Does NATO have any obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia?

Question

Does NATO have any obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia? Why is it not sending NATO troops on the Ukraine border to defend against Russia? I thought the point of NATO is to defend against tyrannical leaders in Europe attacking other European sovereign states. Germany did this in the 1930s attacking smaller countries such as Poland first. What is the purpose of the organization at this time?

There are some misconceptions: Europe is not a single country. NATO is not equal to Europe. Not all European countries are NATO members - and not all NATO members are European countries. — phoobar, Mar 12 '22 at 09:40

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica · Accepted Answer · 2022-01-24T19:01:37.363

36

No. Obligations are listed under Article 5 of NATO.

Article 5

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.

Ukraine is not currently a member, as the UK defense minister has pointed out:

In an interview with the Spectator, Mr Wallace said Ukraine was "not a member of Nato, so it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to send troops into Ukraine to challenge Russia".

NATO is a mutual defense pact between its members, who have perhaps not coincidentally, demurred in granting Ukraine NATO membership to date.

The idea of eventual Ukrainian membership has been floating around since 2008, pushed by then POTUS Bush. Perhaps related to Russia's invasion of Georgia in August 2008.

Now, going on, past direct obligations to wider considerations about ethics, maintaining peace and being firm to deter future wars, there could be different viewpoints depending on your opinions:

Possible effects of making Ukraine a formal NATO member:

(this is addressing to defend against tyrannical leaders)

Actual Ukrainian membership of NATO might cause it to be a flashpoint triggering a direct confrontation, of the type that the USSR and NATO avoided from 1960 to 1990. See also the fully-aligned defense blocs of 1914 and how a minor terrorist incident launched WW1.
Actual Ukrainian membership of NATO may fully dissuade Russia from meddling in its affairs. This would avoid the type of phenomena where France and the UK threw Czechoslovakia under the bus in 1938 to appease Hitler, thus enabling WW2 in 1939.
The possibility of Ukraine's membership is what's driving up tension in that area, as Russia has legitimate security concerns in increasingly being bordered by NATO countries. That's certainly Russia's official position. With regard to how justified Russia is in being concerned, one could always look at the USA's "tolerance" of Cuba during the Cold War (and beyond).

Possible NATO responses to an invasion:

Ukraine could become too unpleasant a bone to swallow for Russia if NATO provided sufficient arms to Ukraine to sustain a prolonged guerrilla war, after an initial overrun. That does not require membership. See also: Afghanistan 1980-1989, Afghanistan 2001-2021.
Ukraine may not receive military assistance directly, but the West could fully embargo Russian gas, at considerable inconvenience to itself, but even greater damage to Russia. That also does not require membership, nor does it require an UN resolution (which Russia could veto). It could also restrict sales of high tech goods to Russia, like microchips. And banking systems, like SWIFT, could be denied to Russia. Gas aside, Russia is a relatively negligible vendor and customer to the West, but the reverse is not true.
The West could decide to cut Ukraine loose and risk neither military confrontation nor economic damage from embargoes. Against that are NATO members who intensely fear and dislike Russia, such as the Baltic countries and Poland. And such a lack of resolve would not go unnoticed by China.
Threats that Western troops would be directly engaged, as per this question. This doesn't strike me as very credible or dissuasive: no European leader would be the first to send their boys's boots on the ground to defend Ukraine.

I am sure I missed some. But a firm enough signal to Russia that actual attacks would be heavily penalized, somehow, may very well suffice to deter Putin from a real invasion of Ukrainian-held territory (that's my guess at this point).

Complicating this is no one really knowing what Putin wants or what he would need to call off his threats: he has a domestic political audience to play tough guy to and it may very well be that a successful and prosperous neighboring Ukraine, run on Western principles, would be an unacceptable indictment of his domestic failures, whether or not Ukraine was threatening Russia militarily (note: this last is predicated on a explicitly neutral military role for Ukraine, like Finland in the 70-90s, not on a partial NATO association).

