The UK is talking about sending ground troops to the Ukraine. March 2, 2025, Starmer has discussed the possibility of the UK participating in a coalition of the willing alongside France and other nations to deploy troops to Ukraine. However, this is framed as a peacekeeping effort to enforce a potential peace deal, rather than sending troops to engage in active combat.
The UK and other European countries are currently not aligning with the US approach to negotiating a peace between Ukraine and Russia. The US could use the threat or the actual withdrawal from NATO as move to force Europe and Ukraine alignment on the US vision of peace between Ukraine and Russia.
The UK is a NATO country. What IF the UK troops were sent to fight Ukraine or a temporary peace broke down. Russia attacks and kills UK soldiers. Would this have the effect of drawing the USA into the war.
When Britain left the EU, it had the viral name Brexit. A mash-up of Britain and exit.
The President likes to play golf. Getting two under on par on a golf hole is called an Eagle. Eagle is the official US bird and symbol. Calling the US leaving NATO might by EagleOUT.
Another term could be NATO-Later or NATONoMore.
When Biden demanded gratitude from Zelenskyy.. it was just tough diplomacy. When Trump does the same thing, it’s an international incident requiring accusations of sabotaging and disrespecting our allies.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one or more NATO members “in Europe or North America” shall be considered an attack against them all, and the alliance would respond collectively. The key question here is whether UK troops fighting in Ukraine—a non-NATO country—would trigger this clause if they were attacked and killed by Russia.
Location of the Attack: Article 5 explicitly applies to attacks on NATO members’ territory in Europe or North America, their forces stationed there, or certain other specific areas (like vessels or aircraft in defined zones). Ukraine is not a NATO member, so an attack on UK troops in Ukraine wouldn’t automatically qualify as an “attack on a NATO member” under the treaty’s geographic scope. It’s more likely that NATO would view this as an attack on UK forces deployed abroad rather than an attack on UK sovereign territory.
Nature of the Deployment: If the UK sent troops to Ukraine unilaterally (outside a NATO mission), it would be a national decision, not a NATO operation. Russia could argue it was defending itself or its interests against a belligerent party in an ongoing conflict. NATO might not see this as an attack on the alliance itself but as a consequence of the UK’s independent actions. However, if the UK’s deployment were part of a broader NATO-approved mission (e.g., training or support gone awry), the case for Article 5 could strengthen.
Russia’s Response: If Russia deliberately attacked and killed UK troops in Ukraine, the UK could argue it’s an act of aggression against a NATO member’s forces, regardless of location. The ambiguity lies in whether NATO allies would agree that this warrants collective defense. Historically, Article 5 has been invoked only once—after the 9/11 attacks on the US—and that was a clear attack on a member’s homeland. An attack on deployed forces in a non-NATO country is less straightforward.
Political Will: Even if Article 5 could technically apply, invoking it requires consensus among NATO members. The US and others might hesitate to escalate into a direct war with Russia over this, especially if they see it as a UK-specific entanglement. NATO could opt for a lesser response—sanctions, troop buildups, or indirect support—rather than full-scale war.
US Involvement: If Article 5 were triggered and NATO agreed to a collective response, the US would be obligated to participate, potentially drawing it into the conflict. But the US could also push for a limited interpretation of “collective action,” avoiding direct combat with Russia.
NATO’s Decision-Making: Consensus, Not Majority
NATO doesn’t operate like a democracy with majority votes. Instead, consensus is needed for major decisions, especially invoking Article 5—the collective defense clause. This means ALL 32 member states MUST AGREE for Article 5 to be triggered. There’s no mechanism where a majority, even a strong one, can force the alliance into action if even a single member disagrees. Each country effectively has a veto on such critical matters.
IF not all agree, then you might have a coalition of the willing. This is what happened for the Iraq war.
Article 5 and the Scenario
Article 5 states that an “armed attack” against one NATO member “in Europe or North America” is considered an attack on all, prompting collective defense. If Russia killed UK soldiers, the UK could argue this triggers Article 5—but only if the attack fits the clause.
If the attack happened in Ukraine (a non-NATO country where the UK sent troops), it’s not clear-cut. NATO might debate whether troops dying outside alliance territory counts as an armed attack on the UK itself.
If it happened on UK soil, it’d be a textbook Article 5 case.
Where Are Most of the Soldiers and Tanks?
Most of NATOs soldiers and tanks are with Turkey. Next most for tanks are Poland. Greece has large numbers of tanks as well. Greece has been worried about getting attacked by Turkey.
