Receiving requests for a follow-on NATO explainer to discuss the Kosovo precedent (1999) and what might happen if Ukraine (all or in part) were to join with an existing NATO state. As always, I base these on existing precedents, but clever lawyers/politicians can reinterpret. 1/
In 1999, Serbia/Yugoslavia had not attacked a NATO state and Kosovars were not part of NATO. So if NATO intervened, how did they do it? We need to go to Article 4 (Washington Treaty) and 52 (UN Charter). 2/
Article 4 allows for NATO members to convene the alliance to discuss threats to the security of any individual member, and for the alliance to decide whether to take any steps. Spillover of Milosevic's campaigns was deemed to be a threat. Since the UN Security Council 3/
was deadlocked, Article 52 of the charter allows regional organizations to take steps to ensure regional peace and security. All members of NATO agreed that the alliance would take action to stop the campaign against the Kosovars because that posed a threat to the security of 4/
NATO member nations. The U.S. politicians liked having this be a NATO mission, but U.S. military leaders grumbled that it ended up fighting "by committee" and restricting their freedom of action. Side note: the negative experience here was why the U.S. military resisted having 5/
the early parts of the Afghanistan mission be under NATO and increased support for a "coalition of the willing" approach for Iraq, even if all NATO members had approved. 6/
Several NATO members have invoked Article 4 with regards to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and those consultations are continuing. However, any decisions about a NATO response must meet with the approval of all 30 NATO members. So even though there are refugees, attacks 7/
against power plants, threats to food security, etc. Article 4 does not obligate anyone to do anything, until a decision is reached that all 30 members agree to. 8/
So what would happen, then, if, say, President Zelensky were to sign an agreement with President Duda of Poland to create a new Polish-Ukrainian Commonwealth? Since Poland is a NATO member, would this now mean that the alliance covered the entire commonwealth? 9/
The 1990 German reunification precedent offers advice: in reunifying Germany, the precedent was set that the Federal Republic would not have to leave NATO; but that NATO's "line of responsibility" would remain the old West/East German border. Collapse of Warsaw Pact, 10/
dissolution of USSR, NATO enlargement made this moot. But the NATO principle remains that a member state in its bilateral actions cannot take steps that then commit the rest of the alliance. My guess would be that, unless all other 29 members agreed, the "line" for NATO 11/
remain the old Polish-Ukrainian border, in terms of the obligations of other NATO states under Article 5. This concern with borders, which to some might seem pedantic, is at the heart of the Article 5 commitment, because you have to have clarity about where an armed attack 12/
is occurring. Moreover, the NATO principle that countries with territorial disputes should not be admitted until those disputes are settled is again to avoid admitting a member who then obligates other NATO states to help in the recovery of lost territory. 13/
In short, if all 30 NATO members agree, an Article 4 response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the grounds it threatens NATO states is possible. A bilateral agreement between Ukraine and a NATO member, however, is not binding on other NATO states 14/
unless all explicitly agree. Hope this helps! END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
