Will NATO Protect All Members Equally?

[unhappycamper]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/will-nato-protect-all-members-equally/



Will NATO Protect All Members Equally?
By Jarno Limnell on September 02, 2014 at 4:30 AM

“One for all, all for one”: That’s a central principle of the NATO alliance — but in recent months, multiple members have wondered whether it truly applies to them. With Russia escalating the Ukrainian conflict every day and the alliance’s annual summit starting Thursday, the question of equality among the 28 member states is painfully timely.

The Baltic states and Poland in particular have in the past few months asked for “additional security guarantees.” These countries want to be certain that in the case of military aggression that other NATO countries will support them – even in the face of deniable cyber and guerrilla attacks that let an aggressor hide behind proxies and blur traditional lines between peace and war. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Barack Obama have emphasized publicly that NATO commitments do not solely exist on paper; the Wales summit will reportedly ratify an earlier declaration that cyberwarfare could constitute an “armed attack” under the Atlantic Treaty; and yesterday news broke that NATO would create a (modest) “rapid reaction” force of 4,000 troops to protect its eastern members. Nevertheless, suspicion is in the air in the alliance.

Especially in Poland, there has been discussion about what each member state’s commitment under Article Five to aid a victimized ally with “action as it deems necessary” means in reality. Would, for instance, the United Kingdom be willing to send its elite troops to Poland? Would the United States uncover its hidden offensive cyber capabilities in order to guarantee Latvia’s security?

Military bases, specifically American military bases, built on one’s own territory have long been perceived as an additional security guarantee. There is a strong belief, both in the Baltics and Poland, that the United States is more committed to defend an ally which hosts its troops. So, even though in the past months NATO has increased its military exercises, almost tripled the number of its fighters in the Baltics, and increased naval patrols in the Baltic Sea, there’s a lively discussion within NATO about opening new military bases. The Defense Minister of Poland recently asked the United States to place 10,000 American soldiers in Poland. Meanwhile in Germany, however, according to a recent poll, 74 percent of Germans object to the establishment of standing NATO bases in the Baltics and Poland – who in the current situation see themselves being treated as second-class citizens.

[jakeXT]

1. It didn't work out so well the last time...

Polish historian Paweł Wieczorkiewicz wrote: "Polish leaders were not aware of the fact that England and France were not ready for war. They needed time to catch up with the Third Reich, and were determined to gain the time at any price". Publicist Stanisław Mackiewicz stated in the late 1940s: "To accept London's guarantees was one of the most tragic dates in the history of Poland. It was a mental aberration and madness". On the same day when Britain pledged her support of Poland, Lord Halifax stated: "We do not think this guarantee will be binding". Other British diplomat, Alexander Cadogan wrote in his diary: "Naturally, our guarantee does not give any help to Poland. It can be said that it was cruel to Poland, even cynical".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance

[bemildred]

2. Yes, all the people who whine about Chamberlain and "appeasement" fail to realize that

it was done to buy time to rearm. And it was still a close thing in the early part of the war.