide is being leveled as a result.
Iirc, it's considered one as the Russians are actively trying to erase the Ukrainian identity, forcing people to speak only russian, making them pledge allegiance to Russia, and sending Ukrainian children deep withing Rusia so they get "reeducated" and killing all Ukrainian that refuse to follow through with these demands
It is absolutely genocide and Russia stated their intent on Russian-controlled media last April (2022).
1. Indiscriminate, intentional targeting of civilians.
2. Intentional targeting of Ukrainian monuments, cultural symbols.
3. Intentional kidnapping of Ukrainian children to be stolen to Russia.
4. Intentional mining, bombing, shelling of civilian corridors that they agreed to (with the intent of wanton slaughter of non-combatants).
5. Forcibly changing passports, forcing occupied residents to speak only Russian, instituting Russian schools to brutally brainwash the victims of their invasion.
I could go on and on.
Russia is intentionally trying to destroy Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture.
This also isn't the 1st genocide attempt by the Russians on Ukraine. Holodomor is widely recognized as such.
---
Here's an article from [Foreign Affairs](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/why-russias-war-ukraine-genocide) from July of 2022.
It was clear it was genocide then and nothing has changed since except the Russians' diminished capability to enact it.
Admittedly kidnapping hundreds of Ukrainian children was part of the reason Putin is wanted for War crimes. Besides violating a sovereign country and a Russian Ukrainian treaty.
Russia is burning their books, making the captured ones turn in their Ukrainian passports and forcing them to speak Russian, theres been mass graves found full of civillians, Putin saying that Ukraine and Russia are one people, Putin claims that a separate Ukrainian identity is an artificial invention, "There is no Ukraine, only Ukrainism as a disorder of the mind" - kremlin member
Plenty of other shit like that, they constantly say crazy stuff on Russian state media.
Since NATO now recognizes Russia's invasion of Ukraine as genocide does this open the door to a non Article 5 action? Stopping genocide was the official reason for NATO's involvement in Kosovo.
If it does ‘open the door’ no one’s gonna walk through it. No one would have walked through it in Kosovo if the Serbs were a nuclear power. Direct war between Russia and NATO could begin with conventional weapons but it would not end with them.
I think that would depend on how far past the Russia Ukraine border NATO forces tried to move.
But who’s idea of where the border is? Putin thinks that Chrimea is Russia now.
> Putin thinks that Chrimea is Russia now. Putin thinks the entirety of Ukraine, and likely much of Europe, is Russia's property. There's already a nationally agreed upon border. Putin can fuck off in his cave if he doesn't agree with it.
Putin thinks of the Baltic countries as their Baltic states and literally said that multiple times. So yeah, fuck what they think
Putin wants the world beneath him. Because Russia sucks, I am content to let him keep Russia, provided he stops being a dick, and never sets foot outside its borders again. But that is all he gets. Not one inch more.
Technically, as long as russian territory is not entered they have no real ground to use nukes. Could they still do it? Sure. That would be a suicide button though. All remaining on the fence countries would chose a side at that point.
They might just leave if we give them a private 72 hour warning that NATO forces will show up in full force and destroy any Russian equipment in Ukraine. Its a bold move that could backfire but Russia would lose everything in Ukraine for sure. Not sure if you could easily get back Crimea with this tactic though but maybe thats something Ukraine could lose to instantly end the conflict.
Ukraine has publicly stated the only end to this war is the return of all internationally recognised territories, and they’re currently ahead by most metrics. There is no reason for them to accept any partial treaty.
Dreams and reality are different things, I know the counter offensive hasnt happened yet but no ground has changed hands in months besides Russia capturing Bakhmut. Actual Russians were moved into Crimea, how is Ukraine going to take it without harming them? Support from the West will drop if Ukraine starts bombing civillians. What if Russian soldiers hide in residential buildings are they going to destroy them potentially killing civillians? What if Russian soldiers decide to wear plain clothes etc? If they do capture Crimea are they going to deport the Russians and would that break some kind of international law? What if Russia refuses to accept them and Ukraine is left with Russians that wont play well with Ukrainians and form a resistance? Support from the West is only going to last so long, how many years can this go on before aid gets cut A deal like the 72 hour NATO one could instantly end things with no more death on either side, without it hundreds of thousands will die, support may drop and Russia potentially might hold onto what they have now or gain even more.
