NATO Article 3 and 5 -Does the Treaty need to be updated? Mandatory minimum spending?

NATO Article 3 and 5
Does the Treaty need to be updated?
Mandatory minimum spending?

Article 5.- Nations are not required to provide Military aid in the event of an attack upon another member country.
“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”.

How can this be addressed, where member countries blood and treasure is on the line?

NATO- Better coordination on terror cells -orgs in other countries, including all NATO countries placing limited forces available to combat these cells/orgs. Command structure does not always need to be US led.

US has troops deployed in approx. 135 countries- I use approx. as some numbers from various sites differed slightly.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a...ployed-to-70-percent-of-the-worlds-countries/


https://www.brookings.edu/research/natos-growing-role-in-the-greater-middle-east/

NATO will not become a security alliance for the Middle East – as it was for Western Europe – with US and European bases scattered throughout the region. Nonetheless, despite all the differences among NATO members and the obstacles to a NATO role in the Middle East region, the fact remains that the United States and Europe will continue to have significant common security interests there, and NATO remains the best mechanism for coordinating their policies and operations. Those who have for years predicted NATO’s demise will, in all likelihood, continue to be confounded.

Click to expand...

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

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 recognised 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 .

Click to expand...

The Economist explains: How NATO's Article 5 works | The Economist

Article 5 says that the response may include armed force, but it does not mandate it. All that NATO actually promises is to take “such action as it deems necessary” to restore and maintain security. That could be anything from nuclear war to a stiff diplomatic protest. Three tricky considerations would determine the precise nature of any NATO response to foreign aggression. The first is geography: in places where an aggressor can quickly complete and consolidate an invasion, NATO's options are very limited. The Baltics, for instance, occupy a thin flat strip of land which is all but indefensible. A Russian surprise attack could reach the coast within hours, and reversing a successful Russian invasion would be hard, even futile. Yet that was also true of West Berlin. The Baltics argue that an attack on them would mean an all-out East-West confrontation thanks to Article 5. If Russia believes that, deterrence is working. But Article 5 does not specify such a response.

Click to expand...

Re: NATO Article 3 and 5 -Does the Treaty need to be updated? Mandatory minimum spend

JANFU said:

NATO Article 3 and 5
Does the Treaty need to be updated?
Mandatory minimum spending?

Article 5.- Nations are not required to provide Military aid in the event of an attack upon another member country.
“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”.

How can this be addressed, where member countries blood and treasure is on the line?

NATO- Better coordination on terror cells -orgs in other countries, including all NATO countries placing limited forces available to combat these cells/orgs. Command structure does not always need to be US led.

US has troops deployed in approx. 135 countries- I use approx. as some numbers from various sites differed slightly.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a...ployed-to-70-percent-of-the-worlds-countries/


https://www.brookings.edu/research/natos-growing-role-in-the-greater-middle-east/



http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm



The Economist explains: How NATO's Article 5 works | The Economist

Click to expand...

Yes. Nato should formulate a robust guarantee and much.more binding commitments. But the present obligations would actually be binding eniugh. But you are dealing with countries like Germany that has broken its binding treaty commitments under the Euro every year since being the first to break them directly after signing. They want to free ride and have established a culture with complex myths to justify the behavior.

This is how many of the countrîes act more or less. This has been a matter of contention as far back as Carter or even Nixon to an extent and in different ways. They aren't trustworthy.

Re: NATO Article 3 and 5 -Does the Treaty need to be updated? Mandatory minimum spend

JANFU said:

NATO Article 3 and 5
Does the Treaty need to be updated?
Mandatory minimum spending?

Article 5.- Nations are not required to provide Military aid in the event of an attack upon another member country.
“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”.

How can this be addressed, where member countries blood and treasure is on the line?

NATO- Better coordination on terror cells -orgs in other countries, including all NATO countries placing limited forces available to combat these cells/orgs. Command structure does not always need to be US led.

