More alarmism, from some of our local press and from some political leaders, following the Russian missile which, in recent days, fell about 15 km from the Polish border.
The danger that, like a recurring specter, is feared by the first is that of NATO intervention in accordance with the art. 5 of the relevant treaty; almost the hope that this will happen is, instead, what the latter seem to hope for, inciting this at every turn. All this, with an assumption taken for granted: in the event of an attack on a member of the Atlantic Alliance, there would be, automatically, the armed intervention of the entire coalition in favor of the aforementioned.
But the rule in question does not state this at all, on the contrary...
It provides that: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America will be regarded as a direct attack against all Parties, and accordingly agree that if such an attack occurs, each of them, in the exercise of the right of self-defense, individual or collective, recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the party or parties thus attacked by immediately undertaking, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to establish and maintain security in the North Atlantic region. Any such armed attack and all measures taken in consequence thereof shall be immediately brought to the attention of the Security Council. These measures shall cease when the Security Council has taken the necessary measures to re-establish and maintain international peace and security.".
Therefore, the use of force, upon closer inspection, is neither automatic nor foreseen as the only measure. On the contrary, it is only possible, included in the context of other actions.
Further, to the article following of the aforementioned Treaty it is established that "For the purposes of Article 5, an armed attack against one or more of the parties means an armed attack: against the territory of one of them in Europe or in North America, against the French Departments of Algeria 2 -, against the territory of Turkey or against the islands under the jurisdiction of either Party in the region of the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer; against the forces, ships or aircraft of either Party located in these territories or in any other region of Europe in which, at the date of entry into force of this Treaty, occupation forces of either Party are stationed, or which are in the Mediterranean Sea or in the region of the North Atlantic |north of the Tropic of Cancer, or above them".
This means that the attack, of course, must also be intentional, and therefore not "accidental".
From this point of view, paradoxically, a cybernetic or electronic attack could arouse more concern - by its very nature, by intentional force - such as, for example, the one which, again in these hours, would have occurred against two Finnish planes (the Finland is a NATO country), while they were flying over the skies of Estonia (Nato territory).
No damage, no deaths, fortunately: and, even if there had been, the above reasoning would have been valid (concerning, that is, the non-automatism of armed intervention by NATO members).
In short, in a very delicate historical moment like this, we should be cautious in the statements we make, without exasperating the events and without necessarily turning them to our own, sole advantage, when this, instead, could lead to more general damage..
Photo: US Army