Last his demands on withdrawal of NATO presence in existing NATO members are so off-the-top maximalist that it is hard to see them as genuine negotiation points: they don't allow for any partial concessions that would allow both parties to meet halfway.

edited Jan 24 '22 at 19:01

answered Jan 22 '22 at 08:31

Italian Philosophers 4 Monica

83,219
11
197
338

3

their boys's boots — and women/girls boots; the time that the military were all-male are well in the past. And on your last paragraph: I believe Russia denies that military buildup near the Ukrainian border is a threat to Ukraine (just like how NATO stresses that military buildup in the Baltic states is not a threat to Russia, which Russia may see differently). – gerrit Jan 22 '22 at 17:53
27

@gerrit Political correctness aside, the tip-of-the-spear troops are overwhelmingly male, especially in ground troops. Female personnel is often support troops, unless you are talking combat machines like helicopter/fighter pilots. A number of countries until fairly recently had regulations forbidding putting women in harm's way as direct combat troops. Re. threat perceptions, I've edited my answer. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 22 '22 at 19:29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military_by_country is kinda hard to follow, but you'll notice all sorts of qualifiers and exceptions around combat roles, even if a lot of restrictions have been getting dropped lately. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 22 '22 at 19:53
12

I wouldn't call the assassination of the Archduke "the thing that launched World War I". Austria-Hungary was looking for an excuse to throw their weight around in the Balkans; the assassination provided it. Russia was looking for an excuse to increase their influence; the invasion provided it. Germany was looking for an excuse to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine; the French alliance with Russia provided it. The British were looking for an excuse to cut the German navy down to size; the German invasion provided it. Europe was looking for an excuse to fight, and the assassination provided it. – Mark Jan 22 '22 at 21:52
1

Why is "withdrawal of NATO presence in existing NATO members" not a genuine negotiation point, compared to the demand of NATO to withdraw Russian troops from Russian soil? – Josef Jan 22 '22 at 22:35
7

Well, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania becoming NATO members didn't trigger anything. Russia wasn't in its best shape back then, but it isn't much better now either. – fraxinus Jan 22 '22 at 22:48
4

@JosefsaysReinstateMonica If Russia was only conducting maneuvers then there would be little cause for concern. I don't think the West is as much telling Russia where to put its troops as telling it not to invade (if it was only about the troops, then we'd already be seeing sanctions). Russia has form, having invaded Georgia in 08, Crimea in 14. Plus troop exercises in Baltic exercises are at the brigade level (i.e. 3-5000 men). Not 100K troops like Russia is doing now. Bottom line: if all Russia does is stay on its soil, no problem. Wanna bet that's going to remain the case? – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 22 '22 at 22:57
2

@fraxinus Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania put together, whether measured by GDP, population or most other things, are a tiny fraction of Ukraine. – manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact Jan 23 '22 at 01:03
2

@gerrit "just like how NATO stresses that military buildup in the Baltic states is not a threat to Russia, which Russia may see differently" NATO hasn't annexed part of Russia, sent their troops into Russia pretending to be native separatists, or shot down Russian civilian aircraft. – Acccumulation Jan 23 '22 at 04:33
@Acccumulation fair point, if you are not a Russian leader. If you are, you see a growing obstacles that may fail your attempts to safely stay in power by waging a "just war" once in a while. The Russian society works exactly like this. – fraxinus Jan 23 '22 at 08:53
@Acccumulation Tell Putin, not me. – gerrit Jan 23 '22 at 10:52
@fraxinus I think that is a bit simplistic. In 04 when Baltics got in, Russia was nowhere as confrontational at the time. Relations really soured in 08 after Georgia invasion. isn't much better? Wrong. Russia embarked on big reform and funding of armed forces after bad performance in Georgia. Also, unlike 04, there is the risk of an accelerating Russia-China alliance. Last, Ukraine, for whatever reasons, is a huge part of Russia's cultural identity, in a way wholly inapplicable to Baltics - not defending Russia, just stating some basic facts. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 23 '22 at 18:59
1

Uhm "for whatever reasons"? Wow, what an ignorant comment. I wish comments could be downvoted. Ever heard of the Kievan Rus'? Not? I think then it's high time to read up. Ukraine and Russia have an intertwined history and the language still is fairly close too. When I briefly lived in Ukraine (about half a year), most people in the area around me spoke Russian. Yes, even ethnic Ukrainians. And guess what, ethnic Russians and Ukrainians lived in peace together. Know Belorus? Well, how about Malaya Rus? – 0xC0000022L Jan 23 '22 at 20:35
3

