- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,878
- 4,865
- 280
So now you've read article 5, but clearly you don't understand it. I can't help you with that.I still can't find any statement regarding the compulsory use of force in case of a NATO member is attacked.
NATO officials vomiting bragadoccios about defending Latvia, Estonia, Podunkstan, etc.... against russian aggression are a dime a dozen but they didn't even have the courage to explicitly state it in their founding document.
If you don't believe this poor devil who's debating with you, read what George Kennan, America’s greatest expert on Russia, said about Nato expansion:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.
“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.
25 years ago, when Keenan wrote this, few people agreed with him, and only a few people agree with his point of view today.