It's not "seen as an attack by Russia on NATO" because per the NATO treaty Russia nuking Washington DC won't be "seen as an attack" either, that is, until the country being attacked officially declares it as such through the mechanisms the treaty outlines.
The Czech republic hasn't invoked that mechanism, therefore it's a non-event as far as NATO's concerned. NATO doesn't have any mechanisms for pro-actively monitoring attacks on member states, outside of those states themselves.
The most egregious acts can be downplayed or politely ignored, if the aggrieved party really wishes to avoid war. On the other hand, the smallest provocation can serve as a justification for war, if the aggrieved party wants war.
North Korea regularly shells South Korea, sometimes killing South Korean civilians. It's absolutely a cause for war, and they might indeed be justified, in a sense, with breaking the ceasefire and marching on Pyongyang the next time NK does so. But they will have to live with the war that would cause.
One everyone knew about that could not be played off as an accident or one small unit that got carried away. Read war histories, large conflicts often start out with a succession of small scale feints, probes, and black operations.
Any attack during which the country attacked invokes article 5. Czechs didn't, and I'm not surprised.
Similarly Russia launched a cruise missile back in 2023 that flied over half of Poland and crashed in forest near Bydgoszcz. Poland did not invoked article 5, even if it could be justified.
Reason is similar in both cases:
- war is a BIG DEAL, it would likely cause flight of foreign investment and other businesses
- if NATO helps it would be an easy win, but there would still be loses in the region
- it's possible many countries in NATO don't see that as a sufficient justification for the war, which might cause problems in NATO and reduce the security guarantees for when they are REALLY needed (i.e. if Russia invades somebody in region for real)
TL; DR: it's not worth it for the attacked country, even if Russia is long past the point of "deserving it"
For the same reason that shooting down an Iranian passenger airliner or blowing up its centrifuges isn't considered an attack on Iran.
Also because most of us aren't interested in nuclear war over anything less than an existential threat. And the odds of conventional war between nuclear powers escalating into nuclear war is too fucking high. You'll need a better reason than 'someone blew up a weapons stockpile' to risk that.
If you're not going to risk open war over a full invasion of Ukraine, we sure won't risk it over an arms depot.
De-escalation-by-default is a feature, not a bug in a world where the push of a button can kill a billion people (much to the chagrin of people who have never had war waged against them).
And then Czechia in 2021 randomly decided it's not worth it? (Russia did not cut access to their resources as a result anyway). Does not make sense.
The breakthrough in the investigation came only post 2018 as a result of Skripal poisonings where the same agents were involved. It took a while to connect the dots.
That's a very good question. The problem is what's next if they acknowledge that.
Say it is acknowledged as an attack on a NATO member, but nothing is done. That immediately turns NATO's worth from whatever its is worth now, to less than the paper it was printed on in 1999 when the Check Republic joined the organization.
That's the achilles heel of NATO, and the Russian government knows it. Same goes for Baltic countries and possibly Poland. Currently what is Americans' and West Europeans' appetite for starting WWIII over an arms warehouse, or a small village in Baltics? I want to believe they would step up, but I am not convinced. Those kind of attacks becomes very attractive for Putin: blow something up here, hack something there, assassinate this or that person, and then watch NATO do anything.
That's why the predictable response it so look away and pretend nobody saw anything.
Since the invasion of Ukraine I think it's pretty clear to everyone involved (and many have been making it publicly and loudly clear) that appeasement doesn't work with Putin. So if any of the Baltics gets invaded for whatever reason, you can bet that a majority of NATO members will join to defend (even traitors in some countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria will definitely will try their best to stop their country from joining).
One way to alleviate patch up that achiles heel is a bit shady: proportional indirect responses. (E.g. Wagner forces in north Africa are not officially part of Russian army…)
If responding to this would mean nuclear armageddon, then what is Russia doing by attacking NATO in this way?
Rolling over beacuse somebody is a nuclear power only seems to come up when Russia is in the chat. If China or Israel attacks someone, nobody says "we can't respond to it because it would start a nuclear war."
What is it about Russia that makes Russia so irresponsible? And if it is, isn't it time to completely eliminate all economic ties with Russia, and pressure every other country in the world to do the same, until Russia decides to be a responsible country with their nuclear weapons.
Wars are never waged as responses to attacks or insults, they are waged when the rulers have determined that they will be profitable. Until then, all attacks or atrocities will be ignored.
When it's time for war, the rulers will make up any kind of excuse, order the media to whip up the population to a war frenzy and mothers will cry tears of joy when their sons get sent away to die in agony in some forest or desert with their guts spilled all over the ground.
But if you think the honour of the Czech Republic or NATO needs to be restored, the question is what are you still doing in front of the computer?
Haven’t you inverted it rather flagrantly? In this scenario it is Russia that attached the Czech Republic.
> Wars are never waged as responses to attacks or insults, they are waged when the rulers have determined that they will be profitable
It is a meaningless truism that nations don’t start wars they don’t think they can or will win. No need to dress that up as any sort of profound insight.
