https://www.frontpagemag.com/another-nato-summit-another-tranche-of-happy-talk/
Last week the annual Nato summit gathered in Vilnius. Like last year’s, the meeting was dominated by the Ukrainian crisis, and was accompanied by the usual cheerleading from foreign policy mavens and globalist media. Also like previous summits, this one didn’t seriously address the problems and weaknesses of the Alliance.
Ukrainian officials who attended the meeting were visibly and vocally disgruntled. One beef is the festering issue of Ukraine’s membership in Nato, promised 15 years ago after Putin’s unpunished territorial predations in Georgia. The long, formal process of meeting requirements hasn’t even begun yet, apart from certain conditions agreed upon at the summit that Ukraine must meet. Nato still made empty promises to Ukraine about membership, even though there’s no chance that all 31 Nato nations will give their approval, and membership requires the consent of every member.
There are several arguments for and against Ukraine’s membership, but one of the weakest against it is the claim that giving Ukraine Article 5 protection––an attack on one member is an attack on all––might ignite a nuclear war with Russia. Yet this provision, regularly and reverentially touted by Nato’s cheerleaders, is what James Madison called a “parchment barrier” riddled with loopholes. Notice the crafty wording of this provision: each state will respond to an attack “by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [emphasis added].
But “deems necessary” invites a liberal interpretation about how any nation can respond; and “including armed force” makes a military response just one option among numerous less costly ones. That means actually funding and mobilizing a nation’s military can be replaced by speechifying at the UN, issuing blustering diplomatic demarches, or sending money or weapons and other materiel––just what the Nato nations have been doing in the case of Ukraine. This suggests that even if Ukraine had been a Nato member, the alliance’s response wouldn’t have been much different from the current one.
Exacerbating Ukraine’s frustration is the delays in the Nato nations’ provision of weaponry and ammunition. Yet those nations’ stockpiles of both are dangerously low, and as historian Niall Ferguson put it earlier this year, Nato nations’ “military industrial complex has withered away,” making it a challenge to ramp up production of armaments. It’s so bad in the U.S. that the Biden administration announced it would send shrapnel-spewing cluster bombs instead of artillery rounds, weapons most of the world’s nations have proscribed by treaty.
