If a NATO nation attacks another NATO nation they’re supposed to get kicked out. That’s why back in the 1990s there was so much mumbling about Russia joining NATO. Obviously it was never really considered seriously and then Putin’s “election” put a kibosh on that idea, but there was some suggestion that it might happen, and one of the questions that it raised was how do we handle that possibility. Because if any nation was going to attack any other nation it would be Russia.
It’s a bit pointless to talk about really because if the US actually attacked Canada things would get out of hand almost instantly with other nations taking preemptive steps, so any agreements on process would essentially be irrelevant anyway.
It would have had nato membership as a British colony, but not as an independent country. Isn’t it like one of the few EU member countries that’s not part of nato?
NATO’s Article 5 is consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which recognises that a state that is the victim of an armed attack has the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence, and may request others to come to its assistance. Within the NATO context, *Article 5 translates this right of self-defence into a mutual assistance obligation.*
For one, NATO votes on whether Article 5 will be invoked. Secondly, Article 5 does not define what type of response shall be rendered. We could find ourselves in a spot where NATO members send only thoughts and prayers.
“may request others” doesn’t make it sound very obligatory. The actual obligation as written is for each nation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”, leaving it up to each nation to decide for themselves what is necessary.
What exactly is Canada going to do to other NATO countries that don’t respond sufficiently? There is no penalty clause.
That’s Article 51, not 5. If you read the very first thing from the link:
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.
And when they don’t come to Canada’s assistance? When they decide that necessary assistance is to condemn US aggression and send Canada a “get well” card?
Article 5 was written with Russia in mind. The penalty for noncompliance would be a natural consequence that Russia would feel free to pick NATO countries off one at a time. It’s entirely ineffective against a US that literally could fight off the rest of NATO if it had to.
The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
In other words, Article 5 does not commit member states to deploy military assets if an ally is attacked. It only commits them to some form of response.
Did you miss where “mutual assistance” is completely undefined. I’ll stick with my original answer. I’m sure NATO will come right to Canada’s assistance with an angry condemnation of US aggression at the UN.
Laws with no penalty clauses aren’t really laws, they are suggestions. Penalty clauses that can’t be enforced would be worthless anyways. Article 5 is an aspersion, nothing more.
Haven’t you learned by now that rules mean nothing? It doesn’t matter what a piece of paper says that nations have to do, what matters is what they will do
We need to become nuclear armed. For a nation of this size to prevent a US coup, there is no other option. Trump does not respect anything but force and the world has been unable to teach him any other lesson.
You suggest Mr. Angus is spineless for not having a Mastodon account and I take issue with that…
He has stepped up to call for US boycotts and to organize the Canadian resistance. In fact I’d call him one of the few Canadians who have shown their spine and used their position to bring the idea of a resistance movement to the masses. He’s amplified his message now collaborating with Meidas Touch Network.
It’s true that Substack isn’t the best platform of this type, there are better alternatives, and Nazis and many nasty people use it and profit from it. However, quibbling over this platform Mr. Angus uses in a way that dismisses his works frankly is quite irritating to me. Excuse me for venting frustration at you. Link to Mr. Angus’ Youtube Channel as an alternative
I suggested the majority of politicians are spineless and are refusing to get up from the Nazi table or leave American oligarchs corporate media. Calling for American boycotts while also refusing to leave their tech/platforms is still fucking hypocritical.
Even if someone does something you approve of you can still criticize their hypocrisy.
Now please take your irritation out on some Nazis or .ml tankies instead.
It’s be like Nazi opposition only participating in debates set up by Nazis to foil them. They should at least validate the alternatives with their presence.
Feddit
Sunshine (she/her)
Canada is in NATO. NATO countries are obligated to defend Canada if it is attacked.
I really wouldn’t bank in that.
Most nations are also required to prevent or punish genocide when they recognize it. And yet…
US will likely leave the NATO within the next three years.
Except when it’s been members, maybe?
If a NATO nation attacks another NATO nation they’re supposed to get kicked out. That’s why back in the 1990s there was so much mumbling about Russia joining NATO. Obviously it was never really considered seriously and then Putin’s “election” put a kibosh on that idea, but there was some suggestion that it might happen, and one of the questions that it raised was how do we handle that possibility. Because if any nation was going to attack any other nation it would be Russia.
It’s a bit pointless to talk about really because if the US actually attacked Canada things would get out of hand almost instantly with other nations taking preemptive steps, so any agreements on process would essentially be irrelevant anyway.
Cyprus was in NATO.
Before they were invaded.
When?
It would have had nato membership as a British colony, but not as an independent country. Isn’t it like one of the few EU member countries that’s not part of nato?
It actually wasn’t.
Article 5 is voluntary. Your statement is not true.
Article 5 isn’t voluntary.
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5
For one, NATO votes on whether Article 5 will be invoked. Secondly, Article 5 does not define what type of response shall be rendered. We could find ourselves in a spot where NATO members send only thoughts and prayers.
Thank you for posting primary sources, it’s so rarely done.
