Trump's Refusal to Commit to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty
In President Trump's nearly five months in office, not once has he criticized the Russians……. not for their military assistance to the Assad government in Syria, not for their annexation of Crimea, and not for the sending of Russian troops and tanks into Eastern Ukraine.
I think it reasonable to believe that since the inception of his campaign for the Presidency, Trump has thought he could someday "make a deal" with Putin that would restore good U.S. relationships, thus making him a modern hero. His problem would be the long-held hostility of Republican politicians towards Russian aggression and Russian assistance to its allies, Syria and Iran.
Consider his recent visit with NATO leaders.
In the speech crafted for him by Defense Secretary Mattis and others to deliver to the NATO leaders, he chose to deliberately omit the 27 word sentence that pledged support to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.
Article 5 provides that if one of NATO's countries is attacked, each of the other NATO countries is obligated to go to their defense.
Putin has made no secret of his desire to regain control of the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, each of which is a NATO country, and each of which was formerly a Republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, but was one of the original founders of the United Nations in 1945. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, it has been an independent country with its capital at Kiev. In 1994, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal under an agreement that its independence would be recognized by both Russia and the European nations of NATO.
Russia has breached that 1994 Agreement. both in its annexation of Crimea, formerly part of Ukraine, and by sending its tanks into areas of western Ukraine. Ukraine has not had the weaponry to hold on to its territory, but many Republicans have favored sending Kiev anti-tank and other arms which would be able to stand up to Putin's invasion.
The only only knowledge we have of Trump's views is the changing of the language of the Republican Platform in Cleveland last July. The plank on the Ukraine might have provided for LETHAL military assistance like anti-tank weapons, but by reason of Trump's people's intervention, the final platform language providing only for "APPROPRIATE assistance."
Putin must have been happy indeed with that change.
But why did President Trump delete the pledge to honor Article 5 when he addressed the NATO leaders?
Could it have been that he wanted to send a signal to Putin that the United States would not meet its NATO obligation if Putin invaded Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania?
It will be interesting to see what the House and Senate Committees turn up as to why and by whom the Republican Platform language was changed to favor the Russian position on Ukraine in Cleveland last July.
Pete McCloskey
Rumsey Farms