Article 5 of the North
Atlantic Treaty provides that an armed attack against one shall be considered
an attack against all and each will assist the one attacked. Detractors of this
Article point out that the all for one and one for all language is followed by
“such action as it deems necessary,” thereby rendering any assistance
discretionary with each member.
There are currently 28
NATO members. To assume the extreme that all will ‘”deem necessary” to do nothing or next to nothing is to
suggest that the members will decide that NATO is no longer needed. More
importantly, that logic assumes that all member countries will feel so certain
of their own security that by doing nothing or very little they are prepared
for a reciprocal action in the event their own security is in peril. The
question then is why did those countries join NATO if not because they sought
collective security.
The reality is very
different. In fact with Russia attacking Ukraine, Poland as Ukraine’s close
neighbor and a NATO member invoked Article 4 seeking NATO consultation. NATO
responded by convening a summit and deploying special units to Poland and the
Baltic countries. Several NATO members currently are providing military
equipment to Ukraine itself.
The only example of an
attack on a NATO country since NATO’s formation was the terrorist attack on the
United States on Sept. 11, 2001. The U.S. invoked Article 5. Following a
determination that the aggressor was based in Afghanistan NATO led an
International Security Assistance Force against the aggressor there. According
to NATO sources all 28 NATO countries participated. Only Luxembourg did not
provide troops. Even such smaller NATO members as Slovenia, Estonia, Iceland
and Albania did.
Granted this was an
attack on the United States and perhaps no NATO member wanted to disappoint the
ultimate guarantor of its security. Nevertheless, on the other hand, the
theater of operations was not the North Atlantic area which is the geographic
location named in the NATO treaty. Article 5 provides “the use of armed force,
to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” Coming to the
aid of the U.S. brought other NATO members under fire on their own territory.
NATO expansion and
Russian aggression are not a cause and effect phenomenon as suggested by the
Russia appeasers. Moldova was not a serious candidate for NATO membership in
1992 when the 14th Army decided to secure the borders of the Russia
inspired breakaway state of Transdnistria. Georgia’s NATO membership
aspirations had suffered a severe blow at the Bucharest NATO summit in April
2008 before Russia decided to invade Georgian territory (Abkhazia and South
Ossetia) four months later. Ukraine’s very tangible NATO aspirations were also
dashed in Bucharest and Ukraine certainly had not revived its NATO aspirations
or solicitation when Russia invaded Crimea in February of 2014.
To the contrary, Russian
history is replete with Russian aggression, mostly, not when its victim was particularly secure
in its defense, but rather when Russia saw its victim at its weakest. The
Russian Federation today spans 10 time zones. 150 nations live within that Federation,
not because Russia is a country of immigrants but because Russia even today is
an ill acquired empire. Ukraine’s Russia
problem dates back to 1654 when Ukraine was besieged by Poland and the Tatars.
and needed an alliance with Russia. Russia exploited Ukraine’s security issues
at that time by simply overrunning Ukraine’s territory. Frankly Ukraine has
never recovered from that alliance.
Removing the
Ukrainian, Georgian and Moldova possibility of NATO membership has a serious
deleterious effect on the security of those countries. They are significantly
weakened because Russia is emboldened.
Why? Because that’s what bullies do. Furthermore, the security of NATO
members neighboring those countries is affected. Ultimately global security is
at risk. If the events of the 20th century regarding Nazi Germany
and the Soviet Union have taught us anything, it’s that appeasement only serves
to embolden the aggressor.
Askold S. Lozynskyj is a past president of the Ukrainian World Congress.
