[Goose]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1515304526487638016?s=21&t=P6pWGwpyzLVMJcElc8Wodg[/tweet]

Thread on NATO and article V, which probably is closer to Goose’s position than my own (and brings up the hypothetical attack against a Polish airfield, even).  I still think that NATO, as a whole, responds, because it’s entire credibility and reason for being is lost if it doesn’t, but I appreciate it may not be as cut and dry as I may have believed.

BC

Thanks for the link BC. I totally agree with the final conclusion of this thread:
"In sum, there is nothing "automatic" or "iron clad" about the Article 5 commitment of NATO. But it's at least perceived as valuable...and that's what really matters."

I therefore agree totally with you that NATO's credibility would be tied to an Article 5 response if in the hypothetical Poland called for it. That is why I believe the US would request Poland not do so, because the expected tepid response would be very damaging. Practically speaking, it would be difficult to suggest a "good" response. The US realistically can't go to war for Poland unless we have full cooperation from Germany and probably the Danes and Dutch as well. Access just isn't good enough if we have to use only Polish ports and airfields. I am assuming the UK would go along, but in this case they probably don't have much to offer. Of course, the danger of nuclear escalation would be very, very high. Yet we can't just give up on Ukraine because Putin shoots missiles into Poland. It is IMHO a real tough situation if it happens. Let's hope better brains than mine have got a plan for this eventuality.

[Goose]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/profpaulpoast/status/1515304526487638016?s=21&t=P6pWGwpyzLVMJcElc8Wodg[/tweet]

Thread on NATO and article V, which probably is closer to Goose’s position than my own (and brings up the hypothetical attack against a Polish airfield, even).  I still think that NATO, as a whole, responds, because it’s entire credibility and reason for being is lost if it doesn’t, but I appreciate it may not be as cut and dry as I may have believed.

BC

Thanks for the link BC. I totally agree with the final conclusion of this thread:
"In sum, there is nothing "automatic" or "iron clad" about the Article 5 commitment of NATO. But it's at least perceived as valuable...and that's what really matters."

I therefore agree totally with you that NATO's credibility would be tied to an Article 5 response if in the hypothetical Poland called for it. That is why I believe the US would request Poland not do so, because the expected tepid response would be very damaging. Practically speaking, it would be difficult to suggest a "good" response. The US realistically can't go to war for Poland unless we have full cooperation from Germany and probably the Danes and Dutch as well. Access just isn't good enough if we have to use only Polish ports and airfields. I am assuming the UK would go along, but in this case they probably don't have much to offer. Of course, the danger of nuclear escalation would be very, very high. Yet we can't just give up on Ukraine because Putin shoots missiles into Poland. It is IMHO a real tough situation if it happens. Let's hope better brains than mine have got a plan for this eventuality.