Comments by "Stephen D Green" (@stephendgreen1502) on "Ukraine wants WHAT???" video.

If Article 5 is triggered it would be triggered against Ukraine because the missiles months back killing Polish farmers were actually Ukraine missiles. So NATO needs to invoke Article 5 against Ukraine, not Russia.
234
@mountainfrost7095 exactly
2
Since “NATO's Article 5 is a collective defense clause that considers an armed attack against one or more NATO members as an attack against all members. It does not explicitly address mens rea (a guilty mind) as a factor. Instead, Article 5 focuses on the objective criteria of an armed attack. It's about whether an armed attack has occurred, not the intent behind it. The legal and political interpretation of Article 5 can vary, but the emphasis is on the act of aggression itself.” (Chat GPT 3) Since it is about an attack actually occurring, not the motive, intent or mind (mens rea) of the attacker, to my understanding, which to me seems a reasonable position of a rational person, is that even if the attack was an attack designed as a false flag to bring others into a war, it is still an attack, and therefore Ukraine might actually have triggered Article 5 itself, perhaps more than once.
2
As Ukraine is prepared to take Poland to court over its grain refusals, Poland knows it might be arming its future enemy (an enemy prone to commit genocide against Poles in the past, and the ideology is still active) so it wants to pull back a bit. So, yes, Ukraine might have fired missiles with deliberate intent. If it could gain more attention from arms suppliers by doing so, and improve popular support for fighting Russia. Media articles are evidence of how they milked it.
2
@LuisAldamiz nor did the Nordstream attack result in triggering of Art 5, although there was mention of expanding the treaty to include attacks on infrastructure
2
CORRECTION: NATO's role in response to 9/11 primarily involved supporting the United States in the context of the War on Terror by providing political and military assistance. It did not lead to NATO involvement in the invasion of Iraq. So Article 5 only resulted in intelligence help being offered to USA by member states. An eagle in the sky, so to speak. Not a military armed response. A bit of help with watching skies of USA to guard against further attacks. So NATO Article 5 means nothing militarily. If past events are any indication of what happens.
2
@youareliedtobythemedia it is reasonable to deduce that it is their hatred of Putin that prevents them from triggering Article 5. NATO needs a leader to be elected in a member state who does to collude in this hatred and can invoke the article. Poland is voting isn’t it? Maybe.
2
@ЯБезымянный-о5ф Law cannot presume to know intent. At least so the lawyers tell me. Mens somethingorother is not an exact science. It is subjective. So it becomes open to politics, corruption and diplomacy. A foothold for all kinds of agendas. Evil and benign.
1
@Noqtis the intention doesn’t have to be there. An attack is an attack. A false flag attack is still an attack. If Ukraine stages an attack as a false flag then it is an attack on NATO by Ukraine and Article 5 comes into effect. NATO would ignore it unless someone other than Ukraine did it, of course.
1
The West demonstrates repeatedly it can turn its rule of law on and off at will. The MSM too can go silent. How? By the clause that says “national interest”.
1
@CarnisChampion .. because NATO kept arming Ukraine, because Ukraine wanted to keep bombing Donetsk, because Kiev wanted Donetsk to eradicate its Russian ethnicity and culture, and all because NATO promoted Banderist nationalism in Ukraine to try to destabilise and overextend Russia. All so NATO could gain territory in the East and keep EU as its main customer. You might as well tell not just the truth but the whole truth.
1
There are also reports that it was Ukraine who destroyed Germany’s Nordstream pipelines
1
@youareliedtobythemedia restoring the status quo, how would that apply to the attacks on Nordstream and attempted attacks on Turkish pipelines?
1
@youareliedtobythemedia say it was concluded that Russia attacked a NATO country’s pipeline. That could be used to trigger Art 5 even if it required an amendment or extension to the article to do so. Yet it has been concluded by the West that Ukraine destroyed Nordstream.
1
If an attack is not actually what would trigger it, what does trigger it? Who triggers it? What are the actual criteria? I suspect it is nothing to do with democracy. I suspect the very thing that cannot trigger it is any kind of referendum.
1
@MrAce2000 Only one triggering of NATO Article 5. This occurred in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history, considering the 9/11 attacks an attack on one of its member states, the United States. — Chat GPT 3 (only accurate up until Sept 2021)
1
Those who say Article 5 is only triggered by an invasion, it was only triggered by 9/11 and that was not an invasion.
1
@WinterXR7 9/11 triggered it
1
If 9/11 triggered Article 5, the resulting NATO response was actually against Iraq. What does that tell us about NATO? NATO states only do what POTUS says, nothing else. That was the only time NATO responded to an attack and it was not even Iraq that did the attacking. But see correction below. There was no direct link between Iraq war and Article 5.
