You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
42 points

Wouldn’t this invoke NATO against the UK and demand a lot of reparations?

permalink
report
reply
30 points
*

I assume you mean Article 5, and no, yes, maybe, but probably no.

Article 5’s requirement is that the members convene to discuss a response to an attack, not an obligation to attack.

Furthermore, this sounds more like an even dumber dumb Watergate, but with arguably, a moral justification i.e. covert burglary, maybe even armed robbery, for vaccines contracted to the UK.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Article 42.7 of the EU Charta would also apply and is a bit more direct:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sede/dv/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_en.pdf

permalink
report
parent
reply

It is not armed robbery when the military is sent to another country. war is ultimately always about ressources, so you could argue every war to just be an armed robbery gone wrong.

If someone sends their military to another coubtry without this countries explicit consent it is an act of war.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

You can semantically argue anything you want, but ultimately I can’t imagine any scenario where this would have been an actual war, or even resembling one.

If the goal was to seize assets contained within a one, or just several buildings, the most likely way this would have played out would have been covert foreign intelligence teams, not an SAS commando raid with a bodycount.

Would it have been incredibly dumb, and probably end up with the intelligence officers/assets arrested? Sure.

Would it have been anything like a HVT snatch and grab in Afghanistan? No. Just no.

Like I said, an even dumber, dumb Watergate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yes I meant article 5 but did not remember the number 🙈🙈. Thanks!

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Article 5 has been invoked once, the US invoked it during 9/11. They asked for some extra air reconnaissance around the middle east, and basically to have allies be ready for joint action that never materialized. Article 5 is not an immediate declaration of war or anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

Thats the same question as with Greece and Turkey.

But in the end the entire EU would stand against them for shure. And USA would either not interfere or be on EUs side.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Not much of a question. If a NATO country attacks another NATO country then the attacked country still has the right to invoke article 5.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Nah, not if the UK calls it the Leiden Invasion Act /s

permalink
report
parent
reply

they called it “special operation”

permalink
report
parent
reply

Europe

!europe@feddit.de

Create post

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 2.9K

    Posts

  • 30K

    Comments

Community moderators