Thread
Quick 🧵 on NATO Article 5.
Don't worry, World War III is NOT starting.
Don't worry, World War III is NOT starting.
Why am I writing this? Because of 👇
Missile strikes have come close to Poland before... 
...but now they actually hit in Poland and caused deaths.
www.dw.com/en/russian-missiles-cross-into-nato-member-poland-report/a-63770954
www.dw.com/en/russian-missiles-cross-into-nato-member-poland-report/a-63770954
Poland is a @NATO member, which means... 
...it is subject to protection under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Link: www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
Link: www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
Folks could be worried because other NATO leaders, namely @POTUS has said that, due to article 5, the United States "Will defend every inch of NATO territory". Well, these strikes are indeed on an inch of territory.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XFjhaigP_Q
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XFjhaigP_Q
Such "defend every inch" rhetoric was also just invoked by the President of Lithuania.
So, does a couple of apparently errant missile strikes by Russia merit an article 5 response?
The answer is: it depends.
The answer is: it depends.
First, it depends on Poland. Do they want to invoke article 5?
That is the first step, and it is what happened the only time it's been invoked: on September 12, 2001.
That is the first step, and it is what happened the only time it's been invoked: on September 12, 2001.
Second, it depends on the other NATO members.
The North Atlantic Council -- the primary political decision body of @NATO located in Brussels -- meets and the "Permanent Representatives" (i.e. NATO ambassadors) discuss the issue.
E.g. this was @IvoHDaalder under @BarackObama.
The North Atlantic Council -- the primary political decision body of @NATO located in Brussels -- meets and the "Permanent Representatives" (i.e. NATO ambassadors) discuss the issue.
E.g. this was @IvoHDaalder under @BarackObama.
What do they discuss?
1) agree that there was an "attack"
2) determine the appropriate response.
3) Ask for volunteers to carry out #2.
1) agree that there was an "attack"
2) determine the appropriate response.
3) Ask for volunteers to carry out #2.
In other words, there is a lot of "wiggle room". Look again at the language of Article 5. Notice that it says ""if such an armed attack occurs, each of them...will assist..by taking forthwith...such action as IT DEEMS NECESSARY, including the use of armed force"
For example, when Article 5 was invoked following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on NYC and Washington, D.C....
...the NATO Article 5 response was the deployment of AWACS (operation Eagle Assist). 
My guess is that the North Atlantic Council will meet at Poland's request. Article 5 may not be explicitly invoked, but could make NATO allies more inclined to take a measure such as a Western Ukraine no-fly zone.
Early in the war, a no-fly zone was seen as an escalatory act, but the facts are very different now (i.e. Russia's control is in the far east of the country).
abcnews.go.com/US/top-republican-fly-zone-ukraine-lead-beginning-world/story?id=83273152
abcnews.go.com/US/top-republican-fly-zone-ukraine-lead-beginning-world/story?id=83273152
Unlike @SeanDEhrlich, I think Poland will try to invoke Article 5 (or at least SERIOUS consultations). But I agree that this is a sufficiently "minor" incident that any Article 5 response will be proportionally small.
In the end, this strike on Poland highlights one of the great risks that has been present since the beginning of the war (the possibility of wider war), but that risk won't be realized, at least not this time.
[END]
[END]
Addendum: As @sbmoller points out, Poland could invoke Article 4. Given the likely tepid response if Article 5 is invoked instead, the two outcomes -- Article 4 or 5 -- could be observationally the same.
Addendum 3: A useful point from @smsaideman that Poland itself has an incentive to keep the response tepid.
Addendum 4: While some might think that a tepid response will only encourage Russia to "allow" more "accidents", @Nick_L_Miller has the perfect response to that claim
