By Askold Lozynskyj
A friend of mine having read my previous article on Ukraine’s NATO membership and the end of empire, wrote to me:
“Dear Askold:
In the below opinion, you argue that NATO member countries should ‘offer Ukraine membership in NATO immediately’ and that the ‘result of such an invitation would not be World War 3’.
Perhaps, your argument would be more convincing if you elaborated somewhat why the ‘result’ of such invitation:
(a) would be beneficial to NATO member countries and Ukraine; and
(b) ‘would not be World War 3′ despite Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.”
The answer to the first question is obvious. Ukraine’s membership in NATO enhances that alliance’s military capability. If there was any doubt about Ukraine’s military credentials, it has been dispelled by Ukraine’s almost three-year defence against the current Russian aggression.
In fact Ukraine upon joining NATO would be considered the second or at the lowest the third most powerful NATO member.
On the subject of benefit to Ukraine, NATO membership is crucial for Ukraine’s security in the long term. Any settlement talks or negotiations to end the current conflict are moot if they in any way infringe upon Ukraine’s right to join NATO.
Russia has proven over and over again that any document signed by Russia is not worth the paper it is written on. Thus NATO membership in addition to Ukraine’s ability to defend itself is the only security against Russian aggression.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty is crucial to this discussion. It reads as follows:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
It is my opinion that all references to the United Nations Security Council may be ignored when analyzing the meaning of this Article. As long as the other permanent members of the UNSC do
not challenge Russia’s membership on the Council, the UNSC is a token institution and a prime example why international law has not evolved seriously over one hundred years since the defunct League of Nations was first instituted.
The concept of “all for one and one for all” is not an absolute as each member retains the right to determine on its own how it will assist the beleaguered member. This is relevant as a country such as Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orban or any Fidesz successor may simply choose to accept migrants or allow for air space.
The overriding element is one’s own security and should any member refuse to assist, it exposes itself to the wrath of the other members. In the history of NATO only one time has Article 5 been invoked and that by NATO’s arguably leading member, the United States. Even so, most of the NATO member countries actually supplied less than 100 men on the ground. Belgium contributed a c-130 Hercule and four F-16 aircraft, Latvia provided logistical support, Slovakia provided sappers and specialists on maintenance and reconstruction of airports and technical equipment.
Certainly, my purpose is not to denigrate NATO members, but to emphasize that the psychological and tangible support of the NATO security umbrella is greater than the sum of its members’ contributions. For that reason Russia is frankly afraid of Ukraine’s NATO membership because Russia has imperialistic plans that it pursues in myriad ways – outright aggression, disinformation, etc. – with absolutely no regard for international law, bilateral or multilateral pacts of treaties. The only way to deal with Russia is collectively. NATO is a brake on Russia’s ambitions.
Perhaps, even more significantly, once a country is a NATO member, there is no need for a professional public relations maven as president of a beleaguered country which is a NATO member. Neither are the needs of the nation victim subject to parliamentary or Congressional whims, disingenuity or other perfidious behavioural excesses. Consider that the last allocation of aid to Ukraine by the United States Congress came about because an Evangelical holding his Bible above the American Constitution and a neophyte as Speaker generously decided to place aid to Ukraine on the House agenda. While Ukraine was grateful, the process was most demeaning to Ukraine, a country which had lost so many of its best sons and daughter, relying on the good nature of a low ranking congressman from Louisiana, who gained extraordinary powers at an embarrassing time for the American lower house of its legislature.
And so the answer to the second question is that Vladimir Putin is bluffing as to Armageddon. His nuclear arms are antiquated and covered with dust. He lacks the financial wherewithal to modernize. His desire to become the czar of an empire will be unrequited. Sure he is psychotic and unpredictable, but he happens to be one of the richest men in the world with immediate family members essentially in hiding currently.
One of the basic principles of criminal law is that demands of the criminal are not to be satisfied. Similarly in international law red lines drawn by the aggressor should not be appeased. Granted that international law despite at least one hundred years of vigorous effort remains at an infant stage. That is precisely what Putin exploits and what the West is accustomed to appease. And it
does not work. Inviting Ukraine to membership in NATO is weakening Putin’s negotiating position by taking from him one of his chips. In this case NATO has to stand up to Putin.
One last comment: NATO has to speak with one voice despite more than thirty members. Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban and prime minister of Slovakia Robert Fico have to be put in their place, particularly the former. Their contributions to NATO and the EU are negligible and far outweighed by the trouble they cause. The removal of a country from NATO is certainly an option. Which country is more beneficial to NATO, Ukraine or Hungary?
NATO and the West, in particular, the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany, must deal with Putin and Russia from a position of strength. In this regard they have failed not only Ukraine but the civilized and democratic world community in its effort to make the world largely secure and ruled by law, not fear.
October 20, 2024