Perhaps I'm asking the obvious, but why on earth would Russia agree to a group of nations providing Ukraine with NATO's Article 5-level security guarantees, when Russia manifestly opposes Ukraine joining NATO in the first place?
Once the dust settles, Ukraine's best security protection is declare neutrality, like other respected European nations have done.
I don't see why the Russians would object to what's essentially a nothingburger. The language of Article V itself doesn't oblige member states to take any specific action. The source of NATO protection is the conviction that the entire alliance would collapse if it fails to respond in a maximalist fashion. The potential collective loss is what provides the guarantee.
A nothingburger not the same as nothing. If it helps the patient swallow bitter pills, it's definitely something. I'm not disparaging it.
NATO had boots on the ground. Then we got kicked out by folks living in caves. Now why should the Russians fear the presence of our of soldiers in Ukraine?
The fact is, the Alliance has been badly damaged. Our arsenal is half empty and the weapons we still have have lost much of their deterrent value. Even actual NATO membership is barely NATO membership at this point.
OK. So as part of the extension of soft NATO guarantees to Ukraine, all of the countries in NATO accept billions, tens of billions of dollars in direct aid which includes strengthening infrastructure such as roads, bridges, airfields etc to bring them up to current military standards. When they subsequently get a request to send some troops or planes or tanks are they are going to say ....no, why would you think that we would do something like that?.... Or would their governments say ....of course we stand by our commitments and will actively suppress any vocal dissent from our electorate in order to make sure we do step up.......
And all of the NATO countries in Europe *are* about to receive massive amounts of cash infused into their moribund economies to explicitly prepare them to respond to the Russian efforts in Ukraine and what it is claimed will follow. All of them. Soft NATO guarantees to Ukraine make it clear to those countries what will be expected of them when they take the money.
You're talking about money the EU is about to borrow on behalf of European taxpayers. While normally local politicians like to treat EU money as free money, that pretense goes out the window quickly enough when you ask them to do something unpopular. Free money will revert to "debt on our children's shoulders" in no time.
Very few if any of the current leadership in the E.U. care about any of the issues you raise. Any public nay sayers will be treated as supporting the "enemy." That will mean being denied a platform to express their views.
It’s worth noting that Truman could only get the Washington Treaty through the Senate after Dean Acheson provided a written assurance that it did not ‘automatically’ commit the United States to military action in support of its NATO allies.
Hi Herman - you won’t have any difficulty tracking down a reference for this; a quick Google search should bring it up for you.
Self-executing treaties are very problematic under US law, especially a treaty that purports to ‘automatically’ commit the United States to military action. This is because the Constitution expressly reserves to Congress the power to declare war, and does not permit this authority to be delegated to the executive.
Briefly, the NATO treaty definitely commits the United States to take some action to support its allies, but definitely doesn’t commit it to taking any military action.
Thank you, LudwigF. I didn't know about that written assurance, and I am sure very few people do. Where did you find that? Is it possible to provide a link?
I hate to say it, but I don't think U.S. security guarantees are worth anything. Trump could change his mind at any time, and the next President might have different opinions.
How dangerous would US troops on the ground be? One false flag attack and then what? The US is going into WW3? Who in their right mind would agree to that? That the European leaders want troops on the ground is obvious, but Russia would never agree to that,and neither should they accept US troops on the ground. Only troops from the global south should be worth discussing.
I agree with you completely. We need to avoid troops in Ukraine because i don't believe we can supply the number of troops needed in high intensity combat against a peer foe over a 5,000 mile contested supply line. Some BRICs troops would be much better.
I think the "security guarantees" are that the US will have commercial interests in the region and, if they should experience an attack of any sort, hell would be paid by Russia. It would be great if the war ends.
"hell would be paid by Russia" - this sounds very powerful, like so many "clear and strong signals" sent to Russia by Biden's admin and then Trump's admin, not even talking about Obama before. How exactly this "hell will be paid", by imposing sanctions/tariffs on Russia, or its trade partners? Using various "bone crushing" sanctions to "turn ruble into rubble"? Closing the skies over Ukraine, or maybe directly fighting it, not via a proxy? These are not rhetorical questions, various strong words were used over the last four years, and even before, since 2014, and, frankly, I do not see Russia "paying hell" so far.
You're right. The "Last Chinese Warning," which became a byword during the Cold War, has lost its relevance, and its place has been taken by the "Last American Warning." It's just as toothless.