“may request others” doesn’t make it sound very obligatory. The actual obligation as written is for each nation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”, leaving it up to each nation to decide for themselves what is necessary.
What exactly is Canada going to do to other NATO countries that don’t respond sufficiently? There is no penalty clause.
That’s Article 51, not 5. If you read the very first thing from the link:
And when they don’t come to Canada’s assistance? When they decide that necessary assistance is to condemn US aggression and send Canada a “get well” card?
Article 5 was written with Russia in mind. The penalty for noncompliance would be a natural consequence that Russia would feel free to pick NATO countries off one at a time. It’s entirely ineffective against a US that literally could fight off the rest of NATO if it had to.
Funny. You seemed to have completely ignored the part where it finishes with “mutual assistance obligation”. Or maybe you just didn’t read far enough.
Care to try again?
Maybe you’ll believe the Center for European Policy Analysis
But, what do they know anyways?
Did you miss where “mutual assistance” is completely undefined. I’ll stick with my original answer. I’m sure NATO will come right to Canada’s assistance with an angry condemnation of US aggression at the UN.
Laws with no penalty clauses aren’t really laws, they are suggestions. Penalty clauses that can’t be enforced would be worthless anyways. Article 5 is an aspersion, nothing more.
It isn’t voluntary.
Haven’t you learned by now that rules mean nothing? It doesn’t matter what a piece of paper says that nations have to do, what matters is what they will do
how naive can you be?
We need to become nuclear armed. For a nation of this size to prevent a US coup, there is no other option. Trump does not respect anything but force and the world has been unable to teach him any other lesson.
Maybe the brits can help us out.
Let’s just cut to the chase and nuke ourselves. That’s where that ends, and at least they don’t get anything.
Canada’s only option is not to aspire to defend against America but to make any attempt so costly that even a victory would end in ruin.
The lesson is we need to be ready for war
Substack enables Nazis like Trump. Don’t give them clicks.
It’s an article by Charlie Angus, former NDP member of Parliament of Canada. He is somebody Canadians can trust and is definitely not a Nazi.
In the same sense that we call twitter a nazi platform without accusing everybody using it of being a nazi, same logic applies here.
I’ve heard the roman alphabet is exclusively used when Nazis write online… True defenders of freedom only use __
You might be on to something, if the roman alphabet was owned by a corporation that’s actively encouraging and profiting off said nazis
Well you say that….
Should move his blog off of the Nazi enabling platform.
Is he on Mastodon or another spineless politician only on X, Instagram and Facebook?
Edit: Also never called the author a Nazi. Substack are for platforming and enabling monetization of Nazi content.
You suggest Mr. Angus is spineless for not having a Mastodon account and I take issue with that…
He has stepped up to call for US boycotts and to organize the Canadian resistance. In fact I’d call him one of the few Canadians who have shown their spine and used their position to bring the idea of a resistance movement to the masses. He’s amplified his message now collaborating with Meidas Touch Network.
It’s true that Substack isn’t the best platform of this type, there are better alternatives, and Nazis and many nasty people use it and profit from it. However, quibbling over this platform Mr. Angus uses in a way that dismisses his works frankly is quite irritating to me. Excuse me for venting frustration at you. Link to Mr. Angus’ Youtube Channel as an alternative
I suggested the majority of politicians are spineless and are refusing to get up from the Nazi table or leave American oligarchs corporate media. Calling for American boycotts while also refusing to leave their tech/platforms is still fucking hypocritical.
Even if someone does something you approve of you can still criticize their hypocrisy.
Now please take your irritation out on some Nazis or .ml tankies instead.
Deleted by author
Who the fuck is says to “lock her up”? Who is her in this context? And are you serious that oblivious to what’s going on at .ml?
This conversation is about Substack enabling the monetization of Nazis and the people using their services propping them up.
Go take your meds old mad. It’s not 2025 anymore.
+1
It’s be like Nazi opposition only participating in debates set up by Nazis to foil them. They should at least validate the alternatives with their presence.
His Bluesky: @charlieangus104.bsky.social
He currently links on Mastodon: @[email protected]
What’s the deal with Substack that makes it a Nazi enabling platform?
They refuse to take down Nazi content. Instead they enable Nazis to be monetized and to spread their hate.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/substacks-nazi-problem-wont-go-away-after-push-notification-apology/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/
Thanks for the info.
What do you expect? They want to make money.
I expect non Nazis to grow a spine and to leave the platform that benefit and enrich Nazis once it’s been made public.
I expect people to want to kill Nazis and not lick their boots.
I agree that Charlie should leave substack.
I’m saying that substack allows Nazis on their platform because substack wants money and have no morals.
Yes, hence my original comment saying don’t give them clicks, they are Nazis.
Maduro and Trump are friends
Maduro gets to escape his country and save face instead of being assassinated or executed.
Trump gets to manufacture a conflict so he can start martial law and become a dictator, and to distract from us learning he came inside little girls.
Why are you copy pasting this in every post
I would guess that, just like the big lie, the big truth needs to be repeated at least three times.
I will keep pasting this on all posts attempting to manufacture consent for a war
Your next in line
What about my next in line?
That would be me.