Britain has reassured NATO members “that if one Russian boot lands on NATO soil, military force will be met by military force”.

The remark was made today in the House of Commons, watch below.

Richard Drax, MP for South Dorset, said:

“I commend my right hon. Friend and his Ministers for the firm stance they are taking. None of us knows what Mr Putin’s longer-term aims are. If Ukraine falls, and I fear that it might, his covetous eye might land on the Baltic states and other vulnerable countries. Can my right hon. Friend reassure NATO members that if one Russian boot lands on NATO soil, military force will be met by military force?”

The Prime Minister responded:

“Yes, and what is so encouraging is that the whole House understands the vital importance of that article 5 guarantee that we make to every one of the 30 members of NATO.”

What is Article 5?

NATO say that the principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

Article 5

“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 and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence 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.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

This article is complemented by Article 6, which stipulates:

Article 6

“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France , on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”

What’s going on in Ukraine?

At about 0600 Moscow time, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a military operation in eastern Ukraine; minutes later, missile strikes began at locations across the country, including in the capital Kyiv. Here’s what has happened since.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

37 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Something Different
Something Different (@guest_618713)
2 years ago

A clear message but it needs to be backed by continued reinforcement of NATO’s eastern border. More money needs to be spent on defence, particularly the nation’s armoured forces, and perhaps consideration of full time forward deployment of at least brigade, if not division, sized forces in the Baltic states (and elsewhere as appropriate).

Paul42
Paul42 (@guest_618732)
2 years ago

Exactly right, but given Putins attitude such a clash could quickly escalate to Nukes…..

Something Different
Something Different (@guest_618740)
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul42

I think if the western resolve to respond to military incursions into NATO nations is in anyway ambiguous then that will increase the likelihood of Russian action and therefore escalation. That ambiguity would be reduced through the deployment of substantial forces eastward.

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_618744)
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul42

He is not doing this alone. To take on Ukraine is one thing but to take on NATO might not gain the same support at home. Will he not be careful not to do anything wish might be considered an attack on the west?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_618750)
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul42

We have them as well.

Just because he has them do we let Russia do as it wishes?

You stand up to bullies not cower away no matter what the cost.

It’s the only thing they understand.

Last edited 2 years ago by Nigel Collins
Paul42
Paul42 (@guest_618766)
2 years ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Indeed, I fully agree! Its clear that this particular bully senses great weakness in the west, and sees Nukes as the answer to that weakness. NATO is a shadow of what it once was with the west rushing into Defence Cuts once they thought the Cold War was over! We really need to start pouring in the money and get things sorted, the threat is real……

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_618910)
2 years ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Exactly right. I think leaving Ukraine to fight it our alone is a huge mistake. Yes we’re giving support & sanctions but any nuke “gun” pointed at us is matched by our own deterrents or what’s the point of them? Putin thinks he can take Ukraine without any military response from the west. If we put in some forces to make his task much harder it might check his boldness. Contest the air space, interdict advancing Russian columns. All Putin has acheived is to prove Ukraine’s need to be in NATO & demonstrate the hostility of Russia to its neighbours.… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_618940)
2 years ago
Reply to  Frank62

Agreed, step back and the bully only sees weakness, move forward and he’ll think twice and collectively we are far from weak!

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_618753)
2 years ago

Good message, let’s hope it gets backed up by some defence budget increases not just here but across NATO.

We need more Typhoons, more tanks, more artillery.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_618760)
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve R

NATO as a whole has plenty of fast jets. If US is fully onboard getting platforms an munitions into theatre is not really an issue. The Poles will be fully onboard and the Baltics will quite and reliably help as they do in their very organised way. Germany will probably stop at transport aircraft and maybe ‘sell some surplus items’ ah hem. You know a total coincidence….been planned for years…. Look, we have to be very sensitive to Germans past. As one German said to me a few weeks ago ‘we got it terribly wrong in two wars and we… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_618768)
2 years ago

Problem is Germany will get it wrong a third time through inaction.