NATO countries have been consistently looking the other way or downplaying Russian aggression because nobody actually wants to have to get into the sty and get dirty wrestling the pig to the ground.
I don't even think it's based on any realistic concerns of nuclear or conventional escalation... incumbents just don't want to be the ones in power when war happens. I think many aggressors have learned to capitalize on this weakness.
What for? To start a war between nuclear powers just because of sabotage? Furthermore, we the members of NATO sometimes sabotage other members, like when some pipes of the Nord Stream pipeline were destroyed two years ago. So...
avar|1 year ago
It's not "seen as an attack by Russia on NATO" because per the NATO treaty Russia nuking Washington DC won't be "seen as an attack" either, that is, until the country being attacked officially declares it as such through the mechanisms the treaty outlines.
The Czech republic hasn't invoked that mechanism, therefore it's a non-event as far as NATO's concerned. NATO doesn't have any mechanisms for pro-actively monitoring attacks on member states, outside of those states themselves.
retrac|1 year ago
North Korea regularly shells South Korea, sometimes killing South Korean civilians. It's absolutely a cause for war, and they might indeed be justified, in a sense, with breaking the ceasefire and marching on Pyongyang the next time NK does so. But they will have to live with the war that would cause.
lostlogin|1 year ago
anigbrowl|1 year ago
ajuc|1 year ago
Similarly Russia launched a cruise missile back in 2023 that flied over half of Poland and crashed in forest near Bydgoszcz. Poland did not invoked article 5, even if it could be justified.
Reason is similar in both cases:
- war is a BIG DEAL, it would likely cause flight of foreign investment and other businesses
- if NATO helps it would be an easy win, but there would still be loses in the region
- it's possible many countries in NATO don't see that as a sufficient justification for the war, which might cause problems in NATO and reduce the security guarantees for when they are REALLY needed (i.e. if Russia invades somebody in region for real)
TL; DR: it's not worth it for the attacked country, even if Russia is long past the point of "deserving it"
vkou|1 year ago
Also because most of us aren't interested in nuclear war over anything less than an existential threat. And the odds of conventional war between nuclear powers escalating into nuclear war is too fucking high. You'll need a better reason than 'someone blew up a weapons stockpile' to risk that.
If you're not going to risk open war over a full invasion of Ukraine, we sure won't risk it over an arms depot.
De-escalation-by-default is a feature, not a bug in a world where the push of a button can kill a billion people (much to the chagrin of people who have never had war waged against them).
surfingdino|1 year ago
The_Colonel|1 year ago
The breakthrough in the investigation came only post 2018 as a result of Skripal poisonings where the same agents were involved. It took a while to connect the dots.
rdtsc|1 year ago
Say it is acknowledged as an attack on a NATO member, but nothing is done. That immediately turns NATO's worth from whatever its is worth now, to less than the paper it was printed on in 1999 when the Check Republic joined the organization.
That's the achilles heel of NATO, and the Russian government knows it. Same goes for Baltic countries and possibly Poland. Currently what is Americans' and West Europeans' appetite for starting WWIII over an arms warehouse, or a small village in Baltics? I want to believe they would step up, but I am not convinced. Those kind of attacks becomes very attractive for Putin: blow something up here, hack something there, assassinate this or that person, and then watch NATO do anything.
That's why the predictable response it so look away and pretend nobody saw anything.
sofixa|1 year ago
stoperaticless|1 year ago
Georgelemental|1 year ago
epistasis|1 year ago
Rolling over beacuse somebody is a nuclear power only seems to come up when Russia is in the chat. If China or Israel attacks someone, nobody says "we can't respond to it because it would start a nuclear war."
What is it about Russia that makes Russia so irresponsible? And if it is, isn't it time to completely eliminate all economic ties with Russia, and pressure every other country in the world to do the same, until Russia decides to be a responsible country with their nuclear weapons.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
carlosjobim|1 year ago
When it's time for war, the rulers will make up any kind of excuse, order the media to whip up the population to a war frenzy and mothers will cry tears of joy when their sons get sent away to die in agony in some forest or desert with their guts spilled all over the ground.
But if you think the honour of the Czech Republic or NATO needs to be restored, the question is what are you still doing in front of the computer?
twixfel|1 year ago
> Wars are never waged as responses to attacks or insults, they are waged when the rulers have determined that they will be profitable
It is a meaningless truism that nations don’t start wars they don’t think they can or will win. No need to dress that up as any sort of profound insight.
Waterluvian|1 year ago
I don't even think it's based on any realistic concerns of nuclear or conventional escalation... incumbents just don't want to be the ones in power when war happens. I think many aggressors have learned to capitalize on this weakness.
severino|1 year ago
Aerroon|1 year ago
Or when NATO members wanted to build Nord Stream despite protests from other NATO members.
TiredOfLife|1 year ago
Damn! You have evidence of that? That must be worth a fortune.
snowpid|1 year ago
baybal2|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]