7/7/23
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Friday announced a new multi-year support package for Ukraine that he expects will be approved at the alliance’s summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, next week.
The plan has been “characterized as a “roadmap” for Ukraine to become a member of the military bloc, and it includes the establishment of a NATO-Ukraine council that Stoltenberg described as “a political platform where we can have crisis consultations and also actually make decisions together and deepen our political cooperation.”
Kyiv has sought membership in NATO for years, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announcing in September 2022 a bid for fast-track membership after Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed four Ukrainian regions amid his invasion earlier that year.
Stoltenberg’s new deal for Ukraine not only offers an outline for eventual membership, but the program will also provide the nation with enhanced security guarantees. What the NATO program won’t do, though, is obligate the United States to send troops to fight Putin’s military in Ukraine.
Allies will “take major steps to strengthen deterrence and defense, with the adoption of three new regional defense plans to counter the two main threats to NATO: Russia and terrorism,” Stoltenberg said during Friday’s press conference. “The plans will be supported by 300,000 troops on higher readiness, including substantial air and naval combat power.”
However, those words do to not carry a promise of troops on the ground from any NATO nation, including the U.S. The guarantee of troops would change should Ukraine be admitted into the alliance. A key part of the NATO treaty is Article 5, which states that if an “armed attack” is carried out against any member nation, the action “shall be considered an attack against them all,” and all NATO allies are required to assist the member attacked.
Jason Jay Smart—a political adviser on post-Soviet and international politics—told Newsweek that had the deal announced by Stoltenberg contained a provision about providing troops, President Joe Biden might not approve it.
“I do not foresee the U.S. backing any deals to send any NATO country’s troops to Ukraine,” he said.
In a story published Friday in Foreign Affairs, Justin Logan and Joshua Shifrinson of the Cato Institute, explained why Article 5’s defense guarantee is a roadblock to Ukraine being admitted into NATO at this time.
They wrote “an Article 5 guarantee could pull the United States into a direct conflict with Russia…If Ukraine were in NATO, the United States could be pushed to come to Ukraine’s defense by deploying troops and even threatening to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine’s behalf.”
One of the reasons cited by many observers for Ukraine not already being in NATO is that it’s been involved in a border dispute with Moscow that predates the current war Putin launched last February. Putin invaded and annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, and Kremlin-backed separatists have also controlled the southeastern Ukraine’s Luhansk and Donetsk regions since 2014.
As Logan and Shifrinson noted, Ukraine could likely continue to have territorial disputes with Russia no matter the outcome of the current conflict.
Several NATO countries—such as the United Kingdom, Poland and the Baltic states—support giving Ukraine a fast-track to membership. Stoltenberg himself has stated multiple times that Ukraine will eventually be part of NATO.”I expect all leaders will reaffirm that Ukraine will become a member of NATO and unite on how to bring Ukraine closer to its goal,” he said on Friday.
Still, the consensus is to wait until the war is over to avoid NATO being drawn into direct combat with Russia. The Biden administration, which has remained steadfast in its support of Ukraine in the war, favors this direction.
However, Smart said that if the alliance wants Kyiv to defeat Putin, it must “arm Ukraine so that it can win; give security guarantees to Ukraine; and accept Ukraine’s application to join NATO.”
“As long as Putin is in power, there will not be security in Ukraine, or in the rest of Europe,” he added. ‘That is why at the Vilnius Summit, NATO leaders should start seriously discussing the downfall or removal of Vladimir Putin.”
“However, those words do to not carry a promise of troops on the ground from any NATO nation, including the U.S.”
Just the same old shit.
Imagine what would have happened if in Sept 2022, when US and U.K. intel knew that puker was planning a massive attack, that they, as Budapest signatories, immediately set up a NFZ for all Ukraine and began the process of moving three divisions in to Ukraine.
They would have been in place and ready before Feb 2022.
Simultaneously, they could have been installing Patriots in key cities and supplying Ukraine with MBT’s, MLRS’s, long range fires, attack drones and all the other things Ukraine needed.
The answer is that next to nothing would have happened. Thousands of Ukrainian innocents would not have been murdered by vermin and most infrastructure would have remained intact.
That was the obvious action to take, but very tragically, it was not even considered.
The very least that the Budapest signatories now should be doing is bringing putler’s horror to a rapid end by providing all that the Ukrainians need without debate.
Sept 2021. 😁
I fully agree. It’s a shameful chapter in history.
Or show some spine and some courage during the Sochi Olympics when the Pentagon saw putin moving military assets around preparing for his assault on Crimea. I think anyone that read Budapest would agree SOMETHING should have been done by the signatories when putin invaded Crimea.
“However, those words do to not carry a promise of troops on the ground from any NATO nation, including the U.S.”
Ukraine does not need a Budapest Memorandum 2.0. Just give the country what it needs, and it’ll destroy NATO’s biggest nemesis all on its own. Concurrently, it will also destroy NATO’s reason to exist. So, there’s no reason for any NATO members to soil their panties over the prospect of fighting for Ukraine.
I think Biden needs to worry less about escaleation and more about reelection.
Which will be x10 harder if there is no successful conclusion to this mess.
This is true. He stands a better chance for a second term if this war ends … as a win for Ukraine, mind you.