Should the UK Invoke Article 5 After Chemical Weapon Attack?

[Felya]

I don't understand why you answer "No". Yes, people escaping from Russia to another country have to get permission of that other country. Skroe wants to ban Russians from entering the US / the West / whatever. This hurts people trying to escape, like I said.

Because banning, would require permission regardless. Russians are already banned from just coming to US. You need a passport and then when time is up... actually leave. The request for asylum is completely different, but it subvers the existing rules for migration. Why don’t all the refugees, just come to US now?

We don’t have open borders...

[rda]

^^ I am not following (yes, the US don't have open borders, and what Skroe wants is misguided and harms people trying to escape from Russia instead of harming the criminal top who do all the horrible things - most of them are citizens of other countries already, Malta, etc), but I suggest we let it go.

[Skroe]

I read your posts on NATO protocols with interest, and I have to say they have been surprising. If what you say is correct, I am not sure why even participate in such an alliance, if at the moment you need help whether you get it or not depends on some other "consultations" despite you being a member. Why participate? Because a member is "more likely" to receive support than a non-member? With the measure of "more likely" being undefined???

I think you might have gotten something wrong, it all looks pretty stupid otherwise.

Because the destruction of Europe, which is what invocation of Article V would bring about, should not be done on a whim. It must be discussed.

Not to turn this into yet-another Russian/American nuclear discussion, but public-sector simulations and declassified research show that if the US struck first, it could eliminate the overwhelming majority of Russia's strategic arsenal before it left the ground. Out of 1550 warheads, maybe 40-70 would get off the ground. This is why Russia has long protested American missile defense, and American claims that our national missile defense is not a threat to Russia's deterrent is kind of a little white lie. It is not a protection against a Russian first strike of 1550 warheads, but against a Russian second strike of a few dozen? It might well be enough. In any event, if the US struck first, a nuclear exchange with Russia would see most of the US unscathed.

This is not true of Europe though. Russia would, and may even preemptively (escalate to descalate), use it's tactical arsenal, in Europe Russia's strategic nukes aren't meant for Europe - Europe is too geographically close. But it's tactical arsenal is meant for Europe (America is too far away). It's also highly dispersed. It would be difficult to pre-emptively destroy.

Participation in the alliance comes for several reasons. One is to create uncertainty for Russia. Russia knows what I wrote, but they aren't sure of it. For all they know, the US could decide to respond to a Russian incursion into Estonia with a strategic attack. Secondly, because a US relief mission, as a counter attack to a Russian assault, is likely to be highly successful. Absent NATO involvement, there would be no counter attack. And thirdly, day to day, it provides the Baltics with far more resources for defense than they otherwise have.

The Russians may be reckless, but they aren't stupid. They will prefer a negotiated settlement over a military conflict they are doomed to lose. That is why the UNSC exists. That is why NATO has the structure it does. Because World War I, and to a lesser degree World War II, came as result, just like many wars of the 19th century, of belligerents AND allies alike forging talking and diving headfirst into conflict.

If slowing thing down, talking, and establishing a enduring consensus leads to a better result and protects Europe, than it's deeply preferably to rash action. An overwhelming and dramatic military response must be the LAST recourse. Many will die, and Europe will be destroyed, yet again.

[Felya]

^^ I am not following (yes, the US don't have open borders, and what Skroe wants is misguided and harms people trying to escape from Russia instead of who does all the horrible things), but I suggest we let it go.

It doesn’t harm people who escape... people escaping are not the same as citizens coming to US. They don’t get the same visa, don’t follow the same rules, go through completely different process. As I edited before, unlike a Russian citizen, who gets a visa/passport, then flies to US... refugees, such as my self, take over a year after you leave Russia, for all of the testing and paperwork.

[caervek]

Not a problem. But let me also expand your understanding by addressing an additional scenario.

"Russia invades Estonia, does Estonia activate Article V and does World War III start?" (to put it colloqually).

The answer no. Again, it doesn't work like that. The same deal. The Estonian representatives to NATO would natually get consulations to discuss the issue in NATO immedietly, and if NATO agreed to Article V by consensus, then Article V would go to effect.

Most observers believe that would not happen even then, or at least not at first, because of several factors.

One major factor you have missed in your scenario is that it involves Russia invading the EU, which means the EU counterattack would be underway before NATO even debate the article V request, and it's extremely unlikely that NATO is not going to return a consensus on following article V when like 3/4 of NATO are already involved in the war lol.

[Shalcker]

The weapon was a fairly complex chemical. The source of the chemical was a Russian plant, these things are identifiable. Russia was the only country having the chemical, at least supposedly. This is enough to ask "guys, what's your weapon is doing on our streets? are you not guarding it well enough or is that you who used it??".

