Ukrainian President Zelensky says NATO's Article 5 "has never been as weak as it is now"
Source: CNN
In an address on Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his call to close Ukrainian airspace after a night of air alarms heard "almost all over" the country.
"Each of the more than 800 Russian missiles that have hit our country is an answer to a long-standing question about NATO — whether the doors of the alliance are really open for Ukraine," Zelensky said while speaking from his office Tuesday afternoon. "If they were open, if it was honest, we would not have to convince the alliance for 20 days to close the skies over Ukraine, to close from the death being brought by the Russian Air Force. But ...they don't hear or don't want to hear us yet."
He went on to call out NATO's Article 5, the principle of collective defense, "weak" as the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues.
"Some states of alliance have intimidated themselves, saying that they can't answer. That they cannot collide with Russian missiles and planes in the Ukrainian sky. Because this, they say, will lead to escalation, will lead to the Third World War. … And what will they say if Russia goes further to Europe, attacking other countries? I am sure the same thing they say to Ukraine. Article 5 of the NATO treaty has never been as weak as it is now. This is just our opinion," he said.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-15-22/h_d9b893d94a3533f0d79d3d7447cd64d1
= new reply since forum marked as read
Again here is the STATED US and NATO policy on the first use of nuclear weapons from the respected Council On Foreign Relations site:
During the Cold War and even today, the credible threat of the United States using its nuclear weapons first against an adversary has been an important component of reassuring allies.
At the height of the Cold War, the threat of U.S. tactical nuclear use was conceived of as a critical bulwark against a conventional Soviet offensive through the Fulda Gap, a strategically significant lowland corridor in Germany that would allow Warsaw Pact forces to enter Western Europe.
A nuclear first-use policy was thought to be a cornerstone of the defensive posture of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), given the large number of bases of Warsaw Pact conventional military forces.
Accordingly, NATO has always opposed a U.S. NFU declaration and has never ruled out U.S. first use under its “flexible response” posture since 1967. Today, U.S. allies in East Asia and Europe alike rely on credible commitments from the United States to use nuclear weapons first to deter major nonnuclear threats against them.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/no-first-use-and-nuclear-weapons
Again,
Korea
Viet Nam
Iraq
Afghanistan
In fact it's harder to find a time period when the US has not "gone to war" since WWII.
That didn't cause it either. There is a big difference between an attack and an incident, I would argue.
We haven't gone to war since WWII. Flexibility exists on our military use outside an official declaration.
If ignorance was painful, the Tea Party would support health care.
Bold emphasis added for clarity.
No mention of "declared" wars in "We haven't gone to war since WWII", is there? Nope.
And "Flexibility exists on our military use outside an official declaration", absolutely, we have "gone to war" repeatedly without official declarations.
So, "We haven't gone to war since WWII" is simply a huge mis-statement.
We have "gone to war" in a major way in the :
Korean WAR
Viet Nam WAR
Iraq WAR, twice
Afghanistan WAR
Along with numerous smaller scale combats around the world.
Perhaps you could re-phrase it here without mis-statements and oblique references to other posts.
That would be helpful.
My point has been simple.
The statement "We haven't gone to war since WWII" is factually incorrect since we engaged in the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, the Iraq War (twice) and the Afghanistan War.
So again, what exactly is your point and why do you insist I am making the same one?
In addition Article 5 can never override the Constitution which says only Congress can declare war. There is nothing automatic about it.
But let's address your points individually, for clarity:
2) NATO’s first reaction shouldn’t default to nukes.
Point 1 - The US has been in many engagements without the use of a congressional declaration of war which was last done in the 1940s:
OK, this seems a bit of a non sequitur.
Are you disagreeing with the post you replied to here? The poster's opinion is that there is nothing automatic about Article V initiating US military involvement even when requested by a NATO member country?
You even present an "incident" where you said an attack on US planes didn't trigger Article V either.
So, what exactly was your point vis a vis Article V?
Point 2 - NATO’s first reaction shouldn’t default to nukes.:
OK, I do not see any mention of NATO using nuclear weapons at all in that post, the infamous post #30.
In fact, in your reply to that post, I do not see any mention of nuclear weapons either:
That didn't cause it either. There is a big difference between an attack and an incident, I would argue.
We haven't gone to war since WWII. Flexibility exists on our military use outside an official declaration.
If ignorance was painful, the Tea Party would support health care.
You have chosen not to answer any questions I had about your "clear points", which, honestly, still do not seem that clear or clearly made.
Fine.
And honestly, I have not forgotten my point, that you made a factual misstatement when you claimed "We haven't gone to war since WWII".
But, enjoy your evening.
Be real.
Korea.
Viet Nam.
Do those ring a bell?
Iraq.
Afghanistan.
And aren't we in Syria fighting too?
Hey, if you want to admit you made a misstatement, fine.
But, be real.. the US has, in your words, "gone to war" almost NON-STOP since WWII.
AND article V doesn't say a NATO country has to be in a declared war to be protected by Article V.
So much for that argument, hmmm?
This makes sense. I guess my pacifist brain went more simplistic - thinking that Zelensky could declare a no-fly zone over his own country and why on earth was the rest of the world preventing him from doing so? Thanks! I also appreciate you didn't tell me how to use Google. LOL!
