It has been hotly debated, mostly in regards to Greece and Türkiye, who have been at each other’s throats for decades. In that case, the aggressor likely wouldn’t be obvious and both are likely to claim article 5. Their relations to other NATO members are also a lot more ambiguous, some favoring one, some the other.
In the case of a rogue USA attacking Canada, or Denmark, I believe the case would be a lot clearer.
Well, article 5 doesn’t apply then. Other agreements may still apply.
Of course it applies! Where are you getting that it doesn’t from?
From article 5 from the NATO treaty actually. It states that it applies to attacks from external actors, i.e. non-members.
Edit: the article or nato treaty doesn’t state it that explicitly actually. But a quick google show that it’s at least the consensus interpretation
It has been hotly debated, mostly in regards to Greece and Türkiye, who have been at each other’s throats for decades. In that case, the aggressor likely wouldn’t be obvious and both are likely to claim article 5. Their relations to other NATO members are also a lot more ambiguous, some favoring one, some the other.
In the case of a rogue USA attacking Canada, or Denmark, I believe the case would be a lot clearer.
Which America would be if they leave NATO…