US has troops deployed in approx. 135 countries- I use approx. as some numbers from various sites differed slightly.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a...ployed-to-70-percent-of-the-worlds-countries/


https://www.brookings.edu/research/natos-growing-role-in-the-greater-middle-east/



NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949



The Economist explains: How NATO's Article 5 works | The Economist

Click to expand...

To define who "it" is Article 5 in the portion you reference, "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, ..." look to the most previous subject in the sentence, in this case the subject is defined as "the Party or Parties so attacked" meaning that the party or parties so attacked determine what action is necessary by the other members of NATO. Individual countries do not determine if they are going to send troops or something else, the country or countries attacked, that activate the protections and commitments of Article 5 make the determination as to what they need. Each country that is a signatory member to NATO agrees by their signature to the treaty to provide whatever another member country requests under an Article 5 situation.

The only time in the history of NATO that Article 5 has been utilized, was by the United States following the attacks of 9/11. The US made the determination as to what they needed to be supplied by other NATO member countries, not the other way around. Now, to be sure, there were negotiations that took place, but the US, by treaty, made the final call.

The Economist, which I like, happens to be incorrect here. The language of the article is clear. Look at it this way: Logically, if the other members had the ability to opt out of military assistance, why 1) would there be a reason to even have the NATO Treaty, and 2) why would the wording at the beginning make two definitive statements regarding commitment requirements of the members, those being a) "... an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all ..." as well as b) "... will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith ..." rather than making it ambiguous and voluntary from the beginning?

Re: NATO Article 3 and 5 -Does the Treaty need to be updated? Mandatory minimum spend

The whole defend other nation thing is why I hate NATO. Countries should defend their own borders.

Re: NATO Article 3 and 5 -Does the Treaty need to be updated? Mandatory minimum spend

joG said:

Yes. Nato should formulate a robust guarantee and much.more binding commitments. But the present obligations would actually be binding eniugh. But you are dealing with countries like Germany that has broken its binding treaty commitments under the Euro every year since being the first to break them directly after signing. They want to free ride and have established a culture with complex myths to justify the behavior.

This is how many of the countrîes act more or less. This has been a matter of contention as far back as Carter or even Nixon to an extent and in different ways. They aren't trustworthy.

Click to expand...

NATO countries have an out under Art 5. While it does cause sovereignty issues, an Alliance dictating that a member country must provide Military aid. It could be clarified that is what all countries as part of the alliance must do.
It is in everyones interest to have a robust NATO.

Countries must be given a reasonable timeline to increase to the 2 % min.

Baltic's - Berlin was a tripwire that would cause war, the Baltic's also should be seen as the same, an invasion whether in uniform or little green men will be met with force to maintain these countries freedoms.
I would suggest that Germany, France, Italy provide the majority of forces needed. US/Canadian military can deploy on a rotational basis.
A tripwire with substantial forces permanently deployed in these countries. I am not talking about a 100 thousand, but a significant number, well armed and capable of defensive operations.

Re: NATO Article 3 and 5 -Does the Treaty need to be updated? Mandatory minimum spend

JANFU said:

NATO Article 3 and 5
Does the Treaty need to be updated?
Mandatory minimum spending?

Article 5.- Nations are not required to provide Military aid in the event of an attack upon another member country.
“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”.

How can this be addressed, where member countries blood and treasure is on the line?

NATO- Better coordination on terror cells -orgs in other countries, including all NATO countries placing limited forces available to combat these cells/orgs. Command structure does not always need to be US led.

US has troops deployed in approx. 135 countries- I use approx. as some numbers from various sites differed slightly.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a...ployed-to-70-percent-of-the-worlds-countries/


https://www.brookings.edu/research/natos-growing-role-in-the-greater-middle-east/



NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949



The Economist explains: How NATO's Article 5 works | The Economist

Click to expand...

This is what President Trump was getting at a few months ago.