Any peace treaty of Ukraine crisis remains to be negotiated, signed and inplemented. It does not exist yet. And it will never exist if the basic Russian demands are not fulfilled. Any foreign troops o Ukrainian soill are dealbreaker to Russia. Russia is quite capable to achieve its’s aims and demanda by simply continuing to destroy Ukrainen by military means. The West needs a ceasefire/peace, not Russia. So all this Western peace/ceasefire/security guarantees media hulabaloo empty is just huff puff bluff. My guess is that Trump is simply setting a stage for American exit from Ukraine crisis because of EU, UK and UKR unwillingness to peace negotiations.
Normally, that should be like pointing an unloaded gun but since Bush (43) was stupid enough to bring them into NATO, it could have serious consequences.
The only real security guarantee is the removal of causes of serious conflict which at least one party feels is existential.
Note that even Mexico's participation in flooding the US southern border with military-aged male illegal aliens was never seen seriously as a potential cause for open war between the US and Mexico. What we should be aiming for is not a Kumbaya/Buy the World a Coke type of situation -- rather, it is a situation where none of the parties to the conflict feel existentially threatened. (Obviously the Biden MalAdministration did not feel existentially threatened by the invasion across the southern border).
This kind of security is essentially what Russia has reasonably been seeking -- and what the Ukraine and the Euros should be seeking too. Paradoxically, the smaller military that the Ukraine has and the fewer NATO troops on its land, the more secure the Ukraine will be -- because Russia will feel less threatened. And yes, removing NATO troops, bases, missiles, exercises from ALL the countries adjacent to Russia would greatly enhance the security of Europe -- especially if such withdrawal was married to a parallel Russian assurance similarly to avoid placing bases, troops, and missiles within a certain distance of its own borders.
This is a non-starter, if the democrats can undermine Trump in this effort they most certainly will. Failing that some family court judge will declare it unconstitutional. Done.
The bigger question than the security guarantees for Ukraine is that should Ukraine, and the European Coalition of the 'Willing' (so long as the US is the backstop) say 'No' to any security guarantees that satisfy Russia, then will Trump be able to walk away from supporting Ukraine? Will he be able to defy the Liberals in Washington, ignore the manipulations of the Europeans or the false flag provocations of the Ukrainians?
Anything that smacks of NATO involvement in the guarantees, even if not formally under the NATO banner, including US boots on the ground, will be a non-starter with the Russians. In that case the Russians will keep advancing and no politician in the West is keen to have their citizens die in what is not considered an existential issue (except for the European politicians and probably the EU).
There are too many unknown knowns to see how this all pans out. Also there are no quick answers and the details will take a lot of time to work out. In the meantime the fighting will continue. It will be interesting to see which will come first; satisfactory answers to the security guarantees that mostly satisfy everyone or a Russian military victory?
It should be noted that what is important for Russia is not so much victory, but the recognition of that victory by everyone. Until the West is ready for such recognition, the Russians will continue their military operations (note that I did not say "they will conquer new territories"). First, the United States will "convince" Europe to make "concessions" to Russia, and then the United States and Europe will together "convince" Ukraine to accept the inevitable. In fact, Alaska was the place where Russia "persuaded" the United States of the futility of this war and the "unaccounted" negative consequences for the entire "golden billion"...
I cannot but state what probably all of us deep down feel will be the end game. Russians will not accept anything “talkative” European politicians construct in their minds, absent from reality. PR will remain just that, sooner or later this big “we are so strong” will show its real value. There is no chance of common europeans to fight for elites (I’m one of them), which leaves the task to US. Should US hesitate, and who’d be surprised, Ukraine would be destine to its ultimate demise. Russians may split it the way they wish, leaving western part in semi-functional rump state, absorbing the east. Most likely. Generally. US will have two choices. Either leave the boat and let it sink with Europeans aboard, trying to sell them as much equipment on their way to the bottom as possible. Then, sell Russian victory as a victory over Europe. Option 2 - intervene, while it has strength, which would probably trigger China move against Taiwan because, well, why to wait for better chance. And there we go. WW3. Hard to say what destination elites chose for us. Hubris? Not sure that’d be a motivation. Admit to loosing this war is not something unimaginable. Profits? Probably. Likely choice. Every soldier needs equipment and that costs money. I just hope someone sane will change course before we’re led to the slaughterhouse.
Perhaps I'm asking the obvious, but why on earth would Russia agree to a group of nations providing Ukraine with NATO's Article 5-level security guarantees, when Russia manifestly opposes Ukraine joining NATO in the first place?
Once the dust settles, Ukraine's best security protection is declare neutrality, like other respected European nations have done.
Surely this is a soft exit strategy.
The US will guarantee the result, if and only if the players can reach an accord.
Apart from territory, issues are sanctions, frozen Russian assets and anti Russian laws in Ukraine.