Production was on plant in Uzbekistan.
It isn't actually "complex chemical" because components were supposed to be produce-able on usual fertilizer plants so that not to trip any chemical weapon alerts (and it only got super-deadly when two were combined).
And Russians responded as they should have - "give us a sample so that we can guess where did it come from - that old plant and Soviet production, some new batch, or something else".
Original Uzbekistan plant have been long dismantled, all Russian chemical weapons were destroyed (we finished in last September), and Novichok was never part of Russian chemical arsenal either way.

[Danner]

@Skroe:
I sometimes wonder about the willingness to de-escalate rising conflicts, like the scenario you lay out here. During the cuba crisis, it was Krushchev that broke the game of chicken, but it took a Kennedy to play ball to make that happen. Had a similar thing occurred today; would Putin and Trump really stand aim for a solution? I seriously disbelieve that.

I want to believe Putin is clever enough to not actually go there in the first place.
Then again, he does things like the topic of discussion, repeatedly invades neighbouring countries, and ... yeah.
It's not really reassuring is it.

For me whether a defensive alliance acts or not is down to politics. If the US want NATO to go to war, Norway must follow. We don't get to have a say in it. There is no "agreement" involved from our side. We can quit the alliance if we strongly object, but that's about it and a stupid move to boot. Flipside, if Norway should be invaded, it's not really a question whether Norway want NATO assistance or not - if it's not fitting NATO's Trump's daily mood it won't happen. Not because of tender political deliberations to de-escalate a WW3 situation, but because incompetence.

My difficult question is - with so much of NATO's leadership being bound up in the US, and the US being in the sordid state it is, would your scenario really play out the way you envision?

[rda]

Current list of UK measures:

Britain's damning retaliation measures against Russia

* 23 of Russia's 58 London diplomats expelled. They must leave within a week in the biggest expulsion for 30 years
* All planned high-level UK-Russia contacts suspended
* UK ministers and Royal Family will boycott the 2018 World Cup
* Invitation for Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's UK visit rescinded
* A new 'Magnitsky law' to strengthen sanctions on human rights abusers
* Urgent new laws to 'harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity'
* This will include a targeted power to detain those suspected of hostile state activity at the UK border. This is currently only allowed for terror suspects
* Increased checks on private flights, customs and freight
* Freeze Russian state assets if they may be used to threaten life or property of UK nationals or residents
* Other covert measures that "cannot be shared publicly for reasons of National Security"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...omats-12185767

I suggest they ban dog owners from Russia from participating in dog exhibitions. This will hurt! /sarcasm

The elephant in the room is the money of the Russian criminal top sitting and accumulating in London. Seizing it is what is going to hurt and nearly nothing else will, yet this is carefully walked around.

Pathetic.

[Deleted]

It's because Americans are generally clear to the threat that the Russian enemy poses to the Western world, and just as in the Cold War, some Europeans are capable of constructing creative excuses as to why Russian misbehavior is tolerable.

Really, it is, as ever, about some segment Europeans seeking to preserve a failing status quo in order to avoid making difficult decisions. But 4 years of sanctions have illustrated that the EU is more than capable of making, and sustaining such decisions, sometimes even better than America.

Russia is not your friend. It will never be your friend. Their entire history the last 300 years is of a comprehensive police state under 3 different forms of management - the Tsars, the Soviets and now the Nationalists - that has sought to dominate it's "near abroad", that term meaning variably everything from border countries to all of Western Europe.

The present day Russian regime regards the EU as an existential threat to it (because it is), because a successful EU would prevent, forever, Russia from controlling the affairs of it's Western "near abroad" states.

The present day Russian regime regards the Post World War II ruled-based liberal world order, that Europe and America built together, as an abomination that must be crushed, and the world returned to the mighty countries of the world dominating the smaller and weaker ones (which means most of Europe would be at its thralls).

There is an enormous pattern of behavior with the Present day Russian regime. It's stunning how a minority of Europeans want to remain blind to it, despite the fact that it directly undermines both European values and European historic achievements to build a better Europe and a better World, than the one Russian presently seeks to reimpose.

Ultimately it's all your fault that it has come to this, by helping them survive and win in 1944, which by the way you had no right to do. What you should have done instead is letting them get annihilated and destroyed completely before moving against the axis powers. That way you wouldn't have to deal with the slavic threat afterwards and even today.

[Skroe]

One major factor you have missed in your scenario is that it involves Russia invading the EU, which means the EU counterattack would be underway before NATO even debate the article V request, and it's extremely unlikely that NATO is not going to return a consensus on following article V when nearly 2/3 of NATO are already involved in the war lol.

Incorrect. On issues of defense, per EU rules, NATO takes the lead, unless NATO indicates it will not.

Which means the EU has no security role to play until NATO says otherwise. It does have a political one.

An EU country would only invoke Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty again, after a consensus is formed. In fact the text of it makes specific reference to that.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the...rticle-42.html

Article 42.2
The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.


Article 42.7
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, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.



