Dette innlegget er også tilgjengelig i: Norsk bokmål Русский Українська

NATO’s Article 5 is the very foundation of the NATO defense alliance. It is a guarantee that will protect all member countries from attack. Article 5 states that an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all. However, nothing is said about the fact that all countries should or are obliged to send armed forces if a country triggers the article. It is said that it is a duty to assist an ally. Assistance is not necessarily soldiers. Each country should assist with what they deem necessary. In other words, it can be sanctions against the attacking party, shipment of weapons or with armed forces. The treaty says nothing about major attacks or about internal conflicts in a country. This is an obvious weakness.

Not designed for today’s threats

In my opinion, NATO’s Article 5 is designed for a traditional war. That is, where a country attacks a country in NATO with soldiers. We see such a war in Ukraine. However, Russia’s assault on Ukraine already started in 2014. Back then, it was Russian soldiers with no visible identity who took over power in Crimea. Later that year, Russian rebels in Donbas took control of parts of the eastern part of the country.

Countries in the NATO alliance with a large Russian population fear the same thing. An uprising among the Russian minority, orchestrated by Moscow. Nor is digital warfare, aimed at critical infrastructure, covered by the treaty as I see it. Attacks on electricity supply and drones that stop air traffic are examples of modern warfare. In Europe and the US, elections have been influenced by Russian propaganda. For example, thousands of MAGA accounts are controlled from foreign addresses. Accounts that try and succeed in influencing public opinion in the US.

Article 5, security of small countries

It is primarily the small countries that see NATO’s Article 5 as the foundation of the defense alliance. Countries that on their own would be easy prey for Russia in an attack. I say Russia because it is Russia and only Russia that poses a threat in Europe. After World War II, only Russia has attacked other countries in Europe. Article 5 is particularly important for the Baltic countries. They have all felt Soviet aggression. A Soviet Union that took the countries and incorporated them into the Soviet empire. It is the fear of history repeating itself that is great in these countries. Especially with a Russian president who says that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a mistake and clearly wants to rebuild the Soviet empire under Putin’s Russia.

The Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia currently have standing NATO forces to deter a Russian attack. It is likely that these forces would also repel an attempt at Russian aggression. Finland has the longest border with Russia of any NATO country. After Finland became a member of NATO together with neighboring Sweden, defense in northern Europe can be better coordinated. Together with Sweden and Norway, the defense in the north should be sufficient to stop a Russian attack until reinforcements arrive from the other countries in the alliance. The only question is what help will actually arrive. There is no guarantee that any other country will send forces to repel a Russian attack.

The battle for the Arctic

The areas in the far north of Europe are called the Arctic. This area is considered to have vast resources in the form of oil, gas and minerals. Donald Trump wants to incorporate Greenland into the USA. The reason is obvious. The prospect of exploiting natural resources is the driving force. We see something of the same thing on Svalbard. The archipelago, which belongs to Norway but has a special regulation, has always been in Russia’s interest.

Global warming is causing temperatures in the Arctic to rise dramatically. In fact, more than anywhere else in the world. This means that areas that were previously inaccessible are now very interesting. An attempt by Russia to take over Svalbard is not inconceivable. The question then becomes whether a limited conflict in an ocean area far to the north makes the other NATO countries particularly keen to sacrifice soldiers. Perhaps they will support Norway in other ways? Perhaps through sanctions or something similar.

There are several issues with NATO’s Article 5. It was designed for the post-World War II world. It is not designed for conflicts in 2025.

Sources:

NATO: Collective defence and Article 5

Wikipedia: North Atlantic Treaty

CEPA: Willfully Vague: Why NATO’s Article 5 Is So Misunderstood