Neither Ascension Nor “Accelerated Ascension” For Ukraine To Become A Member Of NATO. Members Have Neither Obligation Nor Desire For Their Citizens To Die In Ukraine (Or In Russia) For Ukraine.

Neither Ascension Nor “Accelerated Ascension” For Ukraine To Become A Member Of NATO. 

Unproductive Frequent Theatrical Seeking-NATO-Membership Exercises By Government Of Ukraine. 

Members Of NATO Have Neither Obligation Nor Desire For Their Citizens To Die In Ukraine (Or In Russia) For Ukraine. 

If NATO-Member Ukraine Was Attacked By Russia, Which Countries Might Not Fulsomely Use Article 5? Hungary, Poland, Turkiye, And France Among Others? 

14 October 2022- In an interview, Emmanuel Macron, President of the French Republic, shared “France has a nuclear doctrine, that is based on the vital interests of the country and which are clearly defined. These would not be at stake if there was a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine or in the region.” 

So much for a belief there is unanimity among the thirty country members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that an attack upon Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation is an “existential threat” to the world.  LINK To NATO Membership Video 

President Macron dispensed with “strategic ambiguity” because he believes Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, along with leadership of the armed forces of the Russian Federation, know NATO collectively or members of NATO individually will not respond with nuclear weapons if the armed forces of the Russian Federation detonates a nuclear device(s) within the territory of Ukraine- whether pre-2014 boundaries, pre-2022 boundaries, or post-2022 boundaries.  

For President Macron, the issue is not whether the determination of members of the armed forces of Ukraine to expel from Ukraine exceeds the determination of members of the armed forces of the Russian Federation to remain in Ukraine.  No persuasion is required to side with Ukraine.   

President Macron’s vision extends to concern about NATO-provisioned military equipment used by the armed forces of Ukraine to attack into the territory of the Russian Federation (not including those areas annexed by the government of the Russian Federation in 2014 and 2022).  NATO-member manufactured missiles, rockets, drones, and bullets identified as what killed individuals subject to Russian Federation jurisdiction could be a triggering mechanism for the government of the Russian Federation to expand its ambitions- despite the potential costs.  

Even if the armed forces of the Russian Federation attack NATO-member countries Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, for example, with a nuclear device or conventional device where the location, military or civilian, is a military base staging area for deliveries to Ukraine and training for the armed forces of Ukraine; an airport used for the transfer of weapons to Ukraine; a train yard used for the transfer of weapons to Ukraine; or a roadway used for the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, NATO collectively as an organization and NATO as individual member countries will not respond with a nuclear device- and even a response with a near-equal conventional device is not assured. 

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them . . . 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 . . . such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”  

Article 5 does not require any member to invoke a military response.  The government of Ukraine presents that had Ukraine been a member of NATO prior to 2014 and again prior to 24 February 2022, the armed forces of the Russian Federation would not have invaded because Article 5 would have been dissuasive.  The government of Ukraine may be correct.  Important, however, to consider that NATO’s mandate is focused upon defensiveness rather than by force identifying opportunities to obtain new real estate for its portfolio.   

Article 11 of the North Atlantic Treaty: “its provisions [shall be] carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” For the government of the United States, the President would require authorization from the United States Congress as the United States Constitution provides that the sole authority to declare war rests with the United States Congress.  As with a conflict with the armed forces of the People’s Republic of China, the government of the United States will have the same hesitation as it has now with Ukraine. 

There are similarities between how NATO and specifically the government of the United States, would respond to an attack upon the Republic of China (Taiwan) by the armed forces of the People’s Republic of China. 

If the armed forces of the People’s Republic of China attack Taiwan, there will be immense pressure upon The White House and the United States Congress to refrain from sending members of the armed forces of the United States into a military theatre where they may be killed in defense of the island of Taiwan  by missiles, torpedoes, and bullets, fired by members of the armed forces of the People’s Republic of China.

No President of the United States will want to travel to Dover Air Force Base in the State of Delaware to preside at a “Dignified Transfer” ceremony for the arrival of service members killed while serving in the South China Sea defending Taiwan, which is located approximately 100 miles off the coast of the People’s Republic of China. 

Few if any politicians will declare to a journalist that the sacrifice of men and women of the armed forces of the United States in defense of one group of Chinese people against another group of Chinese people is in the interest of the United States- particularly if one or more of those who die is from the district or state of the politician. 

From President Zelensky: “De facto, we have already made our way to NATO.  De facto, we have already proven compatibility with Alliance standards.  They are real for Ukraine- real on the battlefield and in all aspects of our interaction.  We trust each other, we help each other, and we protect each other.”   

No, Ukraine is not a member of NATO- and no number of statements hoping, pleading, demanding, or browbeating will make it so.  The government of Ukraine will not shame NATO into permitting Ukraine to be a member of NATO.  An important goal of NATO is to reduce, eliminate risk; Ukraine today represents risk, is defined by risk, and will be defined by risk for many years, possibly decades.  What exists today will hopefully soon cease- but even when the military conflict ceases, temporarily or permanently, there remains a 1,300-mile-long border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.  Today, Australia and New Zealand are more likely to become members of NATO before Ukraine becomes a member of NATO. 

Unhelpful fantasy to posit that the Putin Administration would be replaced, naturally or otherwise, by a kinder, friendlier, warmer, male Kamchatka brown bear leadership in Moscow.  

Finland and Sweden are expected to become the thirty-first and thirty-second members of NATO within the next months- once the governments of Hungary and Turkiye have approved the ascensions.  Finland shares an 830-mile border with the Russian Federation.  Finland and Sweden are not in a war with the Russian Federation.   

There are two countries with governments who have aspired to join NATO that have a similar problem to Ukraine and which will prevent them from becoming members of NATO- the armed forces of the Russian Federation occupy significant territory within their respective borders: 

• Since 2008, the armed forces of the Russian Federation have occupied the regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia.  These regions are approximately 20% of the territory of Georgia.  Six countries border Georgia- Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkiye (NATO). 

• Since 1992, the armed forces of the Russian Federation have occupied the Transdniestrian eastern region of Moldova.  The region is approximately 20% of the territory of Moldova.  Two countries border Moldova- Ukraine to the east and Romania (NATO) to the west. 

A yet to be answered question:  To what level can President Putin escalate before Ukraine deescalates?  To what level can President Zelensky escalate before the Russian Federation deescalates?  Absent escalation, can there be de-escalation?  Can there exist a conflict where both parties continue to escalate, then cease fighting?  If Ukraine deescalates, will the Russian Federation do the same?  If the Russian Federation de-escalates, will Ukraine do the same?  Will de-escalation be perceived as weakness by one and an opportune moment for the other to escalate?  Just how does Ukraine and the Russian Federation define de-escalation?