147

Venezuela - The Lesson for Canada (charlieangus.substack.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

Funny. You seemed to have completely ignored the part where it finishes with "mutual assistance obligation". Or maybe you just didn't read far enough.

Care to try again?

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago

Maybe you'll believe the Center for European Policy Analysis

The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”

In other words, Article 5 does not commit member states to deploy military assets if an ally is attacked. It only commits them to some form of response.

But, what do they know anyways?

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 0 points 1 week ago

Did you miss where "mutual assistance" is completely undefined. I'll stick with my original answer. I'm sure NATO will come right to Canada's assistance with an angry condemnation of US aggression at the UN.

Laws with no penalty clauses aren't really laws, they are suggestions. Penalty clauses that can't be enforced would be worthless anyways. Article 5 is an aspersion, nothing more.