Named the prospects for the use of NATO’s famous Article 5 against Russia
[ad_1]
Former Joint Forces Commander General Sir Richard Barrons told Sky News: “Now all eyes will be on the site of the explosion and technology experts will be looking for rocket debris and other debris to determine what it was … And then, once they figure out what it was, they can start investigating how it got there and what was behind it. And indeed, only when this becomes clearer – and clear, in my opinion – should the North Atlantic Council and NATO members take a final stand on this issue. Because to do so in advance would have meant that they were ready to make a decision about something really important without knowing the facts.”
General Barrons said that many of these facts were likely to be established in daylight—the explosion had already taken place late in the evening—and added that rocket debris could be found and radar traces in the sky could be studied.
Lord Richard Dannatt, the former Chief of the British General Staff, explained to Sky News the importance of this stage, saying: “If we make – or anyone else – decisions based on bad information, then we are doomed to make bad decisions.”
Lord Dannatt said that one of the most important things at this stage is that “open channels and covert channels must be actively working at the moment to find out not only what happened, but also why it happened.”
Another important thing is what Lord Dunnatt and General Sir Richard called “comosure and facts”.
Lord Dannat said: “Finding out what happened is really important, and then cold-blooded people are needed to analyze what our response should be. At this stage, we have to be very, very careful.”
General Sir Richard added: “We need to know what happened, what the intentions were behind it, and then people should look at it.”
Discussing what actually happened, Lord Dunnutt said there were two possibilities: Russia’s mistake or the Russians are testing NATO’s response. He said: “Modern technology is pretty accurate, so it’s pretty hard to explain why this could have been an accident. If this was not an accident, but a test of the reaction of the West, this should be very, very carefully considered. According to the ex-chief of the general staff, a cold-blooded approach is required to ensure that the conflict “does not escalate as a result of a miscalculation.”
General Sir Richard said: “We must admit it is unlikely that Russia would target a random grain silo in a village of only 400 people to start a war with NATO. But if Russia decided so, then this world of ours is making a turn that no one could even have imagined a month ago. It is much more likely that the missile went out of control – it failed or deviated – and ended up in Poland with tragic consequences.
But even US President Biden expressed doubt that the missile came from Russia. A number of Western sources report that, most likely, a Ukrainian anti-missile has flown into Poland. According to the Associated Press, three U.S. officials said that preliminary estimates indicate that the missile was fired by Ukrainian forces at an incoming Russian missile during a devastating salvo on Ukraine’s electrical infrastructure on Tuesday. That assessment, and Biden’s comments at the G20 summit in Indonesia, contradict information obtained earlier on Tuesday from a senior US intelligence official who told the AP that Russian missiles allegedly crossed the Polish border.
But let us return to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which was discussed after the incident in Poland. This article establishes the principle of collective defense, which means that an attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on all.
The article was not used when Russia launched a special military operation because Ukraine is not a member of NATO. But Poland is a NATO member, so anything deemed an attack on Poland could reach the Article 5 stage, notes Sky News, and wonders: “Does this mean the UK and other NATO countries should go to war now?”
The answer given by Sky News is: “Hold your horses and breathe calmly. We have already talked about the need for an investigation. But even then Article 5 is preceded by Article 4. Article 4 states: “The Parties shall consult with each other whenever, in the opinion of either of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is endangered.”
Late Tuesday evening, NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu told Sky News that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will chair an emergency meeting of 30 member states in Brussels on Wednesday. The Reuters news agency reported that this meeting is being held at the request of Poland on the basis of Article 4.
The report cited two European diplomats, one of whom said the alliance would proceed with caution and that it would take time to verify exactly what had happened. It is unclear what form this phase will take and how long it may last.
Any country can invoke Article 4, and NATO’s own website states that all decisions are made by consensus. Article 4 should not always result in NATO entering a conflict. Since the creation of NATO in 1949, Article 4 has been invoked seven times.
Immediately after the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine on 24 February of this year, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia requested Article 4 consultations.
In July 2015, Turkey made the same request to its NATO partners after the terrorist attacks and briefed allies on the measures it is taking.
In March 2014, Poland invoked Article 4 due to increased tensions in Ukraine.
In 2012, Turkey invoked Article 4 twice: once in June, when one of its fighter jets was shot down by Syrian air defense systems, and in October, when five Turkish civilians were killed by shelling from Syrian territory. In November, NATO agreed to Turkey’s request to deploy Patriot missiles as a defensive measure.
And in February 2002, Turkey applied the article in connection with the armed conflict in neighboring Iraq. NATO agreed on a package of defensive measures and carried out Operation Demonstrative Deterrence.
As the Associated Press notes, Poland and NATO used language in their statements suggesting they do not view the missile blast as a deliberate Russian attack, at least for the time being. NATO called the incident a “tragic incident” in a statement.
[ad_2]
Source link
