this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
141 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
808 readers
525 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does the NATO treaty not have some clause or exception covering intramember conflict? You'd think if one member invaded the other then they're out of the treaty.
I am going to guess that it was just simply inconceivable. They assumed that NATO members would resolve their disputes through other institutions (UN, EU parliament, WTO, etc). That was the whole point of these institutions, to make resolving disputes able to be done without war.
We obviously all know it was a sham but it's quite funny to have the sham ripped apart to reveal the true power dynamics underneath
as we all know, treaties last forever and it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to go back on their word, so of course it was inconceivable
From what I'm reading the treaty says its forbidden but doesn't state any consequences. Some take that to mean nothing happens, others think it invokes article 5. I'm not seeing anything in article 5 that could be argued for an exception. Denmark could easily threaten to activate Article V. They won't, but they could.
It’s ultimately just words on paper. Denmark can activate it all they like and all members would sit by and do nothing. The only thing that is truly in question is whether or not they would bother making up some contrived legal interpretation for why they can’t do anything.
If I remember correctly, article 5 doesn't actually compel other member states to intervene in the first place. They can just opt to do nothing and still be in accordance with the treaty.