Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s disastrous Oval Office meeting with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance marks an inflection point for international security in the post-World War II era.
An Oval Office Meeting That Changed NATO Forever
Ukraine will continue to fight with or without support. After all, ideology and not grievance motivates Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader simply rejects Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent nation or culture. Ukrainians are not the sort of people who will willingly march to their own annihilation.
Putin with a Rifle. Image Credit: Russian State Media.
The reason why the meeting was so consequential is because of what it suggests about the future of NATO. Trump’s declaration of moral equivalency and his and JD Vance’s refusal to acknowledge the clear-cut aggression Ukraine weathered raise questions about whether they would rationalize and dismiss aggression against NATO members.
Article V of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s foundational document, declared, “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.” But Article V is not as cut-and-dry as many NATO supporters believe for two reasons.
First, the Article only calls on the alliance to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” What is necessary for security is open to interpretation. Consider Trump’s logic: While Ukraine is not a NATO member, the president made his position clear to Zelensky and the assembled press. “You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War Three. You’re gambling with World War Three, and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country,” he shouted.
Trump also grounded his moral equivalency in practicalities. “If I didn’t align myself with both of them, you’d never have a deal…. You see, the hatred he’s [Zelensky] got for Putin, it’s very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate. He’s got tremendous hatred, and I understand that, but I can tell you the other side is not exactly in love with him either… I want to see if we can get this thing done. You want me to be tough? I could be tougher than any human being you’ve ever seen. I’d be so tough, but you’re never going to get a deal that way. So that’s the way it goes.”
Put another way, if security means standing down to reach an agreement, so be it.
U.S. Marine from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) Special Operations Capable (SOC) Maritime Special Purpose Force (MSPF) wears a camouflaging cobra hood during Baltic Operations 2024 (BALTOPS 24) in Ustka, Poland June 14, 2024. BALTOPS 24 is the premier maritime-focused military exercise in the Baltic Region. The exercise, led by U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, and executed by Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO, provides a unique training opportunity to strengthen combined response capabilities critical to preserving freedom of navigation and security in the Baltic Sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Sisi Lopez Barahona)
The second problem with Article V is the consensus that governs NATO. For 35 years, many within NATO saw its expansion as an inherent good. There was something to their logic: If countries became shareholders in a common alliance, they would have no ability to fight each other. The problem always has been the consensus at the heart NATO’s governance. It was tough enough to get full agreement when NATO had 12 members; with 32, it can be near impossible.
Now, if Montenegro or other window-dressing countries raise objections, other NATO countries might run roughshod over it. After all, a country of 620,000 like Montenegro simply does not compare to a country like the United States that has a population of 340 million.
If Washington blocks consensus, however, it’s a whole different ballgame.
RIP, NATO: What Happens Next?
What this means in practice is NATO is dead, even if it does not realize it yet. If Russian forces moved into Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the United States would do exactly nothing. Germany might bluster but an emphasis on soft-power—even in combat zones like Afghanistan—long ago eroded its military prowess.
Germany’s military is today better at declarations than defense and memo rather than mortars. How to profit rather than rebuff invasion would motivate President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. Poland would fight, and perhaps France too, but neither would risk nuclear war, especially should Putin threaten Polish bases with tactical nuclear weapons.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin at the at the BRICS+ meeting (via videoconference). Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Putin likely realizes the time is now for him to reclaim what he believes to be Russia’s inherent right to the former Soviet borders. Its Asian components can wait for the time being; opportunities like Trump provides do not come often. The Baltic states are his for picking.
The question now is whether Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose service to Trump’s agenda undermines everything for which he has hitherto stood will betray the Baltic and get scores of Americans killed when Russians forces enter, or whether he will order embassy evacuations now.
Likewise, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has a choice: A non-combatant evacuation now, or a far more intractable problem with Americans stranded behind enemy lines later.
About the Author: Dr. Michael Rubin
Dr. Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. He is also a 19FortyFive Contributing Editor. The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own.
