4 ms·

You are wrong https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83aca60333593f753ccbbf/kollektiver-beistand-in-der-eu-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/re

• broken-kebab 18d ago
  Looks like I'm right. I don't read in German regretfully, but what I get with machine translation fully supports my point - national discretion allows for civilian or humanitarian aid rather than an automatic military response
  • Supermancho 18d ago
    Moving the goalpost out to "automatic military response" is not compelling.
    • broken-kebab 18d ago
      I literally started the discussion from the point that "the mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force" - quoting from the comment just 2 levels above. So which goalpost is being moved here?
      • snowpid 18d ago
        I started the discussion with the EU is infact a military alliance. You shifted the goal post by your counter argument. Talking about EU politics you have to use non English sources sometimes. Why not auto translate them?
        • broken-kebab 17d ago
          I shifted nothing, and as we are on the nets, everybody can verify it above. I said you can stretch the notion of military alliance to cover the EU, but because nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. Like if Russia lands on IS, there's no agreement to defend it even if it joined the union. >Why not auto translate them? I did, and I clearly mentioned it. And it supports what I said, isn't it? Can we please agree to read those letters in full, and not run to accuse me after finishing just the first sentence?
          • snowpid 16d ago
            " nobody's obliged to come to your rescue in force, in practical terms it is not. " 1.) My source claims the opposite. 2.) This is the same for NATO and Mecca Pact practically. 3.) Actually a lot of lawyers see the EU article is more stricter than the NATO article. I trust them more than a goal shifting HN poster.
            • broken-kebab 15d ago
              1. You are welcome to cite exact wording. 2. That's literally the first normal argument you expressed in the thread. I'm so delighted! NATO is practically very much different, cause it has tried-and-proven structures, drills, and more importantly American military behind it. Given the current state of affairs we of course can have our doubts, but during its existence there always has been a wide consensus, that the USA considers NATO members its area of responsibility, and are ready to act. And the alliance's Article 5 is way more obliging. Once agreed it forces members to regard themselves to be in conflict. 3. Good ones, bad ones, imagined ones? Care to show them? Ad hominem doesn't make anybody look smart. Dishonest ad hominem, I guess, even worse?
            • mytailorisrich 15d ago
              I think a point is to be made that international treaties and alliances work on trust. They don't "oblige" a country in the sense that you may be obliged to do something. Now the EU is not a military alliance per se and Article 42.7 (which was essentially sneaked in by the Lisbon Treaty) is a bit fuzzy so members will consider all aspects and offer some assistance, sure, but scramble their whole military because that's "all the means in their power", no unless they see that the threat to themselves is critical not least because the article also states that it "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States". So basically some help will be sent but calibrated by all the usual political and self-interest considerations.
  • 1718627440 18d ago
    The relevant quote in the document is actually in English though. So it does say required by all that is in their power. Whether that is enforceable is another measure, but that is true for a lot of rights.