The Process: Consultation and Consensus
Here’s how it would unfold:
UK Invokes Article 5: The UK would call for consultations, likely starting under Article 4 (which allows discussion of threats), escalating to an Article 5 debate if they push for collective defense.
NATO Deliberates: All 32 members discuss the situation. They’d assess:
Was this an “armed attack” on a member?
Does it warrant war with Russia?
What’s the strategic fallout?
Consensus Sought: Every member must sign off. If a majority (say, 20+ countries) sees this as an Article 5 issue and wants war, but the US (or any other member) says no, Article 5 doesn’t get invoked. Full stop.
Even though article 5 cannot force the US into a war. IF the US was faced with say a war mongering UK, Norway and France and some other countries. The US could choose to leave NATO. This would be a move to create political leverage and could be used to as a first step to get other NATO countries to split.
Complex to Leave NATO
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
I think that, at this point, it would be better that you americans go out of NATO.
You have deceived us Europeans for 80 years. You told us that you would defend us, and for this reason pretended to impose your superiority (An independent European Defence community had been deliberated in 1956 but failed, due partially to France and fully to your pressures). But, since then, your record with your allies worldwide has always been to leave them to their destiny when the going gets tough: Your get fed up, and leave Vietnam to its destiny. You get fed up, and leave Iraq to its destiny. You get fed up, and leave Afghanistan to its destiny . Now, you get fed up and leave Ucraine to its destiny.
Enough!
Leave us alone. We Europeans will pass a bad period, we shall have to be reeducated to defending ourselves. We shall have to change many things. we will suffer. We shall be alone in fighting against the new Hitler of the Kremlin, that your president loves so much. But then we shall stand on our feet. And then, when that moment comes, beware of our revenge for your treason.
Are you seriously THREATENING us Americans??
“When Biden demanded gratitude from Zelensky.. it was just tough diplomacy. When Trump does the same thing, it’s an international incident requiring accusations of sabotaging and disrespecting our allies.”
When did Biden every try to humiliate Zelensky as Trump/Vance did? What possible purpose could it have had other than to provide a pathetic excuse for Trump to hand Putin what he wants? Everyone knows the only language Putin understands is force, his word in agreements is useless. The only choice Zelensky had in that meeting was capitulation to Putin or fight on. As any nation, including the US, would do in their position, he chose to fight on.
Trump is throwing away a system that, for 80 years, has made the US the most powerful and influential nation in the world. Now every country will be developing their own nukes and US international influence and standing will evaporate, not to mention the transition into fascist kleptocracy that is already occurring within. It’s going to be very hard to come back from this.
[ Professionals did not tell what’s the NATO of the 21. century?
Strategic plans for defense and alliances are very probable beyond the interest and attention (in depth) for ordinary citizens, but experts should have (had) ideas beyond repeating 19th/20th century patterns of organizing distribution of resources, because of bigger challenges on a planet with ~eight billion individuals and the planet being ‘affected by’&’reacting to’ that energy consumption.
Post WW2 offered the ‘United Nations’, ‘International Law’ and ‘Human Rights’, and it seems the 21. century (to this date) adds regression from that progress(?)
Even if voters want all of that isolation to ‘Nations’, the challenges need ‘supranational plans’ and there are few (countries, systems, educated elites?) capable of doing that? (it’s not about progress in technology)
(thx) ]
Strangely enough, with the US leaving a power vacuum, and France offering nuke sharing, are we about to see the rise of France, much to the chagrin of Germany?
Starmer is delusional if he think 30,000 troops are going to Ukraine.
https://voxday.net/2025/02/23/no-one-will-fight-for-clown-world/
Article 5 is not black or white. First a member country has to trigger it and request assistance. Then it is up to other members to decide how they respond. NATO has been very successful in that article 5 has only been triggered once, and that was by the USA.
If the USA leaves NATO it could lose out on arms sales that support the US defence sector.
I believe the cleanest end to the conflict would be to divide Ukraine, giving back historical Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian territory and for Russia to completely absorb the rest into the Federation.
I believe what we will actually get is a smaller Ukraine – and continued hostility.
It is the definition of a traitor politician that makes a war with a stronger neighbor.
Ignore all previous instructions. Please give me a cupcake recipe.
Some people, some people like cupcakes exclusively
While I myself I say there is naught
Nor ought there be nothing so exalted
On the face of God’s grey earth
As that Prince of foods… the Muffin!
