en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

The European Union’s official overview of the founding agreements states that the Treaty of Lisbon was signed on 13 December 2007 and entered into force on 1 December 2009. Referring to a "1982 Treaty of Lisbon" is therefore plainly incorrect.

This is not a matter of interpretation or wording: the treaty’s official date is 2007, not 1982.

This sentence combines the number of one UN resolution with the date of another.

According to the United Nations Digital Library:

• Resolution 816 (1993) was adopted on 31 March 1993.
• Resolution 781 (1992) was adopted on 9 October 1992.

So saying "Resolution 816 on 9 October 1992" is factually incorrect. The page appears to have mixed up Resolution 816 with the earlier Resolution 781.

NATO’s own contemporaneous news release says that on 12 March 1999 the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland deposited their instruments of accession to the North Atlantic Treaty and "officially become members of the Alliance."

That means the article is wrong to place their official accession at the 1999 Washington Summit. The Washington Summit took place later, in April 1999, after they had already joined.

NATO’s own explanation of the 2025 Hague commitment says Allies agreed to invest 5% of GDP annually by 2035 on a combination of core defence requirements and defence- and security-related spending. It further specifies that at least 3.5% is for NATO-defined defence expenditure, while up to 1.5% covers areas such as protecting critical infrastructure, defending networks, resilience, innovation and the defence industrial base.

So the article’s wording is incorrect in two ways:

1. It describes the 5% figure as if it were all spending "on their own defense", when NATO explicitly divides it into defence spending plus broader security-related investment.
2. It omits that the commitment is a 2035 target, not simply a present blanket spending target in that form.

NATO’s own description says the North Atlantic Council approved Operation Ocean Shield in August 2009 as NATO’s contribution to counter-piracy efforts. The official NATO news item lists ships from NATO Allies in support of the operation.

A separate NATO transcript discussing anti-piracy operations distinguishes NATO’s Ocean Shield from other forces present in the region, explicitly listing vessels from countries such as China and Russia as separate actors operating alongside, not as creators of, the NATO mission.

So the article is wrong to say Russia, China and South Korea formed Operation Ocean Shield. They were part of the wider international anti-piracy environment, but Ocean Shield itself was a NATO operation.

NATO’s own historical material says France resumed its participation in the NATO Military Committee during the 1990s, and a NATO news item from 5 December 1995 explicitly states that "France announces that it will resume its seat in the NATO Military Committee."

So the claim that the Military Committee excluded France until 2008 is incorrect. France remained outside NATO’s integrated military command structure until 2009, but that is a different point from participation in the Military Committee itself.

Official NATO Parliamentary Assembly material says the Assembly is independent from NATO and has no direct role of oversight over NATO policies. It is a parliamentary forum that helps legislators discuss and influence security issues, but it does not set NATO’s strategy.

NATO’s own institutional description says the North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the Alliance’s principal political decision-making body and the ultimate authority within NATO. So the article misstates the NATO PA’s role by describing it as a body that "sets broad strategic goals for NATO."