Poland considers invoking NATO Article 4 after reports of missiles landing in its territory

[Rampage]

Poland considers invoking NATO Article 4 after reports of missiles landing in its territory​

By Tim Lister, Tara John, Antonia Mortensen, Anna Chernova and Emmet Lyons, CNN Updated 6:21 PM EST, Tue November 15, 2022​

CNN —
Poland will increase the combat readiness of some troops and is considering activating Article 4 of the NATO military alliance treaty, officials said, following the deaths of two people in an explosion near the Ukrainian border.
Authorities did not say what caused the blast, but Polish media reported earlier in the day that missiles or rockets had struck the area.
Poland is in touch with NATO partners and US counterparts about the incident, government spokesman Piotr Muller said, and teams of experts will work on all night to clarify details of what he called a “serious” situation. “Poland is increasing the combat readiness of the army and other services,” he added.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/europe/poland-missile-rocket-nato-przewodow-ukraine-intl/index.html

The details are not yet known. Some blame Russia. But Ukraine defensive missiles may have been involved.
If it is verified that Russia was the source what is the correct scale of NATO response?

If Ukraine grants Poland and NATO full permission, should NATO clear an area of Ukraine to the maximum range of the weapon used?

 

[Rampage]

If it is determined that Moscow was to blame for the blast, it could trigger NATO’s principle of collective defense known as Article 5, in which an attack on one of the Western alliance’s members is deemed an attack on all, starting deliberations on a potential military response.
Article 5 is the cornerstone of the founding treaty of NATO, which was created in 1949 with the U.S. military as its powerful mainstay essentially to counter the Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc satellites during the Cold War.

Since Ukraine is not part of NATO, Russia’s invasion in February did not trigger Article 5, though the United States and other member states rushed to provide military and diplomatic assistance to Kyiv.
However, experts have long warned of the potential for a spillover to neighboring countries on NATO’s eastern flank that could force the alliance to respond militarily.
Such action by Russia, either intentional or accidental, has raised the risk of widening the war by drawing other countries directly into the conflict.

IS INVOKING ARTICLE 5 AUTOMATIC?​

No. Following an attack on a member state, the others come together to determine whether they agree to regard it as an Article 5 situation.
There is no time limit on how long such consultations could take, and experts say the language is flexible enough to allow each member to decide how far to go in responding to armed aggression against another.

HAS ARTICLE 5 BEEN INVOKED BEFORE?​

Yes. Article 5 has been activated once before – on behalf of the United States, in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked-plane attacks on New York and Washington.

WHAT HAS BIDEN SAID ABOUT ARTICLE 5 COMMITMENTS?​

While insisting that the United States has no interest in going to war against Russia, President Joe Biden has said from the start of Moscow’s invasion that Washington would meet its Article 5 commitments to defend NATO partners.
"America’s fully prepared with our NATO allies to defend every single inch of NATO territory. Every single inch,” Biden said at the White House in September.
He had declared earlier that there was "no doubt" that his administration would uphold Article 5.

Explainer: How NATO's defense obligations could be triggered by Ukraine conflict

A deadly explosion occurred in NATO member Poland's territory near its border with Ukraine on Tuesday, and the United States and its allies said they were investigating unconfirmed reports the blast was caused by stray Russian missiles.

www.reuters.com

 

[sear]

Thanks R #1,
The U.S. President Bush (younger) administration has demonstrated by invading and occupying Iraq the U.S. does not require a legitimate casus belli to go to war.
But it seems President Biden is a little more cognitive.

The most recent information I've gotten on it is the munitions that struck Poland were Russian made. I don't know whether "false flag" or other complications have been ruled out.

Your CNN sources reports two killed. Not clear to me how NATO can shrug that off without reply.
Part of the problem is, what reply? Sanctions are already in place. And if the West isolates Russia entirely it'll merely solidify China's supremacy on Underworld Earth, a group including China, North Korea, Russia, and ... ?

So far no big news on it. I'm guessing Russia gets a pass on this one. Not sure what happens the next time.

 

[sear]

Not sure if it's considered finally decided / determined, but I've read reports that it was Russian munitions, and that it was Ukraine that fired them.

 

[Borg Refinery]

Thanks R #1,
The U.S. President Bush (younger) administration has demonstrated by invading and occupying Iraq the U.S. does not require a legitimate casus belli to go to war.