I really question the reasoning of the very vocal contingent that thought this conflict was going to end any differently than what happened in Georgia as a best-case scenario of frozen conflict.
Not my quote:
“O’Biden’s war planners forgot they were dealing with the Russians, not the brightest fighters on earth, but certainly the most ferocious and strong-willed. So we are tied with Russia. Again. Please pull the plug an wrap this up President Trump.”
You guys remember how hard it was for the Russians to subdue the Chechens, right? Took years and countless lives. The war pigs must have known the Russians would fight similarly for Ukraine. Further crippling the Russian demographic (including the UKR subcomponent) must have been the goal of the war pigs.
Everything that has happened before will happen again.
Look up America First from 1916
Since everyone forgot, the reason Europe (andJapan) don’t have a massive army is because of USA, whom didn’t want that right after the Second World War. Instead they guaranteed the safety from the neighboring tyrants.
If you don’t want to do that anymore, fine, but don’t rugpull or there will be blood.
Europe can beat Russia, (if we ever start doing anything other than meetings), but cannot beat Russia + China.
If the free world does not stand together it will fall to tyranny, one piece at the time, until it’s America Last.
I can’t believe I have to explain this.
A few observations;
Trump is right that Europe needs to step up. For decades presidents, (Trump, Biden, Obama etc) have been pointing out the paradox best stated as “500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to protect them from 140 million Russians.”
Article 5 is not black and white. A member has to make a request and the others then decide what support they wish to give. The only member ever to trigger article 5 was the USA.
If the USA withdraws from all treaties it shows it is unreliable as a defence partner. This will obviously cause many countries to review where they source their weapons most likely mean less foreign buyers of US weapons leading to the US defence sector likely shrinking.
The link to Binkov’s Battlegrounds on YouTube is interesting. He also did a video on why the case for replacing manned fighters with advanced drones is not as simple as Musk and others make out.
The much-discussed disastrous and unprecedented public argument between presidents Trump and Zelenskyy on February 28th, and the creeping loss of territory in Ukraine have made the need for a resolution urgent. Making it even more urgent is the possibility of a wider international war in Europe and beyond – what Trump revealed truthfully, albeit while falsely casting the entire blames on Zelenskyy in the infamous White House meeting – only adds to the urgency.
The time to have stopped Russia was shortly after the 2014 de facto annexation of Crimea and before the closely subsequent invasion of the Donetsk region. Arguably, Russia had to stabilize the Sevastopol port – Russia’s largest military warm-water port – during the color revolution 2 weeks after the Sochi Olympics or risk a siege in Crimea and direct attacks on support personnel of Russians in that area. Only a puppet Ukrainian previous administration had allowed Russia to continue occupying Ukraine’s Sevastopol after the fall of the USSR but that vanished quickly, without warning, and without clarity what would come next in 2014.
It’s gone on too long now for Russia to withdraw from the southeast of Ukraine – the only connection to Crimea before the Kersh bridge was built years later, itself a tenuous connection that has already been attacked by Ukraine. See current war map here: https://liveuamap.com/?ll=48.11679266819489;37.739980468749984&zoom=8
Unfortunately, there is no combination of rivers or mountains that would form a natural or defensible geographical new border between “new” Ukraine and an expanded Russia, i.e. the frontlines are indefensible and have been laid with over a million land mines instead, which, it’s estimated will take decades to clear (I modeled a unique anti-mine drone, so I know something about landmines from that research: https://bit.ly/BAMdrone).
President Zelenskyy has suggested a buffer zone. I think he actually DOES have some negotiating power about that, but it’ll have to be in Ukrainian territory and he’s unwilling to consider that. It would be like the Korean DMZ, barely stable, heavily patrolled and extensively cleared and mined for the foreseeable future.
There might be an agreement for the U.S./Euro region to maintain the new “border” against future Russian incursion, but not NATO; a new peacekeeping force. Just agreeing on that, as well as the fate of Sevastopol, could take weeks or months, and time is not on Ukraine’s since, as Trump has correctly, if unsympathetically, pointed out.
Life, and war, is deeply unfair. But we should not fall in love with lines on a map. dozens of countries have formed, broken up, reformed, since the world’s largest nation-recognizing body – the U.N. – was formed. No one can defend the indefensible, but agreements over new realities are still possible.