Using the Team America analogy, Germany’s gone from being an asshole to a pussy.

I still feel we at the very least need to maintain current Typhoon numbers, either upgrade the Tranch 1s, replace them with Tranch 3s or simply relegate them to QRA to free up our Tranche 2s and 3s to deploy. 107 or so is not enough.

Jon
Jon (@guest_618778)
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve R

Replace them with Tranche 3 or 4. I don’t think upgrade is on the cards. Germany is doing a T4, but I’m not sure if there’s anything different about it from T3 other than the radar, and RAF is getting a superior one anyway.

Buying F-35s would have been the plan but they are delayed too long with MoD reluctant to buy them now and having to upgrade in 2027 after Meteor/Spear integration. So more Typhoon it should be.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_618787)
2 years ago
Reply to  Jon

I agree.

30 or 40 additional Tranch 3s would work well, allow for perhaps 8 total full strength squadrons of Typhoons.

DRS
DRS (@guest_618808)
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve R

Whatever you can accelerate quickly T3/4s yes and sharpish. Even if it is just more hawks (advanced hawk?) with basic weapons – at least then we are more likely to have some qualified pilots to fly them. Else it is a 4 year lead time to train someone to be able to fly a Typhoon – you may be able to crunch that period but still take time.

David
David (@guest_618868)
2 years ago
Reply to  DRS

Too late. All scrapped.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_618916)
2 years ago
Reply to  DRS

Anti ship armed with what? Interim AShM was dropped, though there’s plenty off the shelf around. We need something that can engage enemy warships out of range of their SAMs. It is a capability we badly need.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_619072)
2 years ago
Reply to  DRS

There are generally 1.5 pilots to every fast jet anyway and we’re about to scrap 30 or more T1s anyway so purchasing 30 new T3s wouldn’t affect anything. Even of we grew the Typhoom fleet by an additional 30 or so on top of that it would just reduce the ratio to 1.3 or so pilots per jet.

David
David (@guest_618874)
2 years ago
Reply to  Jon

Order T3/4 now to replace the early models, and keep those early models in service until they arrive. With increased numbers of the newer models deployed, we need them for UK Air defence….

John Camp
John Camp (@guest_618884)
2 years ago
Reply to  David

I agree.In addition, we must halt the cuts to our land forces , build more warships that work. All this will cost money and therefore we must increase the Defence Budget further, even at the expense of other pet projects.

David
David (@guest_618890)
2 years ago
Reply to  John Camp

Totally agree. This wake up call cannot be ignored.

Ian A. Anderson
Ian A. Anderson (@guest_619739)
2 years ago
Reply to  David

100% agree!

edwinr
edwinr (@guest_618898)
2 years ago
Reply to  John Camp

Advanced warships take time to build. In the interim we should build more Batch 2 OPVs. Another 5 but fitted with not for 🙂 decent weaponry. It just needs to have enough punch to make an adversary think twice about taking it on.

David Barry
David Barry (@guest_620546)
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve R

That’s changed.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne (@guest_618825)
2 years ago

We need to spend at least 3% of GDP on defence. The least painful way is cut overseas aid now unless the aid is geostrategic in nature.

peter Wait
peter Wait (@guest_619441)
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Should cut it to Pakistan as they seem to spend it on their armed forces !

Ian A. Anderson
Ian A. Anderson (@guest_619742)
2 years ago
Reply to  peter Wait

3% is not enough. Our manpower is in urgent need of a 30-40% increase and that’s money today. Add the ships, planes, helicopters, armour, artillery, transport etc all needs upgrading/adding too.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus (@guest_618878)
2 years ago