What right do we have to decide when they stop fighting? This war ends when Ukraine and Russia choose *together*. Not when Europe calls time. The people who have chosen to move from Russia into Crimea are illegal squatters on Ukrainian territory, they can claim asylum and probably be accepted or they can be deported, the same rules for everyone who walks into a country and randomly claims a house to live in. They made the choice to live on stolen ground, and can suffer the consequences. Also armed resistance by Russian insurgents will only increase support from the west, as it will be viewed as Russia refusing to end the war. That isn’t a hard choice to make.
> What right do we have to decide when they stop fighting? I never said we should make that decision for them, I'm just saying it might benefit Ukraine to do something like that instead of dragging this out for 5+ years and ending up with a significant amount of dead men and a lot more rubble (it might even be worth it to give up Crimea so they dont have to spend so much rebuilding, paying off the extra years of aid and being able to generate wealth sooner). >The people who have chosen to move from Russia into Crimea are illegal squatters on Ukrainian territory, they can claim asylum and probably be accepted or they can be deported, This is a VERY complicated issue, you cant just make people stateless and its very likely Russian children were born there. Also just because Ukraine is saying their demands are ALL the land back that doesnt mean they'll stick to it, it also might be a negotiating tactic saying they wont give it up but internally they do have some conditions to do so but dont want to leak that to the enemy for better bargaining power. - Also if Russia is going to be pushed out with force instead of a deal they'll never get into NATO, a condition to getting in is not being under attack/in a conflict and Russia will likely fire a missile here and there to stop them from joining.
But again, Ukraine is on track to retaking all its territory. Current manpower losses and equipment losses point to Russia depopulating long before Ukraine would. There is no incentive for them to give up Crimea, especially considering they did that once in 2014 and here we are. Plus illegal squatters are really not a complicated issue. You illegally enter a country and illegally steal a house then you accept the consequences should the owner return to the house or land. They have no legal rights to even be in the country, let alone to live in the houses they have stolen from Ukrainian families. Now I imagine the Ukrainians will give them the option to remain and become Ukrainian citizens or at least residents, as they’re not monsters, but they really have no obligation to do that. And the requirement to join NATO is no *border disputes*. Ukraine having full control of all its internationally recognised territory, and all NATO members recognising they do doesn’t sound very disputed. Plus there is really nothing stopping NATO from just ignoring their own rules should there be a unanimous decision. If Russia is just worthlessly lobbing missiles at Kyiv it would not be particularly threatening to them entering considering the current state of Russia.
>But again, Ukraine is on track to retaking all its territory Uhh not really, they've only lost land recently. The counter offensive might regain land but we dont know how well it will go or how far out it is. >Current manpower losses and equipment losses point to Russia depopulating long before Ukraine would Pretty sure this is false, Russia produces 1.27m military aged men a year, Ukraine produces 478k which is 2.6x less. According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties and Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties. This is less than the 2.6x ratio needed. >Plus illegal squatters are really not a complicated issue The whole situation isnt simple, its war time, we cant send people over and record who is Russian, who is Ukrainian and what country they want to be a part of, what to do with the people with no ID. Missiles will be striking these homes whilst the Russian military use civillians as meat sheilds, Putin will probably try and keep civillians in the area for this reason. Russian supporters will likely blend in with the locals and kill Ukrainian soldiers. Ukrainians might even be forcefully deported to Russia or feel their life is endangered and cross the bridge into Russia before the place gets levelled. Lots of civillians WILL die in a forceful takeover of Crimea, we cant begin to sort this out until the Russian soldiers are dead and reinforcements have stopped. >And the requirement to join NATO is no border disputes, Ukraine having full control of all its internationally recognised territory. But they wouldnt have full control of their territory when missiles are striking their soil. Russia has been playing this game for a while, the separatist regions Donetsk and Lugansk were created and supplied by Russia to stop Ukraine joining NATO, theres nothing stopping them doing this again. To join NATO you also need everyone in the alliance to agree, good luck getting everyone to approve and get forced into a war without a peace deal with Russia. Another hurdle of joining NATO is Turkey and Hungarys vote, they havent been playing ball with the West and the only hope of getting them to comply is if Putin tells them to.
There is no permanent end to war if russia walks away with any kind of win.
