Article 5 Is a Trap for America

NATO promises and the nuclear gamble

Kenneth Schmidt warns that Trump’s push for NATO’s “Article 5 protections” risks binding the U.S. to Ukraine’s defense and potential nuclear war, urging a retreat to Monroe-Doctrine restraint instead.

I was happy that Putin and Trump met on August 15. I was convinced that it was a good thing that the two men were engaged in talks to end the horrific war that has probably killed as many as two million people. Like any sane person, I certainly want peace in the region and an end to the massive spilling of blood. It appears now, however, that Trump may have made a serious error. Both the president and his Russian intermediary, Steve Witkoff, have made statements to the effect that “Article 5 protections” are part of the proposed settlement. Once again, Mr. Trump has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Article 5 protections would mean that after a settlement is inked by both sides, any future conflict between Ukraine and Russia would lead to full NATO commitment on the part of the US to go to war against Russia. The president is now supporting a de facto, if not de jure, NATO membership for Ukraine. The US would be foolish to broker such an agreement.

Whatever Ukraine’s borders are going to look like if there is an agreement, the US would commit to defending them more or less forever. So, if there is any kind of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, we would face the prospect of two nuclear-armed powers going to war with each other. Either side could get an extremely bloody and dangerous international conflict going. If Ukraine were strategically important to the US, such a risk could be taken. However, no European border is strategically important to the US. We have no compelling reason to defend Ukraine or go to war against Russia. Washington D.C. is just shy of five thousand miles from Kiev, and whoever owns the steppes of Ukraine has almost nothing to do with US national security interests.

The US needs fewer foreign policy commitments, not more. Adding Ukraine to the long list of countries we feel obliged to defend will make us weaker. The country is broke and drowning in debt. Our defense budget is more bloated than it has ever been. A defense policy based on defending North, Central and South America as per the old Monroe Doctrine is the way to go.

Another important element to consider is the terrible habit of American politicians of looking at mutual defense pacts as “till death do us part” agreements. We should have left NATO about 1992 or so, but we hung on out of pure inertia. If I were president, and a formal alliance did not work in America’s interests, I would not bother to abide by it. In 1915, Italy made a sudden switch from the Triple Alliance to the Entente because it felt it was in its best interests. I would not honor the signature on a piece of paper over the welfare of my country, particularly if it involved the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of soldiers and civilians for little or no national advantage.

Trump and Secretary of State Rubio are engaging in foolish diplomacy because it appears that our president wants his name on a Nobel Peace Prize. All it would take would be some action by Ukrainian hotheads to drag the US and NATO into a war, possibly a nuclear one. Vladimir Putin is a responsible and rational actor, but what if ten years down the road, an irresponsible Russian president is sworn in and violates the terms of the agreement?

The US needs to extract itself from this war. I suggest that we simply stop sending money and weapons to the Ukrainians. Our national prestige would take a little hit. Geniuses like Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz would scream bloody murder, but they are pretty much irrelevant anyway. A long string of terrible foreign policy decisions over the course of nearly twenty-five years got the US involved in Russo-Ukrainian affairs. We should cut our losses and get out.