Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno[1]

Following the Alaska Summit and Trump lining up European leaders to set them straight, the fate of the war in Ukraine, where millions of soldiers and civilians have lost their lives, has become stuck between Moscow’s territorial demands and Kyiv’s demands for “security.”

This is not just an inference we have made by looking at developments and their outcomes.

US Vice President Vance simply laid out the ongoing negotiations; he stated that the talks aimed at ending the Russia-Ukraine war are focused on security guarantees for Ukraine and the territories that Russia wants to control—including Ukrainian lands it has not occupied.

Although this statement may appear to lack a strategic approach at first glance, this is precisely the equation being constructed.

Effective Western security guarantees in exchange for territory…

The transatlantic alliance wants to determine the main outlines of a possible peace agreement with Russia and end the war in one way or another; however, the haughty leaders of the old continent are aware that this is by no means easy.

Putin has a very strong hand. Moreover, he has already pocketed Crimea.

The formula being worked on is for Ukraine to benefit from a “Article 5-style” guarantee within NATO.

On the surface, it seems Moscow will not object too much to this formula.

To avoid provoking Putin, Ukraine’s membership in the alliance will not be on the table, but one must carefully note the words of Prime Minister Meloni—who brings a new style to diplomacy with her gestures and facial expressions, rolling her bulging eyes and twisting her mouth—to the effect of: “If one of our soldiers were to die, would we act as if nothing happened, or would we react? If we react, it is obvious that NATO would have to do so. Then we could immediately invoke Article 5.”

For instance, if Russia attacks Ukraine again, will they be able to respond within 24 hours? They are now trying to sit down and decide on this.

They also know that the steps they can take without US support are limited.

Let us take a look at this famous article that is currently on everyone’s lips.

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is considered one of the cornerstones of the organization.

We could also call it the spirit of the treaty, as it regulates the principle of collective defense.

That is, according to this article, an armed attack on a NATO member country is considered an attack on all member countries. Each member country has the right to take action it deems necessary to assist the attacked country, including the use of armed force, either individually or collectively.

To caricature it, it is a case of “One for all, all for one…”

But this is where the rub lies.

Because in the 76-year history of NATO, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked only once. That was after the terrorist attacks on the US by Al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001.

Member countries met on October 4, 2001, and decided on collective defense.

Of course, when the US is the one hurting, everything else stops.

Yet, Turkey has been struggling with PKK terrorism for exactly 41 years. More than 40 thousand of our people have fallen victim to terrorism. There was clearly an organized terrorist attack against our country. But it did not occur to the alliance to invoke Article 5 for Turkey, which has the second-largest army in NATO.

Not only did it not occur to them, but leading member countries continued to support the terrorist organization, either covertly or openly.

Since we are in the same alliance, fine, you refrain from helping for political reasons, but at least do not support the terrorist organization…

Everyone knows that PKK militants are running wild in NATO member countries today. All of them are, in one way or another, under the protection of these countries.

If a bloody terrorist organization is an apparatus of imperialism, it is exempt from NATO’s Article 5.

So much for collective defense!

Returning to the Ukraine issue…

It is worth writing clearly: A security and guarantee formula similar to NATO’s Article 5 has no practical meaning for Ukraine. The West will turn tail the moment it feels the pressure; have no doubt about that.

Let no one come out and say, “Ukraine is the geography where European defense begins.” Did they not know this before, and have they only now come to their senses?

We can assume that Putin prefers to remain silent for now because he sees this.

In short, let us conclude our article by saying that it would be beneficial for Zelensky to think once more about who he trusts and why.

[1] “One for all, all for one.”