In the midst of that escalation, US President Joe Biden is waving “military intervention” in defense of the interests and security of NATO countries, which is the “hardest option” in this crisis, which faces a number of challenges.
The United States relies on Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which was signed in Washington on the 4th of April of the year 1949, which allows for resorting to military force to defend the interests of the member states of the alliance, in case of need.
Article 5 is based on international law through Article 15 of the United Nations Charter, which gives states – individually or collectively – the right to defend themselves against any threat.
While analysts view these threats as being part of the escalation, the chances of realizing them are practically out of the question, for several reasons, including the position of the NATO countries themselves on this scenario.
This is confirmed by Professor of Political Science at Cairo University, Dr. Tarek Fahmy, in exclusive statements to “Sky News Arabia”, who indicates that the scene is still unclear, given that the Ukraine crisis is “part of the whole” and even if there is no confrontation Indeed, there are other issues related to security concerns and other issues that the Russian side will not accept to compromise on.
He stresses that current indications confirm that “there will be no military solution on the part of NATO,” explaining that both France and Germany do not want any military solution, which impedes the use of the aforementioned Article 5.
The political science professor does not believe that the process of mobilizing American soldiers in Eastern Europe is an indication of the “military scenario”, for several reasons, the most important of which is that it is symbolic forces that will not have any role, and they are from the European Legion itself, and are not new forces that require approval from the US Congress.
Articles 5 and 51
Article 5 of the NATO Charter states: “Any attack or armed aggression against one of them (a party to NATO) or several parties in Europe or North America, is considered aggression against them all, and accordingly they agree that, in the event of such This armed aggression, each of them, in implementation of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, has the right to self-defense, individually or collectively, to provide support and assistance to the party or parties under attack, by taking self-measures, in cooperation with other parties, without delay.
Among the measures stipulated in the article is the “use of force of arms”, which is considered necessary to restore and confirm security in the North Atlantic region. The Security Council shall be informed without delay of every attack and armed aggression and of all countermeasures taken against it. The procedures shall be suspended, as soon as the Security Council takes the necessary steps to restore and stabilize international peace and security, according to the text of the article.
While Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations states the right of states, individually or collectively, to defend themselves if an armed force attacks a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council takes the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security.
Returning to Fahmy’s statements, he points out at the same time that “there are current arrangements taking place between the United States and NATO countries on the one hand and Russia on the other hand,” referring to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s visit to Russia, during which steps were clearly taken – without It is fully publicized – that Berlin may have succeeded where Paris did not (in pushing diplomatic solutions), and there is talk – not confirmed – of the withdrawal of Russian forces.
However, Fahmy believes that the crisis is still present, while there is joint German-French-Russian coordination to prevent any military action, and the American side is awaiting the results of those interactions, which appears in the level of American and Russian discourse, while suspicions of “military and strategic deception” remain.