@0xC0000022L don't read all that much into whatever reason My point was fully to say that there are cultural ties applying to this relationship that do not apply to Baltic states or Poland. On that we both agree even if I don't know the details. That said, Russia's behavior seems like it will quickly move to dissolve any kind of kinship the two countries share if it continues as it has. And I don't need to read up on medieval history to say that Putin's Russia has been acting as a rank bully as of late. Without Putin Russia might be less of a bully but with him it definitely is. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 23 '22 at 21:12
1

UK sending lots of short range antitank missiles that are useless for attaching Russian but great for use by low skilled resistance fighters. (I don't know what US is sending) – Ian Ringrose Jan 23 '22 at 22:29
2

@ItalianPhilosophers4Monica fair enough, regarding the part up to "the details.". But I'm not sure I can agree on the part after. Because while Russia is painted that way in and by NATO states (and those that have close ties) it's also on record that originally when the wall came down the USSR (at that time) was given the assurance there would be no eastward expansion of NATO. Yes Russia has attempted time and again to reach out to NATO and was turned down time and again. And if Russia is a rank bully then what is the US? Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Leftist Latin American states ... – 0xC0000022L Jan 23 '22 at 23:24
Don't get me wrong, where ever Russia's actions were wrong, they were wrong (2008 would be an example to me) either way. There is no reason to excuse them based on the equally bad or worse actions of others. However, I think they provide an explanation for why Russia acts the way it does . – 0xC0000022L Jan 23 '22 at 23:29
1

@0xC0000022L Yeah, "whatever reasons" was unnecessary and, while comments can't be DVed they cant be edited either. I have made the Cuba point in several answers so far to explain Russia's grounds for concern wrt Ukraine proximity but I will add it here again. Whatever Russia was promised wrt to NATO extensions it signed a treaty committing to respect Ukraine's territory in Budapest Memo in 1994. But, yes, overall "fixing the situation" by "rubbing Russia's nose in it" as some suggest is unlikely to lead to a long term stability outcome and it might lead to a big Russia-China cuddle. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 24 '22 at 18:36
@Mark You misunderstood my point. By 1914 most European states save Switzerland were the sworn ally of one block and the sworn enemy of another block. For the reasons you mentioned. There was no slack whatsoever and things escalated very quickly as countries called in mutual defense assurances. Ferdinand? A minor incident, yes, but happening within an extremely confrontational context of mutual alliances. Ukraine in NATO, could ratchet up this kind of tension as well. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jan 24 '22 at 18:45
1

Rather than sanctioning Russian gas, the idea has been floated to prevent semiconductors made using US technology from being sold to Russia. Since Russia (and China ex Taiwan) do not have an advanced semiconductor industry, that's like to have a much greater impact and it barely hurts the West. See for example Reuters' White House tells chip industry to be ready for potential Russia export curbs. – JJJ Jan 24 '22 at 18:47

score 5 · Answer 2 · answered Jan 24 '22 at 10:23

It should be noted in context that NATO is not the only body that may protect European states from invasion. With specific regards to Ukraine, the Budapest Memorandum assures that the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China will help defend Ukraine in the face of threats to the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine (and Kazakhstan and Belarussia as well).

Of course, one of the "protectors" of Ukraine is Russia itself. Furthermore, the remaining NATO states that pledged to defend Ukraine (US, UK, France) did not do so during the invasion of Crimea.

I'm reading the memorandum, and it seems to say they'll respect its borders and do SOME steps to defend it against nuclear attack. I do not see a clause that states they'll defend its borders against non-nuclear attack. Can you quote it? — Yakk, Jan 24 '22 at 17:21

score 2 · Answer 3 · edited Jan 24 '22 at 13:55

Does NATO have any obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia?

No, NATO is not obliged to defend Ukraine, since Ukraine is not a NATO member.

Why is it not sending NATO troops on the Ukraine border to defend against Russia?

Some NATO members did send their troops or equipment. However, it is worth noting that Russia, as well as three NATO members — USA, Great Britain and France — are nuclear states, and a direct conflict between Russian and NATO troops, even a minor border skirmish, may easily escalate into a full-blown nuclear war. So, even if some of these troops sent to Ukraine do enter conflict with Russian troops, it is not likely to be interpreted as an agression against a NATO member state (automaticlaly triggering NATO response), but as an internal affair of those states.

