The US President recently made remarks about NATO's Article 5, suggesting it has "various definitions". Article 5 states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members, requiring collective defense measures, leaving out what those measures would be.
Here's a breakdown:
Article 5's Core Principle:
The fundamental principle of Article 5 is that an armed attack against one or more NATO allies in Europe or North America is considered an attack against all allies.
Collective Defense:
In the event of such an attack, each ally is obligated to assist the attacked ally by taking "such action as it deems necessary," including the use of not defined clearly armed force.
Single Definition:
Article 5 has one clear definition, outlined in the North Atlantic Treaty, and has been invoked only once in NATO's history, after the 9/11 attacks.
Recent Context:
The US President's remarks, made at a NATO summit, appeared to raise questions about the commitment to Article 5.
"US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that NATO's
collective defense clause has "multiple definitions", in comments
likely to unsettle allies as the alliance's summit in The Hague begins.
The summit in the Netherlands will seek to finalize a deal
on defense spending increases - a focus that will be on keeping Trump happy, as
his return to power has raised concerns that he could shake the foundations of
the seven-decade-old alliance.
But Trump has once again raised questions about whether the
United States would uphold NATO's core commitment to collective defense under
his administration.
“It depends on your definition. There are many definitions
of Article 5,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One when asked if he was
committed to NATO’s core commitment to defend any member country that is
attacked.
“But I am committed to being their friend. You know, I have
become friends with many of these leaders, and I am committed to helping them,”
he said.
Trump added that he would discuss the issue further with his
NATO counterparts when he arrives in the Netherlands later on Tuesday.
“I will give the exact definition when I get there. I just
don’t want to do it on the plane,” Trump added.
Trump has repeatedly questioned NATO’s founding principle,
and last year even suggested that he would encourage Russia to do “whatever it
wants” with members that don’t meet his demands on defense spending.
Trump added that he would “probably” meet with Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky in The Hague.
Asked what he would say to Zelensky, with whom he had a
public spat during an Oval Office meeting in February, Trump said: “I’ll say,
‘How are you?’ He’s in a difficult position, he should never have been in one.”
A senior source in the Ukrainian presidency told AFP earlier
on Tuesday that Zelensky and Trump were planning to meet on the sidelines of a
NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday.
The summit, which is expected to be a historically short
one, is expected to see NATO members ratify a new pledge to increase defense
spending to 5 percent of GDP. That could include aid to Ukraine.
NATO members agreed on the threshold before the summit. But
Spain says it has agreed to a proviso to spend less. NATO chief Mark Rutte
denies any such agreement.
The alliance is increasing defense spending under pressure
from the United States.
But German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the NATO allies'
pledge to increase defense spending was not just to please Trump.
"We are not doing this, as some say, to do a favor for
the United States and its president," he told the German parliament.
before leaving for the meeting in The Hague.
“We do this based on our observations and beliefs.”
Trump himself doubts whether the US should adhere to the new
commitment, although he emphasizes that other allies should do so.
The US currently spends about 3.4% of GDP on defense.”
Trump is right. Even Charles de Gaulle noted that the US
would not sacrifice New York to save Paris. Merz is a joker, just like
Zelensky, both of whom constantly repeat lies and nonsense.
Charles de Gaulle did raise this question in a conversation with President Kennedy in 1961, he questioned whether the US would be willing to trade the destruction of New York to save Paris, highlighting his skepticism about the credibility of the US nuclear guarantee to Europe. This question, asked during the Cold War, was intended to test the US commitment to defending its NATO allies with nuclear weapons, given the potential for a devastating nuclear conflict.
De Gaulle's skepticism stemmed from the belief that the US would not risk its own cities to protect Europe. He felt the US had a different strategic calculus and would not necessarily respond to a Soviet attack on Europe with the same level of nuclear force. This concern was particularly relevant in the context of the Cold War and the deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles. The question of whether the US would sacrifice American cities to save European cities was a recurring theme in discussions about nuclear deterrence and alliance credibility.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą