NATO-Hungary Deal Weakens Already Porous Article 5, Creates Further Distance To NATO Membership For Ukraine, NATO Member Support For Ukraine. Morphing From Defensive Into Offensive-Defensive?
Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine (2019- ), Please Pay Attention:
NATO Deal With Hungary Weakens An Already Porous Article 5 Of The NATO Charter And Creates Further Distance To NATO Membership For Ukraine And NATO Member Support For Ukraine.
When One NATO Member Seeks And Gains Official Authorization To Not Provide Equipment, Provide Funds, Provide Personnel In Support Of Ukraine, The Result Continues An Unraveling Of NATO Decision-Making Process Within Which Unanimity Is Essential.
The Definition Of “Consensus” Continues To Become More Porous- Turning Into “Let’s Make A Deal”
And, With Increased Membership In NATO, The More Difficult Is Consensus And Unanimity. Look At The Functionality Of The 193-Member United Nations And Five Permanent Members Of The United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States).
The Russian Federation-Ukraine War Has Moved NATO Towards Becoming What The Twenty-Seven Country Member European Union (EU) Continues To Morph Into- No Longer A Group Governed By Consensus And Unanimity, But By Deals Among Members, Members Opting Out Of Certain Decisions, And Governance Shifting Increasingly Towards Majority (Or Super Majority) Rules Rather Than Everyone Concurs. Can The EU Be Managed (And Survive) With Twenty-Seven Country Members? What About Thirty-Six- The Nine Countries Currently In Line?
Mr. Stoltenberg, Who Has No Direct Accountability To The Taxpayers Of The Members Of NATO, Continues To Advance More Defense Spending- As If Governments (And Their Taxpayers) Should Be Not Only Accommodating, But Enthusiastic About Diverting To Defense Funding From Education, Infrastructure, Social Programs, Repaying Debt, And Less Spending- Meaning More Money In The Pockets Of Taxpayers. Fortunately, His Latest Gambit Failed: A US$100 Billion Five-Year Funding Commitment For Ukraine From NATO Members. NATO Members Looking To United States Taxpayers To Fund- And That Will Be Increasingly Challenging- Particularly If There Is No Meaningful Real Estate Re-Alignment In Ukraine By End Of 2024.
Attempts To “Trump-Proof” NATO Support For And Funding To Government Of Ukraine Is Fruitless. Whomever Occupies The Oval Office In The White House Can Demonstrably Influence NATO Decisions- About Everything. And, All Thirty-Two Member Countries Of NATO Neither Support Today Or May Support In The Future Membership For Ukraine And/Or Will Support NATO Expenditures And/Or NATO Personnel Placement In Ukraine.
None Of The Heads Of State And Heads Of Government Within NATO Member Countries And Within EU-Member Countries Are Likely Will Be In Office By The Time Ukraine May Become A Member Of NATO And/Or A Member Of The EU. This Includes President Zelensky As Some Current NATO Leadership And EU Leadership Are Unwilling To Provide President Zelensky With The Satisfaction Of A Political Victory. His Successor, Perhaps.
The Final Decisions About Ukraine Membership In NATO And The EU Will Be Taken By Leadership Who Has Yet To Be Identified- And “Realities On The Ground” May Be Far Different Than Today- Commercially, Economically, Financially, Militarily, Politically, And Socially.
President Zelensky Needs To Speak More About How To Win The Peace Rather Than How To Maintain The War. That Means Recognizing “Realities On The Ground” Relating To Negotiations. This Does Not Mean Accepting “Realities On The Ground” But Does Mean Acknowledging Them And Initiate Negotiations. That’s What Heads Of State, Heads Of Government, And Taxpayers Want To Hear. They Want Him To Try.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Thirty-Two Members: United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, Hungary, Spain, Turkiye, Latvia, and North Macedonia, Sweden.
On 24 February 2022, the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded and further invaded the territory of Ukraine in what Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008 and 2012- ), defined as a Special Military Operation [SMO] then on 22 December 2022 he redefined as a war. The initial invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation was in part from the territory of Belarus.
The war between the Russian Federation and Ukraine did not commence on 24 February 2022. The roots began their trajectories on 20 February 2014 when the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded the Crimean Peninsula and the area known as the Donbas Region (Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast).
Article Five Does Not, Would Not, And Will Not Require NATO Members To Defend Ukraine
From Media Reporting: “If Ukraine were to join NATO, it would benefit from Article 5, which guarantees collective defence, meaning that member states must assist in the event of an attack.”
From NATO: “With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.”
An initial read would reveal success by Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO (2014-2024 (October)), for his agreement with Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary (1998-2002 and 2010- ). Ukraine continues to receive support and Hungary permits that support to continue.