I thought the point of NATO is to defend against tyrannical leaders in Europe attacking other European sovereign states.

NATO was created during the Cold War, as a counter-balance to the Soviet Block (although, technically, the Warsaw Pact was concluded after the creation of NATO). NATO's role since the collapse of the USSR is rather vaguely defined. In any case, if NATO declared itself as an authority in deciding which regime is tyrannical and what aggression is justified, it would be pure vigilantism. Officially, this role belongs to the UN, of which all the NATO members are members (including three aforementioned nuclear powers having permanent seat and veto power in the UN Security Council, alongside Russia and China).

Germany did this in the 1930s attacking smaller countries such as Poland first. What is the purpose of the organization at this time?

NATO did not exist at the time of the German aggression that you are referring to. Moreover, comparison of Russia to Nazi Germany is highly objectionable — in terms of historical facts, in terms of current realities, as well as from the point of view of the basic respect for Russians.

As far as history goes, in the 1930s, the world powers (mostly Britain and France, with USA idly standing by) repeatedly conceded to Germany demands and didn't honor their obligations to their allies — notably during the Munich agreements (Czechoslovakia), and during the Phoney War (Poland). Moreover, the US entered the War only after the attack on the Pearl Harbor — when all of Europe was subjugated and the Soviets have already beaten off the Germans' first attempt to take Moscow. Moreover, technically, it was Germany who declared war on the United States (the US reciprocated the same day, and was likely planning to declare war).

It should be noted that, although the United States did not officially enter the war in Europe until the reciprocal declaration of war against the various Axis powers, and although US troops did not bear anywhere near the brunt of the fighting in Europe, US weapons and supplies (very much including food) under the Lend-Lease Act were vital to the Soviet Union's survival of Barbarossa and eventual conquest eastern Germany. This is an often-overlooked aspect of the ultimate Soviet victory. — S. G., Jan 24 '22 at 16:26
@S.G. good point. Indeed, US was always in the clear on which side they were vis-à-vis Germany. — Roger V., Jan 24 '22 at 17:25
Note that the UK conceded to some pre-WW2 German demands ... as it engaged in a rapid rearming program. Germany was more ready for continental war early on; the Phony war involved blockading Germany from supplies it would need while the UK and France grew stronger every day. Germany "ended" the Phony phase by attacking in the West before France+UK was strong enough to stop them. UK+France attacking earlier wouldn't have ended up better for the allies. The UK then proceeded to not accept any peace terms until Germany unconditionally surrendered. — Yakk, Jan 24 '22 at 17:26

score -1 · Answer 4 · edited Jan 24 '22 at 14:47

Does NATO have any obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia?

NATO members can only defend NATO members. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, therefore, NATO will not protect it. Moreover, Jens Stoltenberg constantly tells that NATO will not send troops to help Ukraine against Russia.

Why is it not sending NATO troops on the Ukraine border to defend against Russia?

There are several reasons, one of them is that all the hysteria about the possible invasion is primarily whipped up by the West itself.

Moreover, recently there has been a campaign of disinformation. For example, satellite images were thrown in, which were accompanied by phrases about a possible attack. A month or two ago, Russia was conducting military exercises, and the Western press whipped up hysteria and said that Russia was about to attack Ukraine.

At the same time, "We don’t see any great danger on our borders at the moment", said Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Alexei Danilov (December 30).

Also, it is important for the US to delay the launch of Nord Stream 2. This is another reason why the US actively wants to make Europe believe in a possible Russian invasion. Also, recently, the President of Ukraine issued a public appeal to his citizens with the words that they calm down and do not believe the reports about the Russian invasion. Also, in Ukraine, there is no mass preparation for a war with Russia, absolutely nothing is happening there, except for the pulling of troops to the Donbas to prepare a military operation in the Donbas.

In addition, the United States wants to intimidate the President of Ukraine (talking about the Russian threat and a possible attack) and persuade him to implement the Minsk agreements, which he does not want to implement, because if he does, he will be immediately swept away by the nationalist parties. For 8 years, she has not made any progress in the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Instead of implementing the Minsk agreements, the Ukrainian authorities consider the use of force as the main solution, which the United States does not want, since in the event of a Russian victory, Ukraine will again come out from under the influence of the United States.