Threading the needle on all of the above is a very long shot.
The incentive for the players to make it happen is Trumps guarantee that he will walk if they don't.
Ukraine cannot hold with only European support, they lack the needed muscle.
So they will need to try to meet Russia's demands, because the alternative is worse.
I don't see why the Russians would object to what's essentially a nothingburger. The language of Article V itself doesn't oblige member states to take any specific action. The source of NATO protection is the conviction that the entire alliance would collapse if it fails to respond in a maximalist fashion. The potential collective loss is what provides the guarantee.
A nothingburger not the same as nothing. If it helps the patient swallow bitter pills, it's definitely something. I'm not disparaging it.
boots on the ground is de facto NATO membership. They will object.
NATO had boots on the ground. Then we got kicked out by folks living in caves. Now why should the Russians fear the presence of our of soldiers in Ukraine?
The fact is, the Alliance has been badly damaged. Our arsenal is half empty and the weapons we still have have lost much of their deterrent value. Even actual NATO membership is barely NATO membership at this point.
OK. So as part of the extension of soft NATO guarantees to Ukraine, all of the countries in NATO accept billions, tens of billions of dollars in direct aid which includes strengthening infrastructure such as roads, bridges, airfields etc to bring them up to current military standards. When they subsequently get a request to send some troops or planes or tanks are they are going to say ....no, why would you think that we would do something like that?.... Or would their governments say ....of course we stand by our commitments and will actively suppress any vocal dissent from our electorate in order to make sure we do step up.......
And all of the NATO countries in Europe *are* about to receive massive amounts of cash infused into their moribund economies to explicitly prepare them to respond to the Russian efforts in Ukraine and what it is claimed will follow. All of them. Soft NATO guarantees to Ukraine make it clear to those countries what will be expected of them when they take the money.
You're talking about money the EU is about to borrow on behalf of European taxpayers. While normally local politicians like to treat EU money as free money, that pretense goes out the window quickly enough when you ask them to do something unpopular. Free money will revert to "debt on our children's shoulders" in no time.
Very few if any of the current leadership in the E.U. care about any of the issues you raise. Any public nay sayers will be treated as supporting the "enemy." That will mean being denied a platform to express their views.
It’s worth noting that Truman could only get the Washington Treaty through the Senate after Dean Acheson provided a written assurance that it did not ‘automatically’ commit the United States to military action in support of its NATO allies.
The NATO website makes this clear also.
Hi Herman - you won’t have any difficulty tracking down a reference for this; a quick Google search should bring it up for you.
Self-executing treaties are very problematic under US law, especially a treaty that purports to ‘automatically’ commit the United States to military action. This is because the Constitution expressly reserves to Congress the power to declare war, and does not permit this authority to be delegated to the executive.
Briefly, the NATO treaty definitely commits the United States to take some action to support its allies, but definitely doesn’t commit it to taking any military action.
Thank you, LudwigF. I didn't know about that written assurance, and I am sure very few people do. Where did you find that? Is it possible to provide a link?
I hate to say it, but I don't think U.S. security guarantees are worth anything. Trump could change his mind at any time, and the next President might have different opinions.
I would hope the US provides no troops. Trump would be crazy to offer that especially since most of the Europeans are bailing.
How dangerous would US troops on the ground be? One false flag attack and then what? The US is going into WW3? Who in their right mind would agree to that? That the European leaders want troops on the ground is obvious, but Russia would never agree to that,and neither should they accept US troops on the ground. Only troops from the global south should be worth discussing.
good points
I agree with you completely. We need to avoid troops in Ukraine because i don't believe we can supply the number of troops needed in high intensity combat against a peer foe over a 5,000 mile contested supply line. Some BRICs troops would be much better.
I think the "security guarantees" are that the US will have commercial interests in the region and, if they should experience an attack of any sort, hell would be paid by Russia. It would be great if the war ends.
"hell would be paid by Russia" - this sounds very powerful, like so many "clear and strong signals" sent to Russia by Biden's admin and then Trump's admin, not even talking about Obama before. How exactly this "hell will be paid", by imposing sanctions/tariffs on Russia, or its trade partners? Using various "bone crushing" sanctions to "turn ruble into rubble"? Closing the skies over Ukraine, or maybe directly fighting it, not via a proxy? These are not rhetorical questions, various strong words were used over the last four years, and even before, since 2014, and, frankly, I do not see Russia "paying hell" so far.
You're right. The "Last Chinese Warning," which became a byword during the Cold War, has lost its relevance, and its place has been taken by the "Last American Warning." It's just as toothless.