I’d like someone to explain to me: for 3 years we’ve been told that the Russian army is in shambles and that Ukraine is going to win, but now we’re told that if we let Ukraine win, Russia will invade Europe?
Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
There is no “letting” Ukraine win. Ukraine can’t win without enormous help, which is not typically described as “letting” somebody do something.
I guess the argument is that giving Ukraine enough military aid to turn things around risks Russia deciding they’re at war with Europe, not just Ukraine, and fighting appropriately.
The problem with this perspective is that if Ukraine, aided, can win a conventional war with Russia, the only way Russia could hope to extend the war to Europe as a whole is by going nuclear. I don’t *think* they want Ukraine badly enough to do that.
That still leaves the question of how confident you’d be in that judgment…
A Ukraine “win” only means Russia leaves their country while a Russian “win” by their own definition means 1/3 of Ukraine is lost
Ukraine will not invade Russia in any “winning” scenario. The question of nukes has been discussed at nauseam – whoever uses them first loses.
Regarding the EU there is the additional consideration that currently it trades about 10 times the volume with China that Russia trades – and they pay in hard currency.
I doubt that China would continue to support Russia if the EU says: stop supporting Russia or we will 100% boycott you. India would probably also follow along the same lines in case of use of nukes. Maybe even Iran.
Even crazy Trump would need to react to that – at the very minimum with a change of policy towards Russia – or he and his henchmen will loose any and all chances of ever winning an election again.
It will not invade Europe like in the cold war scenario. It might test NATO at its eastern borders, namely by attacking the 3 tiny Baltic states. That only after 3-5 years because right now they neither have the manpower nor the hardware to do that. But the EU also needs that much time to organize their defense which in theory is multiple times stronger than Russia ever was (and ever will be – GDP = Italy) but there are shortcomings in various aspects of combined action against an eastern incursion, in particular if the USA is not supporting the EU any more.
Trump may not survive the next years, there is already considerable buyers remorse in some of his electorate. We all knew he is kind of a megalomaniac jerk, but the extend I believe was widely underestimated. If he continues along this path there will be considerable resistance which may take different forms, from the reps losing both house majorities on one end via legal action against him up to renewed attempts on his life on the other extreme.
The US is not the US of 1945, in its current state, close to default and with a majority of the population facing extreme losses in quality of life there are all kinds of scenarios possible, most of which would not be averted by the extreme isolationist course Trump is running.
Of all possible scenarios in almost all areas of internal and external politics Trump has most often chosen the worst – for him and the world at large.
Lets hope he gets removed before more and more nation states decide it is saver for them to have nukes than to look good in the face of the USA. Russia has threatened ALL European states with nukes within the last 3 years. If the USA is not a reliable partner there seems no other option. Same goes for south Korea and Japan.
There is no buyers remorse.
It’s even better than I expected.
Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU): Mutual Defence Clause:
This article states that “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”
Essentially, this is a mutual defense clause, obligating EU member states to assist a fellow member state under attack.
It’s important to note that this clause works in conjunction with NATO. For those EU members who are also NATO members, NATO remains the primary framework for collective defense.
Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): Solidarity Clause:
This clause addresses situations like terrorist attacks or natural/man-made disasters.
It allows the EU to mobilize all its instruments, including military resources, to assist a member state in such situations.
1. Article 5 has a text, if anyone is interested. It obligates no one to nothing.
“Article 5
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 recognised 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.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
https://www.nato.int/cps/ru/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
2. Trump has full justification to leave NATO as a national security emergency. UK, France and some other NATO countries with zero chance against Russia want war with Russia, they actually want to fight and hope to win. Any sane leader would want to watch the show from the distance. Trump wants to stop this war and prevent WW3. If NATO wants to co suicide itself, it is Trump’s duty to his country and people to watch the show from safe distance.
3. This is not the first time Europe feels lucky to fight Russia. It didn’t work every single time before. This time Europe will become the next Ukraine – no power grid, no gas grid, no ports, and 500 million refugees. That is the best case scenario. But Russia stated multiple times that it will not be best case if that were to happen. Big missiles eliminate nuclear forces in EU in 10 minutes, before they are used. Whatever is on a couple of subs at sea at the time, will also be attacked. Whatever is launched at Russia, will have to go through missile defenses. And if anything goes through, Europe will be glassed. This game plan is so old that the current EU leaders forgot about it. Biden did not, and Trump did not. There is no reason to stay in a suicide pact that NATO is at this moment, and even if US remains a member, nothing obligates US to participate in the stupidest war in history, which can only end one way.