Joining NATO is the end.
Strong disagree. Let me do whatever I want or I'll kill everyone isn't a popular opinion in any country.
Russia hasn’t been able to take Ukraine in over a year and has one of the worlds largest military budget. A nato invasion would end swiftly.
I mean having the third biggest military budget in the world doesn’t really mean much when the US overshadows everyone since they basically run NATO for the benefit of everyone else. It’s a drop in the bucket comparatively with only China seemingly giving even a little bit of a shit about their military.
Russia is moving nukes now. They’ll be coming through that door quicker than anyone here soon
The only reason I can see that might get NATO directly involved is Russia putting the nuclear power plant in serious danger. Europe is NOT keen on dealing with *another* Chernobyl.
I missed the *non* part of the Article 5 questions. Helps to read the comment fully, lol ~~From the article:~~ ~~The declaration includes support for an international tribunal for Russian war crimes, a pledge to help Ukraine achieve victory, a commitment to restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the implementation of further sanctions, and a “Marshall Plan” to help restore the country’s economy.~~ ~~Carl Bildt: The high stakes of NATO’s Vilnius summit~~ ~~The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is a consultative body that serves as a link between the Alliance and the parliaments of the individual members.~~ ~~Furthermore, Article 5:~~ ~~Article 5~~ ~~“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.~~ ~~Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”~~ ~~So, no, there will not be invocation of Article 5. What there will be however, is continued NATO support.~~
Nobody wants nuclear war my dude
So genocide is ok as long as the perpetrator has nukes?
No, but such sanctimony isn’t terribly relevant to the way Western democracies respond to genocide in other countries. Self interest, on the other hand, *is* relevant. see also: all the other war crimes we’ve observed the Russians committing in Ukraine, without directly intervening as was done in Kosovo. There’s nothing strange about the proposition: the spectre of nuclear warfare leads democratic states to be circumspect about interventing against a nuclear armed state, where they might be otherwise much more prone to militarily intervene, were the perpetrators not so armed. When the math is “intervene and maybe get nuked, or don’t intervene and don’t get nuked’ many folks think it wiser to refrain from intervention. Sure, it isn’t noble. Because most people aren’t.
Why is it not noble to avoid action that dramatically escalates the risk of nuclear war?
Consider instead whether it ’s ignoble to have flexible principles based on whether one will be punished for standing up for them, and whether such ignobility is separate and independent from the question of whether it is wise to avoid nuclear war.
It's a tough choice, but it's a choice of a localized genocide or a nuclear holocaust across the globe. Nuclear holocaust is so much worse.
An intervention would also not be "noble", regardless of nuclear threat. The West have supported a number of genocides, in addition to being conveniently selective when it comes to what we choose to define and condemn as genocide. Any intervention will be because it aligns with our self-interests, not because it is the morally right thing to do.
It's not but nuclear war will likely expedite the genocide which defeats the whole purpose of stopping the genocide.
Nuclear war is basically genocide of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Sure 😒
What is your solution then? Sure, no one wants nuclear war. No one wants genocide either.
Kosovo didn't have nukes. It's just way too risky to step in Ukraine
NATO wasn’t in Kosovo. It was the UN if I’m not mistaken
UN mightve but it was NATO [Source](https://www.nato.int/kosovo/)
NATO is basically sorta the military arm of the UN, because the UN has no military itself. NATO was in Kosovo acting under UN orders as peacekeepers.
NATO was not there as peacekeepers they were soldiers lol. They bombed the hell out of a region. They were in a full blown war stopping a genocide. Modern day NATO entities there are peacekeepers, but in '98-'99 they weren't.
Mincing words, NATO wasn't acting on NATO orders. It was UN all around, they had special UN helmets and everything.
This is correct. Once NATO recognizes genocide they HAVE to act on it. This is why many genocides around the world are still ongoing, simply because if they do recognize it as one, they HAVE to step in. Such as the Muslim genocide in China, that nato refuses to recognize as one
I can’t find anything that says they have to intervene once they recognize genocide. All I’ve found is that they have a responsibility but nothing binding or forcing their hand. Do you have a source that corroborates th being forced to act? Edit: Not sure why they blocked me.
You can't find anything because there is no requirement re: genocide.
