End of an affair?

[The Brain]

The US is leaving NATO?

Good riddance.

[derspiess]

Also, the comment by the Kraut is a disgrace.

It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.

I suspect he ain't the only Kraut who subscribes to that theory.

[Admiral Yi]

It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.

It's OK for academics to say that treaty obligations should not be honored?

[jimmy olsen]

It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.

It's OK for academics to say that treaty obligations should not be honored?

No, but no one cares what they say unless it's known they have the ear of the government.

[The Brain]

It was just an academic though, it wasn't a member of the German government.

It's OK for academics to say that treaty obligations should not be honored?

Did anyone say that? Where?

[Admiral Yi]

No, but no one cares what they say unless it's known they have the ear of the government.

If the German government said Article V was a fiction, it would be a disgrace and a significant development in international relations.  If someone outside government says it, it's just a disgrace.

[DGuller]

True. The technical term is bending over.

[Syt]

I got so excited that at last someone had started a Graham Greene thread. 

But no

Now I'll read the article

I love Graham Greene, though the book "The Heart of the Matter" that I had to present at school was one of the most depressing reads ever.

[Zanza]

Without knowing who said it and what he actually said it's pretty pointless to discuss it, no?

[Syt]

Btw, I think the point the German "intellectual" tried to make that in case that an Article V situation occurs there'd be problems to determine NATO response and no one would know what to do. Janusz Onyszkiewicz, first non-commie leader of Poland recently said in an interview with Austrian Standard something similar (my translation):

Everyone knows NATO's Article 5. It contains a clear obligation to a certain automatic reaction of the NATO countries. The Americans pointed out early that this [an automatic response] isn't possible due to their contitution. War can only be declared by congress, not by previously entered obligations. It was a declaration of intent, but nothing absolutely certain. However, during the Cold War there was the perception that an act of aggresion would auotmatically lead to a military counterstrike. Why?
Because there were prepared plans for such a case, plans that were accepted by the governments. A whole machinery stood by that would have been put into motion by an act of aggression. That's how it was during the Cold Waar. Now there are no such contingency plans. Tha obligation of support is not clearly defined. I remember well how NATO declared that Article 5 had become active after the 9/11 attacks. When the NATO countries sent troops to Afghanistan on this basis the Canadian Prime Minister declared, "we play along, but when the shooting starts we'll pull them out." That was not very encouraging. In my part of the world, and certainly in Poland, no one is so paranoid to fear a breakout of World War III. But there are possible threats, like cyber attacks, for which reactions should be prepared. Russia didn't conquer Georgia, but there was a military conflict. Therefore it's necessary to prepare emergency plans. And that's what NATO is still lacking.

I think he has a point. NATO was founded as a defense against Soviet expansion. For 40 years its members prepared plans and contingencies for the case of defence. After the end of the Cold War there was - and is - a void as to what the alliance does/wants/should do. Personally, I guess there was never a better moment to attack the alliance than right now, because currently there'd be no quick, unified response to a major threat, because there's none planned. Governments would spend days if not weeks to determine what the Article V response should look like.

[jimmy olsen]

Everyone knows NATO's Article 5. It contains a clear obligation to a certain automatic reaction of the NATO countries. The Americans pointed out early that this [an automatic response] isn't possible due to their contitution.

The executive has totally taken over the war making powers of the legislature. If it responded with force, congress would without a doubt confirm the action.

[Syt]

Everyone knows NATO's Article 5. It contains a clear obligation to a certain automatic reaction of the NATO countries. The Americans pointed out early that this [an automatic response] isn't possible due to their contitution.

The executive has totally taken over the war making powers of the legislature. If it responded with force, congress would without a doubt confirm the action.

Doesn't invalidate the rest of his point IMO.

[Tamas]

Uhm, good morning, welcome to reality. General population in this part of the world looks at the USA with -at the very least- contempt. Usually it's hate. Why? Envy, of course, altough the people would cite stuff like "ignorance, obesity, agression" etc. all the stuff you can find aplenty in East Europe as well, but hey, you have to hate what you are not (citizen of an advanced country) to like what you are.

So, the rampant and unconditional love of the 'States have been always a government-only project here, showcasing a rare occassion when they don't succumb to populism.

[citizen k]

Is this because Obama is black?

Sounds more like some Germans are trying to sow discord.

[The Brain]

Without knowing who said it and what he actually said it's pretty pointless to discuss it, no?

We can discuss the facts as they were reported in the article. Which of course Yi found too constrictive and started making stuff up.