First rule of NATO fight club: actually read the treaty. You can read it here in English, French, Ukrainian, Turkish ... 2/ nato.int/cps/en/natoliv…
Let's start with the famed Article 5. It does not automatically commit any NATO member to "have to go to war." Here is the Article in full: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America 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 forthwith,
individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Critical: each party takes action AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY. 5/
When does the treaty apply? Go to Article 6. Territory of Ukraine is not covered. NATO aircraft or personnel on the territory of Ukraine--not covered. Treaty only covers "PARTIES" to the treaty. 6/
Do Russian actions in Ukraine constitute a threat to the peace and security of any NATO member? They can request, under Article 4, consultations. The obligation of other NATO members: to consult. No action mandated unless all 30 agree. 7/
What happens if a NATO member wants to intervene on behalf of the Ukrainians even after Article 4 consultations have not produced a common, alliance approach? Go to Article 8. "Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it 8/
and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty." In other words, you'd be on your own. Does this explain Poland's second thoughts? 9/
Please don't argue with me about the type of Washington Treaty you'd like to see or why Ukraine is a virtual or de facto member. Such designations do not exist. North Macedonia was the last country to accede. Until 30 members of NATO agree 10/
with this statement: "Being satisfied that the security of the North Atlantic area will be enhanced by the accession of ..." and all 30 states ratify, then Ukraine will not be invited to accede. Convince your governments to continue the Article 4 process. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Behind the 🎱, now catching up on the @McFaul use of Hitler analogy. Part of the problem is that Americans don't have a real knowledge of Western history (let alone world history) so Hitler has become the go-to all around "bad guy". 1/
Apart from the emotionalism when Hitler is invoked (because the policy implication is that if Putin is Hitler, he won't stop and can't be negotiated with), is the inability to draw more accurate comparisons that can help with understanding. Tagging @20committee. 2/
Putin is better compared to Francisco Franco. In his invocation of conservative values, his close relationship with an institutional Church, his dislike of liberalism and cosmopolitanism, and even in the type of military tactics he employs--including ... 3/
One reason we continue to have these problems in public discourse (why the earlier tweet thread) is because media figures, U.S. politicians and even senior officials have been very sloppy with language. 1/
"Ally" has a very defined, specific meaning in international affairs. It is not just a synonym for friend or partner. It indicates that there are formal obligations between those countries (we sometimes stress this further by talking about "treaty allies.") 2/
Treaty, in the U.S. context of Article 6 of the Constitution, reflects a formal agreement that has been signed by the President (or a plenipotentiary) and ratified by the Senate. Treaties thus acquire status equivalent to the Constitution. 3/
So @POTUS has designated Colombia as a major non-NATO ally of the United States. This status does not extend security guarantees but enhances the defense partnership, including eligibility for more advanced U.S. equipment. 1/ whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
On the one hand, reminder that the U.S. has global responsibilities and is not solely focused on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. U.S. needs to cultivate and sustain a global network of partners. 2/
But this is a status that Ukraine has never been granted. Even Afghanistan was raised to this level. And to note, by Congressional statute and presidential direction, Taiwan is to be treated as though it were designated a major non-NATO ally. 3/
From its conclusion: "The United States and its European allies have imposed sanctions on Russia so severe
that they have little historical precedent. We are also providing Ukraine with significant military support. Yet there must be a clear ceiling for escalation,
as U.S. officials and experts appreciated during the Cold War, when the United States faced a more powerful adversary than Russia represents today. Russian President Vladimir Putin will pay for his reckless gamble in Ukraine.
People who want to understand @RadioFreeTom caution on Ukraine options may want to revisit the 2014 @RANDCorporation "Dangerous Thresholds" on managing escalation risks in the 21st century. 1/ rand.org/content/dam/ra…
"With prospects of conflict between nuclear-armed superpowers receding in memory, few policymakers, security analysts, or military leaders have worried about the danger of wars spinning out of control or considered how to manage these risks." 2/
"More serious weaknesses emerge in punishment-based deterrence when there is significant asymmetry of stakes between parties to the conflict. An enemy that perceives that its stakes are high will be willing to bear greater costs and, therefore, will be less sensitive ... 3/
Just a reminder: there is a broad spectrum of options between sending the planes and doing nothing. Also, not everything is going to be discussed publicly. Just because you’re not hearing about it doesn’t mean that something isn’t happening or being done.
Ukrainian officials may not be pleased with the level of support or the type of equipment and help that they are receiving, that is their right. But other governments in the alliance have to make determinations based on their own interests capabilities and risk profiles.
All of this is done more effectively behind closed doors and not conducted through social media. I have no doubt that in a few years time I will be teaching the Polish plains case as a cautionary tale of what not to do.