Pretty much spot on, I would say. Good article.
Hard to believe this issue can be agreed between the sides, but I guess we can hope.
Any peace treaty of Ukraine crisis remains to be negotiated, signed and inplemented. It does not exist yet. And it will never exist if the basic Russian demands are not fulfilled. Any foreign troops o Ukrainian soill are dealbreaker to Russia. Russia is quite capable to achieve its’s aims and demanda by simply continuing to destroy Ukrainen by military means. The West needs a ceasefire/peace, not Russia. So all this Western peace/ceasefire/security guarantees media hulabaloo empty is just huff puff bluff. My guess is that Trump is simply setting a stage for American exit from Ukraine crisis because of EU, UK and UKR unwillingness to peace negotiations.
This was all rendered irrelevant today by the Estonian foreign minister telling CNN his country will get very tough if necessary.
Normally, that should be like pointing an unloaded gun but since Bush (43) was stupid enough to bring them into NATO, it could have serious consequences.
The only real security guarantee is the removal of causes of serious conflict which at least one party feels is existential.
Note that even Mexico's participation in flooding the US southern border with military-aged male illegal aliens was never seen seriously as a potential cause for open war between the US and Mexico. What we should be aiming for is not a Kumbaya/Buy the World a Coke type of situation -- rather, it is a situation where none of the parties to the conflict feel existentially threatened. (Obviously the Biden MalAdministration did not feel existentially threatened by the invasion across the southern border).
This kind of security is essentially what Russia has reasonably been seeking -- and what the Ukraine and the Euros should be seeking too. Paradoxically, the smaller military that the Ukraine has and the fewer NATO troops on its land, the more secure the Ukraine will be -- because Russia will feel less threatened. And yes, removing NATO troops, bases, missiles, exercises from ALL the countries adjacent to Russia would greatly enhance the security of Europe -- especially if such withdrawal was married to a parallel Russian assurance similarly to avoid placing bases, troops, and missiles within a certain distance of its own borders.
This is a non-starter, if the democrats can undermine Trump in this effort they most certainly will. Failing that some family court judge will declare it unconstitutional. Done.
The bigger question than the security guarantees for Ukraine is that should Ukraine, and the European Coalition of the 'Willing' (so long as the US is the backstop) say 'No' to any security guarantees that satisfy Russia, then will Trump be able to walk away from supporting Ukraine? Will he be able to defy the Liberals in Washington, ignore the manipulations of the Europeans or the false flag provocations of the Ukrainians?
Anything that smacks of NATO involvement in the guarantees, even if not formally under the NATO banner, including US boots on the ground, will be a non-starter with the Russians. In that case the Russians will keep advancing and no politician in the West is keen to have their citizens die in what is not considered an existential issue (except for the European politicians and probably the EU).
There are too many unknown knowns to see how this all pans out. Also there are no quick answers and the details will take a lot of time to work out. In the meantime the fighting will continue. It will be interesting to see which will come first; satisfactory answers to the security guarantees that mostly satisfy everyone or a Russian military victory?
It should be noted that what is important for Russia is not so much victory, but the recognition of that victory by everyone. Until the West is ready for such recognition, the Russians will continue their military operations (note that I did not say "they will conquer new territories"). First, the United States will "convince" Europe to make "concessions" to Russia, and then the United States and Europe will together "convince" Ukraine to accept the inevitable. In fact, Alaska was the place where Russia "persuaded" the United States of the futility of this war and the "unaccounted" negative consequences for the entire "golden billion"...
I cannot but state what probably all of us deep down feel will be the end game. Russians will not accept anything “talkative” European politicians construct in their minds, absent from reality. PR will remain just that, sooner or later this big “we are so strong” will show its real value. There is no chance of common europeans to fight for elites (I’m one of them), which leaves the task to US. Should US hesitate, and who’d be surprised, Ukraine would be destine to its ultimate demise. Russians may split it the way they wish, leaving western part in semi-functional rump state, absorbing the east. Most likely. Generally. US will have two choices. Either leave the boat and let it sink with Europeans aboard, trying to sell them as much equipment on their way to the bottom as possible. Then, sell Russian victory as a victory over Europe. Option 2 - intervene, while it has strength, which would probably trigger China move against Taiwan because, well, why to wait for better chance. And there we go. WW3. Hard to say what destination elites chose for us. Hubris? Not sure that’d be a motivation. Admit to loosing this war is not something unimaginable. Profits? Probably. Likely choice. Every soldier needs equipment and that costs money. I just hope someone sane will change course before we’re led to the slaughterhouse.
They wouldn't. The question is why can't European leaders see that?