“Hungary made it clear at today’s meeting that it does not want to block decisions in NATO that … are decisions shared and advocated by the other member states. I asked the Secretary-General to make it clear that all military action outside NATO territory can only be voluntary in nature, according to NATO rules and our traditions. Hungary has received the guarantees we need.” Viktor Orban
The potential medium-term and long-term impact of the NATO-Hungary agreement is a less complimentary prospect. The agreement is an opt-out for a member of NATO which further weakens the public face of the defensive alliance- that it acts with consensus, unanimity. The optics are not good, particularly for Ukraine. From NATO:
“The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.”
“At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.”
What if the armed forces of the Russian Federation in 2024 do make substantive real estate holding advances in Ukraine? At what mile marker in Ukraine, moving westward, would NATO believe it must morph further from a defensive alliance to an offensively-defensive alliance?
Would NATO need await the armed forces of the Russian Federation to cross or attempt a land-based or air-based encroachment past the internationally-recognized border of, north to south, NATO members Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, or Romania?
If Mr. Stoltenberg believes issues relating to Ukraine have stressed the decision-making processes by NATO members, what does he expect if the armed forces of the Russian Federation expand its real estate holdings in Georgia (outward from its current control of Abkhazia Oblast and South Ossetia Oblast); expand its operational footprint in the Republic of Moldova (Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (Transnistria), an area running north to south along the internationally-recognized Moldova border with Ukraine); and absorb/annex Republic of Belarus (which shares borders with Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland)?
Does Mr. Stoltenberg believe all NATO members would today jointly, with unanimity, defend the territories of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova? And Belarus? Meaning, would NATO member armed forces engage in direct combat with the armed forces of the Russian Federation? Would the engagement be defined as defensive- keeping the armed forces of the Russian Federation within the borders of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and possibly Belarus? Or would the engagement be defined as offensive- liberating the internationally-recognized territories of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and possibly Belarus?
NOTE: The current trajectory of the Russian Federation-Ukraine war is the government of the Russian Federation will use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to hold the real estate it occupies within the internationally-recognized territory of Ukraine, not materially seek further acquisitions, and seek negotiations with the government of Ukraine. This result is not because the government of the Russian Federation has no further interest in the acquisition of real estate within Ukraine. This is an acknowledgement of the limitations of the armed forces of the Russian Federation and the limitations of those governments providing commercial, economic, financial, military, and political support to the government of the Russian Federation. And, given the increasing qualitative and quantitative support received by the armed forces of Ukraine and the commercial, economic, and financial support to the government of Ukraine which lessens, but does not remove competitive imbalances.
“Well, Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance when we have consensus, when all Allies agree because as you know, decisions on enlargement is taken by consensus. So, it's not sufficient to have a majority of NATO Allies being in favour of extending an invitation, but we need all Allies to agree.” Jens Stoltenberg
“That money is not given to Ukraine. It’s money spent in American factories, creating American jobs… And we are not just fighting for our freedom. If not Ukraine, it would be another country.” Volodymyr Zelensky
“We talked about preparations for this year's NATO summit in Washington. Already at this stage, it is safe to say that the summit can become a moment of strength for the Alliance. Or not… our strength, our protection of common values, our importance for the future of the entire Euro-Atlantic… We believe that the Alliance should not be afraid of its own power and has no right to deviate from its own rules just because the Kremlin wants such a deviation. I thank every leader and the absolute majority of NATO allies that support Ukraine.” Volodymyr Zelensky
“NATO countries have not delivered [on] their promises, the U.S. spent months not agreeing on a package for Ukraine, European allies have not delivered [on] their promises, and this had a serious consequence on the battlefield… The lack of ammo has enabled Russians to push forward, lack of air defense has enabled more Russian missiles to hit the targets, lack of deep strike capabilities has enabled Russia to concentrate forces…. When we’re not delivering as we should, Ukrainians are paying the price. But also, us… The biggest cost will be if Russia wins in Ukraine. Because then we speak about enormous amounts of money the NATO allies would have to invest in security. Supporting Ukraine is the best way to ensure our security…. But [we] have to make sure announcements are turned into deliveries. Because time matters, each day matters…. Ukraine will become a member of NATO…. The work we are doing now puts you on an irreversible path to membership ... When the right moment comes, Ukraine will be able to become a member of NATO immediately. I am looking forward to the day when the Ukrainian flag flies near the NATO headquarters…. We need a more robust, institutionalised framework for our support to ensure predictability, to ensure more accountability and to ensure burden-sharing," said Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the transatlantic military alliance…. Of course, the fact that we have not delivered what we promised has put a dent ... into the trust.” Jens Stoltenberg
From Ukraine Media Reporting: “Several NATO allies are balking at committing to a specific multi-year spending pledge on military aid for Ukraine aimed at giving Kyiv more predictability over the long term. Despite early enthusiasm for NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg’s proposal—where allies would spend at least €40 billion ($42.7 billion) per year on lethal and non-lethal aid for Ukraine—nations are now at loggerheads over how to make the spending commitment work for future years.”
LINK TO COMPLETE ANALYSIS IN PDF FORMAT
Links To Related Analyses