1
NATO’s futility is partly due to the falsity of its message which is that arming you can change the course of a war against you. Tanks from NATO, HIMARS, etc have not really affected the outcome for Ukraine. It is just a myth we are indoctrinated with in all kinds of ways. Wagner really did affect outcomes by sheer will and earnest effort and spirited bravery as much as weaponry. NATO, in contrast, merely prolonged the war and cost extra lives. So NATO relies on myths of its own making and Hollywood ideas about sending in the cavalry and exceptionalism and presumption and fantastic oversimplification of what it takes to be victorious. All the weaponry did not help USA in Vietnam. It did not change outcomes. Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki did change outcomes but it was a one act wonder. Immoral in the extreme too. Shocking in its immorality.
1
@youareliedtobythemedia Russia has been guarding Turkstream pipelines against attacks. But the vessels doing the guarding keep getting attacked by Ukraine with UK help. One step away from part-Turkish infrastructure being attacked by a non-NATO country. Ironic that a NATO country helped the attacks. This keeps happening, no proof is needed. It is openly done. Drones are used and Ukraine boasts about them. UK too. Does it trigger Article 5? Of course not. If the attacks went further and adjustments were made in the treaty maybe Turkey could invoke Article 5, against Ukraine. Article 5 only covers attacks by non-NATO countries. Not sure it extends to attacks outside Atlantic and Mediterranean. Maybe Black Sea attacks are not covered anyway. Interesting for Russia. As long as it attacks in Black Sea are there might be no Article 5 coverage there. It might want to look into that.
1
@youareliedtobythemedia I’m not sure Baltic Sea is covered by Article 5. According to Chat GPT the attacks must be in Atlantic or Med.
1
@youareliedtobythemedia the official line seems to be it was Ukraine. Official in that it is announced via the NYT and WP, on behalf of deep state officialdom of USA. If they really mean that they might be willing to act on it via Article 5 to drive home their narrative, rather than acknowledge USA guilt. But like I say, Article 5 might only cover maritime attacks on naval vessels and only in Med and North Atlantic.
1
@youareliedtobythemedia I would say NS was definitely akin to 9/11. 9/11 triggered Article 5. Many might suffer this winter due to Nordstream attacks since Germany could have turned them on if it ran low. I expect over time more will die from loss of NS due to pneumonia etc than did in 9/11. No proof though. As to who did it, well Norway seems to have covered up what they know, likewise Denmark and UK, and obviously USA which looks to me like culpability. Even if they did not do it, they must be covering for whoever did. We all know who probably had power to do it, not many had power, opportunity and motive. We know the naval exercises gave opportunity to several who had power. We know the imminent opening of Norway’s Baltic pipeline provided benefit and motive. So maybe Germany could trigger Article 5 against these other NATO members. It seems to allow for it. When 9/11 triggered it, did they know who the enemy was? Not entirely. They ended up with USA attacking Iraq two years later but nobody proved who was really behind it and many said it was the CIA. Yet still Article 5 got triggered.
1
@youareliedtobythemedia Clear why Nordstream was attacked. Putin would have been saving tens of thousands of lives if they had been turned on. That is a problem for the ambitions of the West. It foils the narrative that Putin is a modern evil dictator. They rather let those tens of thousands die than let Putin be their saviour.
1
@youareliedtobythemedia So yes. Clear why Nordstream was attacked. Putin would have been saving tens of thousands of lives if they had been turned on. That is a problem for the ambitions of the West. It foils the narrative that Putin is a modern evil dictator. They rather let those tens of thousands die than let Putin be their saviour. But this attack to kill all these Germans is an attack on all. As a NATO member state, even my country UK should trigger Article 5 because effectively UK was attacked. All those Germans dying of cold this winter are the same as if UK citizens are dying. That is the Article 5 doctrine. Therefore Sunak or any member country premier should invoke Article 5. Perhaps Germany cannot do it because they are had tied in some way. We must do it for them. That is the doctrine surely. The attack took place. We need NATO members to help us find out who did it and bring justice to bear for tens of thousands who will probably die as a result. Article 5 should help this be found out. We do not need to know first, before it is triggered. Someone hates Putin so much they would kill NATO citizens in their tens of thousands or more rather than let Putin go on record aa a saviour.
1
Trigger Article 5.. Someone hates Putin so much they would kill NATO citizens in their tens of thousands or more rather than let Putin go on record aa a saviour. That threatens all of NATO. But the fact nobody triggers Article 5 over Nordstream implies every NATO premier with power to trigger it us complicit in this plot to rob Putin of saviour status. They are each complicit, it would appear, in causing tens of thousands of NATO citizens to die. Otherwise they would trigger it on behalf of Germany. So someone whose hands are clean and who is not tied to the attack must be given power instead and trigger it. The alliance really by its nature demands this.
1