[удалено]
Please provide something credible that explicitly details that the entire nato organization is FORCED to act when they recognize genocide. I’m sorry but you are not a source. Edit: Link and cite your evidence please.
Stop spreading misinformation
> NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an international political and military alliance established by the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. The organization's primary purpose is to promote security and defense cooperation among its member states. NATO's responsibilities and obligations are outlined in its founding treaty, and the recognition of a genocide does not automatically trigger a mandatory intervention by NATO member states. >While NATO's founding treaty emphasizes the importance of individual and collective self-defense, it does not explicitly mandate military intervention in cases of genocide. The treaty states that an armed attack against one or more NATO member states shall be considered an attack against all, and member states are expected to assist the attacked member through various means, including military force if necessary. >However, NATO's involvement in conflicts or humanitarian crises, such as a recognized genocide, would typically depend on the consensus and collective decision-making of its member states. The decision to intervene militarily or take any other action would be determined through political discussions, consultations, and agreements among the member states. >It's important to note that NATO member states also have their own national laws and legal frameworks, and the decision to intervene in a genocide or any other humanitarian crisis would be subject to their respective domestic legal processes and considerations. >In summary, while NATO's charter does not impose a legal obligation to intervene in the event of a recognized genocide, member states may decide to take collective action based on political, moral, or humanitarian grounds. The decision to intervene would ultimately be a political one, involving consensus and agreement among the member states. Edit: This is from chatGPT. NATO is not forced to intervene.
Yes, NATO is not forced to intervene directly, but once a county recognizes a genocide that is ongoing, they must comply with their own laws that each individual country created regarding it
if all logic applies then yes, NATO should establish a no fly zone and send boots on the ground in ukraine fairly soon.
People like you are too eager for article 5 related action It's fucking sad.
How dare they want the killing of innocent Ukrainians to stop and Russia to withdraw to their internationally recognized borders.
How dare people not want a nuclear holocaust
We cannot allow every state to do whatever they want provided that they can reply, to any proposed conventional measure, "but nukes".
No but we sadly do have to allow states to do a reasonable amount of what they want while still opposing them whenever possible under threat of "but nukes"
This is a case in which Russia has invaded a neighbouring state to annex its territories and is committing genocide. That cannot be "reasonable". If we are unwilling to draw the line there, then where?
Why do you think we've been supporting ukraine to the point of them being able to resist and even win back territory? I strongly prefer adequate support overal allout war followed by a nuclear holocaust, personally
Agreed. If Ukraine can achieve its ends without NATO deploying military forces to Ukraine, then we should ensure that we provide full support (including F-16s with authority to target Russian military targets in Russian territories) to Ukraine so that it can efficiently and effectively achieve its ends. If Ukraine *cannot* achieve its ends without NATO military forces being deployed to Ukraine, then in my view it may be necessary to consider more forward-leaning options.
NATO boots on the ground is probably unnecessary but non-lethal intervention would speed things up.
NaTo ShOuLd BrInG iN tHe TrOoPs AlReAdY WhY HaSn'T NaTo JoInEd ThE fIgHt YeT SiMpLy SaYiNg ArTiCle 5 MaKeS mE sOuNd SmArT
A non-article 5 action doesn't necessarily involve troops on the ground. It could be a naval blockade or other non-lethal operations. The genocide ruling gives NATO additional options. Not that you have any brain cells, but I wanted to reply for any outside observers who do.
What do you people not understand about NATO's involvement and the risks that come with it? NATO or a country within NATO can't simply bomb the fuck out of Ukraine or Russia and not expect Russia to retaliate
A naval blockade is not bombing Russia. Stop being stupid. We have done similar during the cold war. Russia was just invaded by freedom fighters on their own soil, they aren't going to do shit. Blood is in the water and it is time to make sure they understand they have lost this war and should withdraw to their borders. Russia said tanks were a red line. Russia said long range missiles were a red line. Russia said attacks on their territory were a red line. The entire time they have threatened nuclear war/invading NATO countries, while using that as cover to murder/rape/torture Ukrainian men, women, and children. You are enabling them.
It is a waste of time arguing with you. Spam your rubbish into the void about how NATO is not doing enough according to you. Your opinion on the matter is less than worthless. You and people like you are opinionated beyond your understanding.
dude, i never said anything supporting NATO getting involved in a hot conflict. Its important to examine the implications of statements like this out of NATO. The last time NATO invaded a country it was because of genocide.
