She was exactly correct and she didn’t even repeat his reference to war with Russia, she mentioned the duty to come to the aid of an ally. Note the treaty includes war as an option it doesn’t straight out require it. The main value of the treaty is deterrence, and an issue arises if the Nato member starts the fight, fights with another member, etc. In those cases the response is subtle. Her answer was absolutely appropriate. She supports NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, and she knows what that means. Russia knows too.
Is this not the fundamental reason NATO exists? Mutual defense? Imagine if she had provided a, let’s say, more “nuanced” response. Anything short of “yes, we’ll fight” would be an open invitation to Russia.
Clear, direct, unflinching. That is leadership.
I hope they do make an issue of this - it will blow in their faces.
A wise man once said: “Those who possess clarity of vision see black and white, those who do not see gray”
That's the key. NATO would not necessarily be obligated to respond with military force, except as a last resort. Economic sanctions, covert aid to resistance members, diplomacy etc. would be alternatives to all-out war.
All this of course proves my argument:
NO to NATO expansion!
After the ABC interview, she needs to read up on the Bush Doctrine.
Good post. Thanks for tracking down the relevant Article.
Palin can make a nice defense of this (and make Biden look foolish) in her upcoming debate.
You could also say the reason Georgia is not now a memebr of NATO is the EU realized Russia wanted Georgia and the NATO countries knew it would involve war, if they allowed Georgia to join — That is why back in April they denied the start of the process. As with Bosnia, the do nothing EU types didn’t want to get involved.
EU has been doing just what Reagan said not to do, feeding the bear with oil money,
The only time Article 5 has been invoked was after 9/11, i.e., the attack against the US, which is why NATO is in Afghanistan.