If it's not entirely clear, Article 42.2 makes the EU's defense policy subordinate to NATO.

[downnola]

This is complete BS based on biased polls and skewed media image. If that's the cornerstone of your stance towards Russia, you are living in an imaginary world which likely has very little to do with reality. Granted this imaginary world is shared by many. Thanks to Western media, Russian propaganda and several other things.

You're trying to claim that Russia doesn't overwhelmingly support Putin? What planet do you live on, because it ain't Earth.

[Skroe]

Ultimately it's all your fault that it has come to this, by helping them survive and win in 1944, which by the way you had no right to do. What you should have done instead is letting them get annihilated and destroyed completely before moving against the axis powers. That way you wouldn't have to deal with the slavic threat afterwards and even today.

We deal with the world as it is, not as it will be.

In 1944, the Axis Powers were by far the greater threat to the world. They only spent most of the 1930s and early 1940s conquering Eurasia at a historic pace. Left to their own devices, there would have been no stopping them.

Also allowing Nazi Germany yet another genocide, which is what a successful war in Russia would have been for them, would have been yet another profound crime against humanity.

There is simply no scenario where letting the Nazis win against Russia, and then taking them down, is the better outcome. Even avoiding the Cold War and everything since is not worth that. It would have made World War II far worse for everyone involved. It also would have seen the use of American nuclear weapons in Europe to destroy the Nazis.

You are considering that right? Had we delayed our invasion, Nazi Germany would have fallen far later, which means the first atomic bombs would have been ready for use against them in a strategic manner.

[Shalcker]

Current list of UK measures:

Britain's damning retaliation measures against Russia

* 23 of Russia's 58 London diplomats expelled. They must leave within a week in the biggest expulsion for 30 years
* All planned high-level UK-Russia contacts suspended
* UK ministers and Royal Family will boycott the 2018 World Cup
* Invitation for Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's UK visit rescinded
* A new 'Magnitsky law' to strengthen sanctions on human rights abusers
* Urgent new laws to 'harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity'
* This will include a targeted power to detain those suspected of hostile state activity at the UK border. This is currently only allowed for terror suspects
* Increased checks on private flights, customs and freight
* Freeze Russian state assets if they may be used to threaten life or property of UK nationals or residents
* Other covert measures that "cannot be shared publicly for reasons of National Security"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...omats-12185767

I suggest they ban dog owners from Russia from participating in dog exhibitions. This will hurt! /sarcasm

The elephant in the room is the money of the Russian criminal top sitting and accumulating in London. Seizing it is what is going to hurt and nearly nothing else will, yet this is carefully walked around.

Pathetic.

That sounds more like excuse to ramp up for UK "surveillance state" then "anti-Russian measures".

[caervek]

Incorrect. On issues of defense, per EU rules, NATO takes the lead, unless NATO indicates it will not.

Lol, the EU isn't subservient to NATO, if it gets invaded by Russia it is free to respond before NATO makes any decision.

There is simply no scenario where letting the Nazis win against Russia, and then taking them down, is the better outcome.

Nor is there one where it was a possible outcome, the Nazis lost their battle with the USSR the second they initiated it, all our assistance to the Soviets did was speed up their victory and reduce their casualties.

[Shalcker]

Ultimately it's all your fault that it has come to this, by helping them survive and win in 1944, which by the way you had no right to do. What you should have done instead is letting them get annihilated and destroyed completely before moving against the axis powers. That way you wouldn't have to deal with the slavic threat afterwards and even today.

Germans would come further, but then still get destroyed; and you'd get Red Europe all the way, possibly with UK included.

[caervek]

That sounds more like excuse to ramp up for UK "surveillance state" then "anti-Russian measures".

You do realise that all the measures being introduced which could be considered a tad "surveillance state" are nothing compared to the equivalent rules in your own country right?

Glass houses.

[Deleted]

That sounds more like excuse to ramp up for UK "surveillance state" then "anti-Russian measures".

And you wonder why people dismiss you as a conspiracy nut?

[Shalcker]

You're trying to claim that Russia doesn't overwhelmingly support Putin? What planet do you live on, because it ain't Earth.

In Russia, duh. That's our "opposition"/"pro-Western" wing.

[caervek]

Germans would come further, but then still get destroyed; and you'd get Red Europe all the way, possibly with UK included.

Yeah because after Hitler failed to invade us I'm sure a country with no functional navy would have an easy time of it :P

Seriously tho why? he was talking about a scenario where the US didn't send you trains/trucks, the UK would still send you tanks, we don't need them while we're stuck on our island lol.

[Shalcker]

You do realise that all the measures being introduced which could be considered a tad "surveillance state" are nothing compared to the equivalent rules in your own country right?

Glass houses.

Do they, though? In most cases Russian politicians follow, not lead there...

Ramp up is still ramp up. And details certainly matter.