Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickyricky | Hacker News Reader

Can you point to a NATO military operation which was A). offensive and B). not unanimously requested by the UN security council (on which Russia and China sit)?

View on HN

Defining “offensive” here as “not defending against an actual or imminent attack on a NATO member or other internatkonally-recognized state”, the NATO-Yugoslavia war of 1999 would qualify as it was not requested by the UNSC at all.

Also Libya was 10-0-5 in the UNSC, with both Russia and China abstaining (P5 abstentions are special, in that they are conventionally construed as negative votes but declination to exercise veto, which is not formally a separate action from a regular no vote.)

> Also Libya was 10-0-5 in the UNSC

Resolution was about no fly zone, and stopping attacks on civilians. It is a subject of discussion if NATO expanded operation to extra actions.

Iraq (explicit condemnation from Kofi Anan), Yugoslavia (China and Russia said they would veto any resolution to send military aid), Libya (China and Russia abstained), Syria (no UN resolution, Russia firmly opposed).

In fact, I don't even know of a defensive military operation from NATO. Perhaps Afghanistan could be counted?

Yes, the bombing of Yugoslavia. I was 5 when that happened hiding in basement like poor Ukrainians do right now. Feel free to do some googling on your own, there are many cases like: Libya, Syria. Who will be next?

NATO did not operate in Syria.

What did they expect when they were doing ethnic cleansing in Europe without having nuclear capability?

It is called "the NATO bombing" but not all NATO members participated. NATO's involvement was based around Article 4 which only says the member states can "consult together." This implies that it was more of a United States + select allies bombing than a NATO bombing, because the US did most of it, and got other countries to participate through means that existed independently of NATO.

Why, then, would it be called the NATO bombing? Probably because A. it distances it from entities that American voters are familiar with, (compare "Bill Clinton's bombing") and B. it creates a smokescreen of weird international law issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing...

That is a bit like saying only the executor of the gang has attacked you, but they did a vote before and nobody dared stoping Clinton, and NATO shares funds don't they?

So there wasn't an outcry, let alone sanctions or consequences.

Everybody knows it was Clinton and advisors, the bombing was still a NATO bombing. You can't have it both ways, make the us hide behind the NATO skirt and say not everyone has participated.

It goes to show the institution is biased and has no teeth other than the American ones.

NATO is and was a defensive alliance. The idea that NATO is the military of the western world was briefly useful for American, err, propaganda ("look, the whole world supports these bombings, it's not just us"), and is now being used to serve Russian propaganda ("help help the belligerent gang of nations wants to set up bases within driving distance of Moscow.") but was never really true.

If NATO confers any offensive power, it's to let member states push harder on nonmilitary avenues because it gives them less to fear in terms of military reprisals. Otherwise, there's article 4 which allows member states which are independently deciding to act to do so with some association with the NATO flag. When nations send delegates to sit in a big room and vote they are expressing their policies, not deciding them.

>You can't have it both ways, make the us hide behind the NATO skirt and say not everyone has participated.

I'm trying to have it the second way. The US was only able to cover its action with the flag of NATO insofar as people haven't read what Article 4 says countries can do (basically, talk to each other).

I believe there is only one, the bombing of Yugoslavia.

What about Afghanistan and Iraq?

NATO was not involved in Iraq, though many members were under the banner of the "coalition of the willing".

Afghanistan was not an offensive war but mutual defense invoked over article 5. We can debate whether that covered the duration of the war, but when article 5 was invoked it was not seen as controversial nor viewed as an offensive war.

> NATO was not involved in Iraq, though many members were under the banner of the "coalition of the willing".

The “coalition of the willing” was largely propaganda; only four countries (3 of which were NATO members) were involved in the invasion.

> Afghanistan was not an offensive war but mutual defense invoked over article 5. We can debate whether that covered the duration of the war, but when article 5 was invoked it was not seen as controversial nor viewed as an offensive war.

I have heard this said before, but it was never explained to me how invading another country is considered defense and not offense.

That's basically the argument Putin is using for invading Ukraine, the best defense is offense

Afghanistan was not an offensive NATO operation (being a direct response to an attack on a NATO member), and was supported by a unanimous UNSC Resolution (1368).

NATO never conducted an offensive operation in Iraq, though some NATO members (separate from the alliance) did.

> Afghanistan was not an offensive NATO operation (being a direct response to an attack on a NATO member)

Though Taliban didn't attack US. Also, was there any NATO due process for this?

> was supported by a unanimous UNSC Resolution (1368)

I think that resolution said nothing about invasion into Afghanistan..

NATO completely destroyed the country of Libya.

They literally asked for NATO to stay/help longer:

> Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[39] but on 27 October, the Security Council unanimously voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[40]

And NATO didn't start civil unrest.

After the protests, individual countries took the lead to help and other ones asked NATO to take over as condition to join ( eg. Italy).

So the Libyans asked NATO to stay after NATO worked to kill the previous leader? You see why that doesn't pass muster right? That's like "asking" for protection from the mob after the previous owner of your shop got his legs broken.

Extension for 2 months was requested.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_i...

> Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[39] but on 27 October, the Security Council unanimously voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[40]

Libyan volunteers ( i suppose civilians) where literally the majority of the troops against Khadaffi ( > 200 k. )

Air support was by countries, they did not do boots on the ground.

> Many states and supranational bodies condemned Gaddafi's government over disputed allegations of air attacks on civilian targets within the country.

This was preceeded by a civilian uprising before any foreign country assisting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com