That's in the eye of the beholder, surely? There actually were WMDs in Iraq - just not the ones that were purported to be there [ironically, US companies made them FOR Saddam - as the old WMDs hurt US soldiers in the 2nd war - the US in the past had helped him gas Iran] - hence it was a misleading claim pushed by Blair, Bush et al. What about the fact that Saddam raped youngsters in his cellar and did unspeakable things to families? What about the Kurds? Etc. A lot of people say you should have taken him out during the gulf war as he fired scuds at Israel and countless other things, then again one must remember the US ultimately bears plenty of responsibility for putting his lot in power in 1963 with a CIA coup.

I sound like a war hawk in my old(er) age compared to my younger days when I was Dennis Kucinich-level anti-Bush. In any case, Russia prompted this to happen by firing on Ukraine - Ukie missile defence systems malfunctioned and tragically 2 people died in Poland due to the stray missile. A tragedy all round. It would be nice to see the Ukies work on rectifying this so it doesn't happen again then all should be ok - but Zelenskyy strenuously denies it was a fault on their part - and says it was Russia despite the evidence put forth by Poland and the USA.

My hope is this doesn't escalate and there's no disunity among NATO and Ukraine as that would be a problem.

[BTW, off topic but I've removed all my Tapatalk accounts so no longer have one and can no longer login, can't be bothered to signup for a new one. Plus, there's no one on this forum who I currently have an issue with so no need for fighting or rude words being exchanged - unlike on the Round Table. ]

 

[Borg Refinery]

It's interesting to note that Bush actually regrets his past fuckups:

[..] "The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush told ABC television in an interview scheduled for broadcast last night. "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." But he followed that moment of candour with an attempt to try to deflect charges that the White House misled Congress and the public to build a case for war, arguing that there had been widespread belief that Saddam had a nuclear arsenal.

"It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world, were all looking at the same intelligence."

He was not asked about allegations that political pressure was brought to bear on the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the run-up to the war.

The exit interview found Bush in an unusually reflective mood for a president who has famously refused in the past to admit any mistakes. He did not go so far as to say he would not have gone to war if the intelligence had been correct.

"That's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do," Bush said, according to excerpts from the interview at Camp David. Later he said: "I will leave the presidency with my head held high."

Despite the flawed basis for the invasion of Iraq, Bush defended his decision to leave US forces in the country.

Though Iraq remains among his defining legacies, he said he had not anticipated going to war when he was running for the White House. "I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack'. I didn't anticipate war." [..]

And now contrast and compare that with Biden's tone after the botched Afghanistan withdrawal? It's true that Trump would have been worse - but does that somehow deflect from Biden's enormous mistakes there? We'll probably never get an apology for that one.

 

[sear]

BR #5

the U.S. does not require a legitimate casus belli to go to war.

That's in the eye of the beholder, surely?

Let's set aside the "grey area" issue and consider it a binary for now. Either there's a fully valid casus belli justifying full military response, or not. In my opinion U.S. President Bush (younger *) never had it.

BR:
Please don't misinterpret my comment here as accusatory. It is the nature of propaganda to be believed, it's designed to be believed.

But as there's a closer view from this side of the pond, I'll tell you what's really going on here.

During the GHWB administration Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait. President GHWB commanding General Norman Schwarzkopf to expel Saddam's occupational forces from Kuwait, and did so via operation Desert Storm.
It was a rout.
Flabbergasting some, under GHWB orders Schwarzkopf's forces drove Iraq out of Kuwait, but did not pursue them to Baghdad. Many perhaps son GWB included, regarded this as a blunder.
And as is the risk in a political dynasty, when son GWB became president, he undertook to teach father GHWB a lesson, by attempting to complete the job son GWB perceived to have been left uncompleted by his father.

Fast forward a few decades we now see it was son GWB that was taught the lesson.

"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush told ABC television

To read between the lines here:

Regarded one of the worst disasters of the GWB administration, the attacks of 09/11/01, wherein a Saudi terrorist called UBL murdered ~3k innocent Americans. BUT !!!

During those same 8 years the U.S. president was responsible for the deaths of thousands more than UBL.

This is a level of disgrace even a Bush would find difficult to shoulder. SO !

It seems GWB was trying to deflect the culpability of his own administration via semantic infiltration, dismissing it as an "intelligence failure". - piffle -

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." V.P. Cheney "8/26/02" C-SPAN2

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt, that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." U.S. President Bush (the younger) televised address to the U.S. March 17th, 2003

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. [ABC This Week, 3/30/03]

Their wording: "no doubt" was intended to stifle contradiction, refutation. So they lied the U.S. into War, and as a direct result President GWB killed more innocent Americans during the 8 years of his administration than UBL did.

* shrubbery distinction:
The elder President Bush aka #41 was known by his initials GHWB.
The younger President Bush aka #43 known by his initials GWB.