Wales Summit Declaration, issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, §72 :
"We affirm therefore that cyber defence is part of NATO's core task of collective defence. A decision as to when a cyber attack would lead to the invocation of Article 5 would be taken by the North Atlantic Council on a case-by-case basis."
BUT, as Robert Madelin, director general of the European Commission’s Communications Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT) department, stated it recently:
"... there are hundreds of [cyber] attacks every day of the year. Knowing where they come from is one of the big problems."
By the way, who are the representatives of the states at the NAC ? Head of states ? Prime Ministers ?
No, not at all. Here they are. All of them are non-elected persons. None of them report to the peoples. None of them have a democratic mandate.
This means that you can NOW have any NATO deep state (they are specialized in false flag attack since a century or more) launching a cyber-attack (even against his own state), providing the same kind of proofs they've shown you with MH17, or with Iraq WMD, or Assad chemical attack... yes you've never seen anything conclusive and more and more deception, that's right.
This cyber-attack would trigger a NAC summit... some nice slides with photos of computers will be shown to an audience with no forensic expert in IT security, and an official will say abruptly that "we are absolutely sure this attack comes from Russia/China/any BRICS ally, and it is an offensive against our national security".
No independent expert will be allowed to examine the collected "proofs". If allowed, whatever his expertise and time, he would never be sure the data provided were not forged, or for whose side did the hackers really worked. As Robert Madeline said, you can make hundreds of these cyber attacks every day. You can so easily make and announce "one massive WTC like attack per day".
The fact that to be sure of where they are coming from is nearly impossible is a chance for the ones behind the false flag attacks. The only truth will be what some official will say, and the civil society will have no right neither opportunity to challenge these conclusions, never.
And according to Article 5 if US/UK insist to enforce it, this would mean all NATO States would be required to use military force against Russia, without asking previously to national Parliaments, Defense Ministers (NATO ambassadors are often diplomats with strong relations with Foreign Affairs department), only perhaps to their Head of States...
The last remaining sovereign power of European states, that is to say to declare war, would have been hijacked.
The last remaining sovereign power of European states, that is to say to declare war, would have been hijacked.
Because the decision to use Article 5 is not required to be agreed by every member of the Alliance, we anticipate a few states will resist this hijacking at the last minutes. Then we will not see a major NATO war OR the breaking of NATO Alliance. We will see a declaration of war AND the breaking of NATO at the same time. This declaration of war will be the dissolution act of NATO.
NATO is not any more a defense alliance, because it has lost since 20 years against its utter most enemy within. It is now a puppet organisation, apparently moving but collapsing as soon as it will move too far from its strings.
Update 10/14/2014 :
I had the opportunity today to discuss this question with an european general, who is daily involved with NATO. He recognized all the facts above, but said the article has been introduced "only to be prepared to new threats". He's personally believing this NATO article will not be used in case of an offensive limited to cyber attack, but only if the cyber offensive is used together with others tangible attacks.
In this case, why this important remarks have not been included into §72 ? This declaration was the longer ever produced by NATO summit. This §72 as it has been released includes a loophole, a juridical flaw which can be used to start a war on so-called legal basis. How was it possible ?
