@strutheo What does it mean to "refuse Article 5"? Articla 5 is more like "each NATO member can react as it deems appropiate".

And is the clarification below regarding Article 4 part of the criteria?

@Primer @strutheo Agreed, this really needs to be clarified. Does non-participation in a response to someone invoking article 5 count? I can see how that could realistically happen.

@JussiVilleHeiskanen Only NATO can invoke Article 5, not a single member. Not even sure about that. Maybe technically NATO members could just take action, and when the UN complains, NATO can decide this is covered under Article 5. But if I remember correctly, NATO needs to declare "This is covered by Article 5", before members take action.

I feel so dumb. I need to read up.

@Primer It seems, The Council did resolutions in the Gulf War. Turkey threatened raising article 5 and Britain considered an attack that would kill people in Nato countries as in and of itself constituting an article 5 issue. So there are various interpretations on how it works in practise, From Council decision to being self executing purely by an act against a member state.

@JussiVilleHeiskanen Yeah, best not to look too closely. This is all more "gesturing" than "international law".

Announcement of intention resolves YES?

@Predictor not just announcement, actually leave (or files the paperwork)

@strutheo respectfully that a bit silly, paperwork or not, membership is nothing without intention to honour article 5. The moment the US make it clear they will not respond NATO is dead

@Odoacre i sort of agree re: enforcement being key, but i cant really trust anything trump says at this point , so we kind of need an action to tie the resolution to

@strutheo ok that's fair, but suppose he refuses a summons for article 4, that's an action. Would it be enough?

sure we'll do that