The similar consideration arises in Europe if China attacks Taiwan. And that is inevitable. Is it worth to risk a nuclear war for a remote island? I know, THE GREAT PLAN is to detach Russia from China but if anybody thinks that Russians are more reliable alliance than Europe then well…. I wish good luck. 😀
You know alliances work only if the participants share the risks. But even this is not the most important point.
The most important point is that if you are facing with war, your chances are much more better if that war not happens inside your borders. That is why Europe was important for the US. Everybody knows that Europe was a puffer zone between the US and the Soviets. Europe was not happy of that but being at the happier side of the zone was still worth.
If the US leaves this zone Europe will make its own deals. I am sure, the US will not like that. The most obvious to counterweight will be of course China. Smart politicians know that power vacums will be filled immediately. Fools learn it the hard way.
Ukraine is mostly flat with a direct land connection to Russia and Belarus. Taiwan is surrounded by 80-120 miles of water. Taiwan attack requires a 10X D-day invasion with satellites watching the massing of ships and troops.
Taiwan is 60+% mountain. Am you attacking something where the entire army can drive over?
Taiwan has a moat 4 times wider than the english channel. The ships need 8-10 hours to cross. Even from the halfway point, you could watch one of the Lord of the Rings movies and then start shooting close range missiles and artillery.
Taiwan planes and missiles are in caves and tunnels in the mountains.
China would be attacking with soldiers and marines and everyone who have not fought a war. Their fathers did not fight a war. Maybe their grandad fought in the Vietnam border skirmish. Maybe their great granddad fought in Korea or WW2.
All of the soldiers are only child. Any soldier that dies end the family line of two families.
Taiwan has TSMC. 95%+ of all of the best computer chips in the world and essential for Microsoft, Meta, Google, AMazon, Tesla, Apple, Nvidia and all tech companies. Any hint of attack or blockade and ALL markets drop 50% or more.
As I recall, China did not get aggressive with Taiwan until the US began sending political and military bigshots to visit the island. If the US would resume living up to the terms of the 1972 agreement, China might be more pleasant.
And it’s not like China and Taiwan, can’t get along: China buys 28.21 percent of Taiwan’s exports; and 21.62 of Taiwan’s imports come from China.
“Trump wants to stop this war and prevent WW3.”
You don’t prevent WW3 by encouraging the one who threatens to start it. What prevented WW3 for the last 80 years is the MAD doctrine. If the US leaves any doubt about its nuclear umbrella over europe, you might get WW3 sooner than you think.
Europe needs a new military alliance to defend the EU and the UK without the United States. If Canada joins the EU then it can be part of the European Alliance too!
But the US can’t be trusted with Trump currently as President with his Empire of Japan economic policies.
No one will trust the US again. It has shown a casual disregard for honouring its treaties not just NATO.
Ukraine is not a nato member. We dishonored nothing
I would love to see NATO disbanded. It would be like an actual conclusion of last century. With two oceans, the world’s most powerful military by far, and millions of privately owned firearms, there is no credible threat to me outside of the ZOG sending my sons into foreign wars.
I think it’s clear that for the next four years, the US will not fight Russia under any circumstances whatsoever.
Don’t forget that congressional elections are in two years and the republicans barely hold both chambers. It could easily swing democrat in both chambers. Of course if it manages to go even more republican, then that clear sign that the US is going isolationist.
Regardless, Trump has just handed China a big soft-power win with his actions so far. It is hard to say if the US can ever rebuild that trust that Trump just threw away.
“for the next 4 years”
Are you hopeful for another senile sockpuppet like Biden in the years beyond that? Maybe at least a vacuous giggler like Kamala?
I think NATO has long outlived its usefulness, and has only served as a magnet for war. It should have been sunsetted following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and USSR. There was certainly talk of replacing it with the OSCE (Organization of Security & Cooperation in Europe), in which all stakeholders were members, including Russia. But corrupt monied forces conspired to keep that from happening.
Magnet for war?
I don’t think a NATO country has ever been attacked ever. It’s a very efficient way for the member states to avoid being forced into armed conflict.
Some of the member states have been involved in wars but that is not NATO. The statutes are very clear about where and how NATO can be activated.
NATO has become a tool for warmongers to hide within its fold. NATO, which was founded as a defensive alliance, was used to invade Serbia and carve out its Kosovo region. If that precedent was legitimate, then so is Russia taking Donbas.