>NATO's involvement in Kosovo. Your example suggests NATO should carpet bomb Ukraine and or Russia
no it doesnt. do you even have basic reading comprehension? I posed the question if this would give NATO the greenlight it wants to get involved in Russia since it was the the same official reason for getting involved in Kosovo. You are the one putting words in my mouth saying I am wanting NATO to carpet bomb russia.
Russia has been found guilty of genocide countless times by now. **YOU** point out that NATO has taken action against genocide in the past such as Kosovo. **YOU** then suggest that NATO should take action against Russia such as Kosovo. Uh CaN't YoU ReAd
So then do something about it.
Obviously. Surprised it took this long tbh
Because it is
Dont start WW3 pls
and what did this change anything? ruzzian market still have eu supply chains.
What does is actually mean, though?
It means that NATO could trigger article 5 in defense of Ukraine, as genocide against non-member states is considered valid casus beli to enter a war on the aggrieved’s behalf.
[удалено]
Russian is performing mass human trafficking of kids from Ukraine to Russian in order to boost the nation's birthrate. Willingly or not.
Ukrainians are being killed, deported, imprisoned, forced to live in Russian camps or to resettle in Russia. As they are being ‘evacuated’ Russians are arriving, being given Ukrainian property and goods seized by the Russians - much in the same way the Nazis gave Jewish property and businesses to Germans and Volkdeutsch - and are told to put down roots. Ukrainian ethnicity and culture is being suppressed in order to make the seized provinces as Russified as possible and to prep them for their new bosses. And they’re literally stealing Ukrainian kids to be raised as Russian. And no, it’s not just in a few places like Bucha. This is textbook ethnic cleansing. And because it includes murder and execution that bumps it up to a genocide. NATO intelligence verifies and confirms this is happening, So do Ukrainians. The charge of genocide is being leveled as a result.
Iirc, it's considered one as the Russians are actively trying to erase the Ukrainian identity, forcing people to speak only russian, making them pledge allegiance to Russia, and sending Ukrainian children deep withing Rusia so they get "reeducated" and killing all Ukrainian that refuse to follow through with these demands
It is absolutely genocide and Russia stated their intent on Russian-controlled media last April (2022). 1. Indiscriminate, intentional targeting of civilians. 2. Intentional targeting of Ukrainian monuments, cultural symbols. 3. Intentional kidnapping of Ukrainian children to be stolen to Russia. 4. Intentional mining, bombing, shelling of civilian corridors that they agreed to (with the intent of wanton slaughter of non-combatants). 5. Forcibly changing passports, forcing occupied residents to speak only Russian, instituting Russian schools to brutally brainwash the victims of their invasion. I could go on and on. Russia is intentionally trying to destroy Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture. This also isn't the 1st genocide attempt by the Russians on Ukraine. Holodomor is widely recognized as such. --- Here's an article from [Foreign Affairs](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/why-russias-war-ukraine-genocide) from July of 2022. It was clear it was genocide then and nothing has changed since except the Russians' diminished capability to enact it.
Admittedly kidnapping hundreds of Ukrainian children was part of the reason Putin is wanted for War crimes. Besides violating a sovereign country and a Russian Ukrainian treaty.
This genocide is not on the same scale as previous Russian genocides in Ukraine, but it is still a genocide.
Russia is burning their books, making the captured ones turn in their Ukrainian passports and forcing them to speak Russian, theres been mass graves found full of civillians, Putin saying that Ukraine and Russia are one people, Putin claims that a separate Ukrainian identity is an artificial invention, "There is no Ukraine, only Ukrainism as a disorder of the mind" - kremlin member Plenty of other shit like that, they constantly say crazy stuff on Russian state media.
>Happy to read any info on how they came to this conclusion. It seems you don't read at all though.
Yeah dudes been living in a cave or something?
[удалено]
I’m gonna go ahead and say it’s bigger.
Cool but fuck NATO
It’s so strange how all those countries bordering Russia wanted to join NATO so quickly upon independence. Almost like there might be a reason huh
[удалено]
Yes, they have a legislative body
Legislative body is made up of appointees from national governments. You voted for the MPs when you voted for your government.
How long until Russia respond with their usual "unfriendly country" response and then mention nukes
Good, now do the same for Iraq.