What constitutes an “armed attack”?
Does the murder of a British citizen, in London, apparently on the orders of a foreign government, constitute an “armed attack” in the sense of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty?
To recapitulate, article 5 says:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
More to the point, what should we do about Russia?
More importantly, what should our politicans do about Russia?
I believe we all know the answer to this.
Once again, the failings of those we elect to protect us are clear – they have neither the time, training, nor inclination for strategic thought.
Tom: “I believe we all know the answer to this.”
Do we? Please elucidate…
We will do nothing of course.
Still, very restrained to call it an armed attack. Why not nuclear attack?
[comment deleted by Phil Hunt because it is nonsense]
Wow, that’s to troll what polonium-210 is to assassination.
Joe: “We will do nothing of course.”
You are probably right.
I think at the very least the UK government should start talking about “smart sanctions” against the Putin regime, to show our displeasure. If the Russians don’t know we are pissed off, they are more likely to do it again.
“Still, very restrained to call it an armed attack. Why not nuclear attack?”
You could look at it that way.
Assuming, of course, that the Russian state was responsible. Not wanting to defend Putin too much – I’m not fond of the guy – but someone went to a lot of trouble to make Litvinenko’s death as exotic as possible. Why not hit him with a car during his 5 mile morning run?
Matt: “someone went to a lot of trouble to make Litvinenko’s death as exotic as possible. Why not hit him with a car during his 5 mile morning run?”
Why not indeed?
On the other hand, whoever did it had access to polonium-210, which is fairly exotic stuff, the sort of thing that a lone assassin wouldn’t be able to get hold of but which the Russian state could.
Or, rogue elements, out-of-control inside the Russian state, or, for that matter, another case of “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest” – oops!
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/29/russia.illness.reut/index.html
Worrying!
Phil – it wouldn’t surprise me if the poison had been made somewhere in the former USSR for covert use by an intelligence agency. Clandestinely distributed weapons can end up in the wrong hands, though – that’s the problem with spookery, it’s always hard to tell where things are going to end up.
“smart sanctions” the thing is I think Russia could well do more damage to the UK economy than we could to its – the fact is the Russian government is getting away with far worse than this, but this occasion just happens to be on British soil.
I would like to ask though what people think could actually be done beyond diplomatic frowning.
Smart sanctions against Russia? If that’s the plan then I suggest waiting a few months. It could be a long, cold Winter in Western Europe without Russian gas.