The assumption in the past was that those who were ultimately in charge of nuclear weapons whether in the Kremlin, the White House, Downing Street or the Elysee Palace etc were rational people who understood the facts around MAD. Unfortunately, it would seem that Putin is not rational, he’s vengeful, delusional and pretty much crazy. I hope that there is some rational minds within the Russian defence staff that may be able to prevail. Although many including myself thought that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, what is happening now is an example of what can happen if… Read more »

farouk
farouk (@guest_618888)
2 years ago

Well we are almost 24 hours into this bunfight and I do believe that the real direction of Moscow is not to take the country but rather just secure the water canal to Crimea in the south and if possible link up the Crimea with the East. The rest of the attacks across the country are there simply to keep the Ukrainians off balance until Moscow can secure the south. Having a butchers at the ground, the biggest advances are above the Crimea and now towards the city of Melitopol’ However on that front the Russians have met stiff resistance… Read more »

Last edited 2 years ago by farouk
GMD
GMD (@guest_618939)
2 years ago
Reply to  farouk

Great update Farouk, thank you

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_618947)
2 years ago

A few points here not totally related except in the bigger picture. 1) this invasion is being enabled by China without its acquiescence I don’t think Putin would have dared do this. One they need China to cushion them from sanctions. Two as I heard tonight that Russian troops were removed from Kazakhstan when China showed opposition. This presently suits China to let Russia play its games in Europe it takes American focus away from it it weakens Europe as an entity and keeps it inward looking while with Russia it hopes to split it both amongst its-selves and between… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_618964)
2 years ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

It will be interesting to see if any ground swell opposition arises in Russia and Ukraine and turns against their leaders and maybe even get military backing.
Hope Ukraine has plenty anti air missiles, to shoot down those aircraft and helos and ATM’s for all those tanks, trucks, artillery and whatever else. Hopefully Putin forces will use up a lot of their resources and leave themselves vulnerable counter-attacks. They’ve lost their morality already!
The vast majority of humanity is with you 🇺🇦!

TS
TS (@guest_618965)
2 years ago

I think the time has come to not only build strength and sharp teeth to our armed forces and uplift defence spending, but to also build resilience to them, our strategic sites, our supply chains, our industrial capacity and weapon stocks. If we do need to go to war with Russia in the future, a few cruise missile armed subs could seriously degrade our capabilities, with all our eggs in one basket in many areas such as RAF bases. I think alternative options should be prepared at least with basic infrastructure in place to be able to swap to if… Read more »

Angus
Angus (@guest_618987)
2 years ago

Message perhaps a little late as it take too long to generate the increased numbers needed to show we mean business. Yes stop the cuts to numbers now and use the kit to keep UK safe, even those Typhoon Tranch 1’s can still kick ass in an air defence role. Pilots. plenty out there sitting at desks just get them on them sim’s ready to take one up. You can only ever go to the table when you have the strength to back you up. It’s what the like’s of Putin understands, not pink fluffy woke crap we see everyday… Read more »

Fen Tiger
Fen Tiger (@guest_619122)
2 years ago
Reply to  Angus

TS

Back to (RAF) Wick then?

Tim Godderis
Tim Godderis (@guest_619159)
2 years ago

I think Nato missed a huge opportunity the day Putin recognized the Donbas states. If Nato did the same and accepted the annexation of Crimea for the time being. There wouldn’t have been ‘an ongoing conflict’ in a candidtate (for Nato membership) state. So we could have invited Ukraïne in Nato. Instead of another Sudetenlandstyle fiasco we would have shown Russia the same dilemma as with Danzig. It’s the 30’ies all over again … same rethorics even.

Ian A. Anderson
Ian A. Anderson (@guest_619736)
2 years ago

I am against war as much as any sane person, however, as a former Royal Marine Officer, I know that unless we take a strong and resolute stand against any further aggression by Russia, we will only repeat the errors of our forebears in the 1930’s. That said, our armed forces have been asked to do more with fewer resources year on year since the 1960s. Talk to any veteran who served in any branch since the mid-1970s and you will have no shortage of horror stories of poor or old equipment being drawn from stores and of constantly being… Read more »

dan
dan (@guest_620875)
2 years ago

I wouldn’t count on that with Biden in the White House.