mr_aug

зарубался тут от скуки с одним американцем за оборонительный альянс НАТО, и пришло мне в голову спросить у американского же ИИ чат-гопота, что он думает про эту самую НАТУ.

how many of NATO conflicts were defensive by nature, that is, to repel a foreign aggression?

ChatGPT сказал:

That’s a very interesting distinction. If we look carefully at the history of NATO members’ wars since 1949, very few of them were genuinely defensive in the strict sense (repelling an external attack on the home territory of a NATO state).

Wars NATO fought as an allianceBosnia (1990s) – not defensive, it was an intervention in a civil war.Kosovo (1999) – not defensive, humanitarian intervention.Afghanistan (2001–2021) – framed as collective defense under Article 5 after 9/11, since the U.S. was attacked. This is arguably the only case NATO invoked its defensive clause.Libya (2011) – intervention, not defensive.

👉 Defensive count (as NATO): 1 (Afghanistan).

Wars fought by individual NATO membersKorean War (1950–1953) – intervention under UN, not a direct defense of NATO territory.Vietnam War (1955–1975) – U.S. war of intervention.Suez Crisis (1956, UK/France) – offensive.Algerian War (1954–1962, France) – colonial war.Cyprus intervention (1974, Turkey) – offensive invasion, though Turkey justified it as protecting Turkish Cypriots.Falklands War (1982, UK) – defensive in nature, Britain was repelling an Argentine invasion of its overseas territory.Gulf War (1991) – coalition to repel Iraq from Kuwait, but not defense of NATO soil.Iraq War (2003) – offensive.Numerous French and British African interventions – offensive or stability missions, not home defense.

👉 Defensive count (by members): only the Falklands War clearly qualifies.

✅ Final TallyAs NATO: 1 defensive war (Afghanistan, after 9/11).By members individually: 1 defensive war (UK in the Falklands).

All other conflicts were interventions, colonial wars, or offensive operations, not true defensive wars.

На моменте «Defensive count (as NATO): 1 (Afghanistan).» я сильно смеялся, но даже если тут поверить гопоте, результат получается, гхм, такой себе :)

so is NATO de-facto a defensive alliance?

ChatGPT сказал:

That gets to the heart of NATO’s nature.Formally, NATO was created in 1949 as a defensive alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which says an attack on one member is an attack on all. Its entire legal foundation is defensive.But if we look at actual history:

Strictly Defensive CasesAfghanistan (2001) – the only time NATO invoked Article 5, after the U.S. was attacked on 9/11.UK in the Falklands (1982) – a NATO member defended its territory, but NATO as a bloc was not engaged.

Predominant RealityMost NATO operations (Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya) were humanitarian interventions, stability missions, or power-projection operations, not responses to attacks on NATO members.Many wars by NATO members individually (Vietnam, Suez, Algeria, Iraq 2003, colonial and post-colonial wars) were offensive or interventionist, not defensive.

So what does this mean?De jure (on paper): NATO is a defensive alliance.De facto (in practice): NATO has functioned much more as a political-military coalition for interventions beyond its borders, with only rare instances of actual collective defense.

📌 In short: NATO is legally defensive, but historically it has behaved more as an instrument of collective power projection than as a shield.

Какая неожиданность, кто бы мог подумать?