Those that point out the irrefutable proof that member states are defended by an automated military response if attacked ignore the consensus voting procedure required to execute a defensive action. The vague language of the rest of the Article does not lend itself to immediate and unanimously accepted translation: “if such an attack occurs, each of them 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”. Stratfor asks whether NATO is in fact a valid political tool for military deterrence, or whether the treaty is simply an empty statement of intent.
Russia' aggression in Crimea and Ukraine has renewed the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty. Namely, will the treaty remain intact and provide a joint military response as intended? One must remember that NATO's original and primary purpose was to use the potential of military action to deter any other powers from attacking its members in the first place. It was a balance of power mechanism to avoid military conflict, especially created to thwart invasion by the Soviet Union.
The success of alliance structures depends on the actual strength of the alliance itself. Treaties are just words on paper. One must be aware that each and every state constantly re-evaluates its own interests and actions based on its capabilities and needs at that moment. (Even though Ukraine is not a NATO member, being a victim of aggression is still a crucial concern for all signatory states and Russia's military bravado clearly affects European security. However the response to Russian aggression by NATO member states was uneven at the very least.)
Stratfor states that an attack against one member will in fact trigger a decision-making process in each of the signatory countries and Article 5 will be but one option to pursue. The concept of ‘attack' is not clearly defined in the treaty. This is decided through a vote by each country's permanent representative in the North Atlantic Council and any decision has to be unanimous. This procedure was not meant to make Article 5 a lame duck, but rather it protects the national sovereignty of a NATO member by drawing them into conflict against their own will. Thus
political indecisiveness is built into implementing Article 5. Stratfor says it paralyzes NATO in an actual confrontation.
With the inclusion of several central and eastern European states into the ranks of NATO the issue is a cause for serious concern. Russian threats in Eastern Europe are perceived differently by the ex-Warsaw Pact new members as they are by Western European states. Stratfor stresses that even if all members convene and invoke Article 5, the text only states that “they 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”.
This was clearly illustrated by the decision to invoke Article 5 in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the US. This led to military action only by the US and a few coalition allies in 2001. NATO became involved as an organization only in 2003. (This was also the first time ever that Article 5 had been invoked.)
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Secretary-General of NATO said some weeks ago that Vladimir Putin will intervene in the Baltic states to test Article 5's reliability. Unlike Ukraine the Baltic states are NATO members and as such are guaranteed collective protection as stated in Article 5. But if Putin approaches the Baltics by inflaming local grievances, deploying Russian soldiers not identified by the absence of insignia, denying all, will all NATO members hold a commitment to respond?
This is perhaps one of the biggest challenges facing NATO: deciding what is and what is not an attack? Is Russia's “hybrid war” – a combination of propaganda, corruption, espionage, subversion, the exploitation of economic and energy dependency, the use of irregular forces (little green men), manipulative diplomacy – a universally recognized attack? Is inciting ethnic, linguistic, regional tensions a military assault? NATO might not see an intolerable assault on the sovereignty of the Baltic states as an “armed attack” for invoking Article 5. Getting unanimous agreement as to whether Russia has stepped over the line will be difficult. Many say that the decision to use military force to defend the Baltics will be made in Washington rather that Brussels.
War with Russia must be weighed against the possibility of the deterrence of the total alliance collapsing. The possible weakening of American and European resolve in defending the Baltic states makes guaranteeing military response difficult.
Observers say that it's leadership from Washington that's vitally needed. A NATO strong permanent presence in the Baltic states would deter Russian aggression and demonstrate that NATO will not be intimidated.
Laas Leivat
