Should NATO be folded in favor of a European Union unified command?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've read it the first time. The aggressor in a war isn't determined by the territory where the war is fought. In WW2, the war wasn't fought on US soil, rather US was fighting it on German and Japanese soil. That doesn't make USA the aggressor in the war.

So, if Romania declares war on Russia, and Russian army repels them and crosses the border into Romania in order to defeat them, NATO still isn't obligated to declare war on Russia. They may decide to do it, but they're not obligated.

Romania isn't going to declare war - it'll just move troops into Moldova's territory - Russia will oblige by attacking those troops without declaring war. All it takes is one Russian missile to land on Romanian troops in Moldova - or to hit Romanian troops whilst being aimed at Moldovian troops - and Romania can invoke the NATO treaty. An attack on Romanian troops in Romania would oblige NATO to respond militarily, but any attack on Romanian troops will at least force NATO leaders to "consult", so even then Russia cannot rely on a complete lack of response from NATO.

Basically - the Romanian-Moldovian pact is designed to make it that much harder for Russia to do in Transnistria what it did in Crimea.

More to the point - your have your example backwards - you said the US was no the aggressor, but according to your logic it was because it attacked Germany, which had not attacked the US, due to Germany's attack on France and Britain. Romania won't be attacking Russia or crossing into Russian territory - Transnistria is in Moldova.

There are no obligations in politics.

Ah - but this is foreign relations, not politics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

An attack on Romanian troops in Romania would oblige NATO to respond militarily, but any attack on Romanian troops will at least force NATO leaders to "consult", so even then Russia cannot rely on a complete lack of response from NATO...

Unless the other NATO powers had specifically advised Romania that they would not support Romanian efforts outside the extent borders which, in fairness to Sarmatian's general point, might well be the NATO attitude.

[Pannonian]

Unless the other NATO powers had specifically advised Romania that they would not support Romanian efforts outside the extent borders which, in fairness to Sarmatian's general point, might well be the NATO attitude.

A comparable case might be the US troops in Korea. Would NATO be obliged by treaty to respond if North Korea steamroller the US troops there? My guess would be that it's outside the treaty's remit, and any response would be volunteers only.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A comparable case might be the US troops in Korea. Would NATO be obliged by treaty to respond if North Korea steamroller the US troops there? My guess would be that it's outside the treaty's remit, and any response would be volunteers only.

Actually, SK is outside the NATO agreement because of geography. IIRC, the agreement is limited to the geographic borders of those signatories and specifies that anything outside the North Atlantic region is not involved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, SK is outside the NATO agreement because of geography. IIRC, the agreement is limited to the geographic borders of those signatories and specifies that anything outside the North Atlantic region is not involved.

That's correct - likewise the Falklands are outside the geographic limits even though the Argentine attack otherwise qualified to trigger the treaty. It's notable that, even so, France and America were quietly accommodating in many ways. Which is nice, but had the treaty covered the Falklands, there would have been no war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Falklands was a cocking shock up in many ways.

1st, Had it been an "Atlantic" treaty and not a "North Atlantic" treaty, you are probably correct as to the deterrence factor.

2nd, I think we failed the special relationship. Perhaps it was wrong of us to develop the special relationship -- there are some even today who feel that Washington's Benign Isolationism and/or Monroe's Europe Keep Out doctrines would be the better way to go. Nevertheless, having entered into the special relationship, when you were attacked in the Falklands we should have issued a joint ultimatum to the Argentines and backed it up with CVNs supporting the BEF as needed. We certainly didn't impede the British effort in that conflict but we aided it a bit fecklessly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Falklands was a cocking shock up in many ways.

1st, Had it been an "Atlantic" treaty and not a "North Atlantic" treaty, you are probably correct as to the deterrence factor.

2nd, I think we failed the special relationship. Perhaps it was wrong of us to develop the special relationship -- there are some even today who feel that Washington's Benign Isolationism and/or Monroe's Europe Keep Out doctrines would be the better way to go. Nevertheless, having entered into the special relationship, when you were attacked in the Falklands we should have issued a joint ultimatum to the Argentines and backed it up with CVNs supporting the BEF as needed. We certainly didn't impede the British effort in that conflict but we aided it a bit fecklessly.

Well, yes, but it benefited both countries in the long run. It made Britain look strong internationally, caused an RN buildup which put pressure on the Soviets.

[Pannonian]

What? That war was between North Korea and a force that was flying the flag of the UN, even though most of the troops were American. That war never ended.

If the north launched an invasion there would be a lot more than just the USA obligated to respond.

I thought of it as an example of one of the NATO members putting troops in the way of any potential invasion, simply so they can be attacked and thus trigger a response. PVC suggested that putting Romanian troops in the way would likewise trigger some kind of response. My argument was that (although I didn't know about the geographical restrictions), NATO would only really be obliged to respond if NATO's recognised home soil was attacked, and if a NATO member deliberately put troops outside this to try and trigger a response a la PVC, that's outside the remit of the treaty and any response would be volunteers only.

Who was that Backroomer who was traumatised by his experience of patrolling the Korean border and regarded his re-posting to Vietnam as a relief, even though he got sniped there? Kafirchobee or something.