According to a Polish news site, U.S. President Donald Trump intends to make a six-point proposal to Russian leader Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. Under this plan, the first step would be to agree on a ceasefire, after which Russia would be allowed to keep the territories it has seized from Ukraine for at least the next 49 years.
Once the ceasefire had taken effect, the U.S. government would remove most of the sanctions imposed on Russia and, after some time, once again permit the export of Russian oil and gas. In return for these concessions, Trump is also expected to present demands to Putin.
The first of these would require Russia to accept the further enlargement of NATO beyond its current membership. In addition, military aid to Ukraine would continue.
The claims made by the Polish news site have not been confirmed by other sources, but neither have they been denied. Therefore, for the time being, they should be taken seriously.
* * *
As a citizen of a country bordering Russia, Trump’s plan concerns me, as it would result in Vladimir Putin being rewarded for his aggression against Ukraine. In other words, it would support his policy that any geographical areas once under Russian control should belong forever to Moscow’s sphere of influence.
In Europe, this particularly concerns Finland and the Baltic states, all of which have at some point in their history been part of Russia (or the Soviet Union). In Finland’s case, this was from 1809 to 1917, when my homeland formed an autonomous grand duchy ruled by the Russian tsar.
The fear, then, is that once Russia has recovered from the war in Ukraine, Putin or his successor might decide to see whether the West — and especially the U.S. — would also be willing to accept possible conquests from a future military campaign against a NATO country. That is, for example, the subjugation of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania to Moscow’s power, either partially or entirely.
In this matter, the key question becomes NATO’s commitment to defending the sovereignty of its northeastern members. The central issue here is how to interpret Article 5 of the treaty, which states that "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, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
What especially concerns me here is the interpretation of the above-emphasized word “necessary.” Does it mean that the amount of assistance is to be calibrated so that the aggressor is certain to be defeated? Or can it also be interpreted — as the Polish news site claims is now happening in Ukraine (which is not a NATO member) — to mean that, as a war drags on, hostilities could be ended in such a way that the conqueror gets to keep the territories it has occupied?
For this reason, I believe it would be good for NATO and its member states — especially the United States — to clarify this interpretation and reassure those of us who live next to Russia that aggression against NATO member states would under no circumstances be allowed to result in rewarding the aggressor — as in the case of the war in Ukraine — but that NATO would, in every case, use sufficient force until the situation between Russia and the victim of its attack had been restored to what it was before the war, and the Muscovite army had returned behind its own borders.