These are just a few reasons. There are others, but the main point is that no one from NATO was ever going to seriously stand up for Ukraine. Ukraine is just a bargaining chip in the new round of the Cold War between the US and Russia. If there is a war between Ukraine and Russia, then NATO and the US will benefit from this, since they will not have to fight with Russia - Ukraine will do it for them. And it does not matter that Ukraine loses, in any case it will harm Russia.

And Russia does not want a war with Ukraine, since a lot of Russians and Russian-speakers live in Ukraine. Trying to convince the public that Russia needs a war with Ukraine is part of a big campaign in the press.

The Russian authorities are afraid that Ukraine will join NATO and allow the Americans to build military bases near the borders of Russia. If Russia wanted to build military bases near US borders, then a military response would not be long in coming.

I thought the point of NATO is to defend against tyrannical leaders in Europe attacking other European sovereign states.

Initially, NATO was created against the USSR. NATO was created in 1949, it was already after the Second World War.

As for the "tyrannical leaders" - who will decide who is a tyrant and who is not? USA and NATO countries? On what basis will they decide? Will there be some kind of court or will it just be a joint decision, with no possibility to appeal? No one cares which country has which leader, this whole story is only about spheres of influence, money and underground resources.

If the United States considers the Russian authorities to be tyrants and wants to fight them, then obviously Russia will perceive NATO as a threat. If NATO wants to fight Russia simply because they don't like Putin, then it's not surprising that Russia will retaliate and fight back. This is exactly what we are seeing today.

Russia knows very well how NATO dropped bombs on Yugoslavia in 1999. Bombed the city and it was mostly civilians who suffered, including many children. Moreover, NATO dropped 15 tons of depleted uranium as bombs. Also, in Russia, they know how NATO invaded Libya on March 17, 2011 in order to help kill Muammar Gaddafi and replace him with a pro-Western politician. Etc.

It would be interesting to ask the opinion of Guantanamo prison inmates or Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Iranians and so on, about who is a tyrant.

In modern times, the one who screams louder is right, so propaganda is working at full strength. Soon we will know much more about Russia than about our own countries.

Why do you say NATO members can only defend NATO members? What about the Libya intervention? That was an operation by NATO countries to end attacks on Libyan citizens. Libya is not a NATO country. — JJJ, Jan 24 '22 at 01:19
"hysteria about the possible invasion" I'm puzzled. There is already an invasion and occupation of the territory of Ukraine going on, and Russia has moved 100,000 troops to the border. This is from a nation who is supposed to be guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Why is it hysteria that Russia would continue doing what it is currently doing, only more? Also, NATO members can defend whomever they want; they are only treaty obligated by NATO to defend each other. — Yakk, Jan 24 '22 at 17:20
NATO members can defend whoever they want. NATO members are not obliged to defend non-NATO members though. — Denis, Jan 24 '22 at 23:51
@Yakk - Yes, NATO members can indeed protect anyone. But in the case of their personal initiative, if it's not agreed with other members of the alliance, other NATO members will not be required to fight because someone decided to help on their own initiative. And the rest you are really right. Any country can protect anyone, for this it is not necessary to be a member of NATO. — Testable Potato, Jan 25 '22 at 17:56
@TestablePotato NATO countries do not need to coordinate anything to defend anyone. Any NATO country can unilaterally use its armed forces without the need to coordinate any actions with their NATO allies. Whether they will do so is a completely different matter. I understand that modal verbs can be a challenge to you as a non-native English speaker but please don't present your opinion as facts. — Denis, Jan 25 '22 at 19:00
@Denis - According to Article 4 "The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.". If some NATO country wants to protect another country, this may cause problems with the security and territorial integrity of this NATO country. This paragraph to a certain extent limits the personal initiative of the NATO countries. At the same time there is nothing that forbids a NATO country from doing whatever it wants. — Testable Potato, Jan 26 '22 at 10:36

Does NATO have any obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia?

4 Answers4

Possible effects of making Ukraine a formal NATO member:

Possible NATO responses to an invasion:

Linked