Additionally, it’s helpful to know the specific language used in 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.” (emphasis added)
Article 5 doesn’t actually oblige NATO members to defend anything by force, it obliges NATO members to decide what actions are “deemed necessary” and then to undertake those actions. If a NATO member gets invaded, everyone could – in theory – write a sternly worded letter and call it a day (though I doubt that would be the actual response). As you/others have more or less said, the actual action chosen would largely be the result of political will.
Presumably the member states can decide to interpret it however they’d like, but for whatever it’s worth I’m just paraphrasing what political scientist William Spaniel (…who I thought would have had a Wikipedia page by now) has said on the topic of Article 5 (though the context wasn’t the US invading Greenland lol)
Additionally, it’s helpful to know the specific language used in Article 5:
Article 5 doesn’t actually oblige NATO members to defend anything by force, it obliges NATO members to decide what actions are “deemed necessary” and then to undertake those actions. If a NATO member gets invaded, everyone could – in theory – write a sternly worded letter and call it a day (though I doubt that would be the actual response). As you/others have more or less said, the actual action chosen would largely be the result of political will.
I do not share your interpretation (although I know that it has been the popular one recently).
I read it like this:
The obligation is out of any question: they “will” assist.
The goal of all measures is defined: “restore […] peace and security”.
The choice of measures isn’t totally free. It must fit to that goal.
So, yes they can decide whether or not no use force, but they cannot follow random political agendas there.
And not fold paper airplanes instead of real ones :)
Presumably the member states can decide to interpret it however they’d like, but for whatever it’s worth I’m just paraphrasing what political scientist William Spaniel (…who I thought would have had a Wikipedia page by now) has said on the topic of Article 5 (though the context wasn’t the US invading Greenland lol)
Ah, but it doesn’t say anything about an unarmed attack!
Please don’t give the US any ideas ;_;
I just think a giant swarm of rednecks spilling over the border trying to punch anything they can is a funny mental image.