Nato's Response To A Belarus-Ukraine Conflict

Belarus's involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war has been limited to enabling Russia's war efforts by making its infrastructure and territory available. However, the possibility of Belarus launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine has sparked concerns about NATO's potential response. While NATO has provided Ukraine with unprecedented military aid and support, it has refrained from deploying combat troops to avoid direct conflict with Russia. In the event of a Belarusian attack on Ukraine, NATO's response remains uncertain, but some speculate that it could lead to a wider conflict, potentially involving nuclear weapons and escalating to World War III.

NATO's response to a Belarusian attack on Ukraine

Political and Diplomatic Response:

• Strong condemnation: NATO would likely issue a strong statement condemning Belarus's aggression and demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities. They would emphasise their support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, as they have done in response to Russia's invasion.
• Diplomatic efforts: NATO members would engage in intense diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation and seek a peaceful resolution. This could involve high-level negotiations, sanctions, and attempts to isolate Belarus internationally.
• Activation of collective defence: If Belarus attacks Ukraine, NATO may invoke Article 5 of its founding treaty, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This would signify that NATO considers the attack on Ukraine as a collective threat and will respond accordingly.

Military Response:

• Increased military aid to Ukraine: NATO has been providing significant military aid to Ukraine since Russia's invasion, and this would likely intensify in the event of a Belarusian attack. NATO members could supply more weapons, ammunition, equipment, and intelligence to Ukraine to bolster its defence capabilities.
• Deployment of NATO forces: While NATO has avoided deploying combat troops to Ukraine to prevent direct conflict with Russia, a Belarusian attack might change this calculus. NATO could consider sending troops to Ukraine to assist in repelling the Belarusian offensive. However, this would be a complex decision, as it could escalate the conflict and lead to a broader regional war.
• Strengthening of NATO's eastern flank: In response to the Belarusian attack, NATO would likely reinforce its military presence in member states bordering Belarus and Ukraine. This could involve deploying additional battlegroups, increasing air and missile defence capabilities, and enhancing the readiness of NATO forces in the region.
• Cyber operations: NATO could employ cyber capabilities to disrupt Belarusian military communications, command and control systems, and critical infrastructure. This would aim to degrade Belarus's ability to coordinate its attack and sustain its military operations.

Economic Response:

• Economic sanctions: NATO members would likely impose comprehensive economic sanctions on Belarus, targeting its financial system, energy sector, and key industries. These sanctions would aim to cripple the Belarusian economy and pressure the regime to cease hostilities.
• Humanitarian aid: NATO members have been providing significant humanitarian aid to Ukraine since the Russian invasion, and this would continue and likely increase in the event of a Belarusian attack. This would include supporting Ukrainian refugees, providing medical assistance, and helping to rebuild Ukraine's infrastructure.

Long-term Strategic Response:

• Enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine: In the long term, NATO would likely further enhance its military cooperation with Ukraine, assisting in the reconstruction and reform of Ukraine's armed forces. This would involve continued training, equipment provision, and the integration of Ukrainian forces into NATO standards and doctrines.
• Strengthening of NATO's deterrence and defence posture: The attack by Belarus would underscore the need for a robust NATO deterrence and defence posture in the region. This could lead to increased defence spending by NATO members, enhanced forward defence capabilities, and the development of new regional defence plans to counter the threat posed by Belarus and Russia.

NATO's Article 5 security guarantee

The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, also known as the Washington Treaty, which forms the legal basis of NATO. The treaty was signed in Washington, D.C., on April 4, 1949, and established NATO as a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk of Soviet control extending in Europe.

Article 5 has only been invoked once in NATO's history, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States. In response, NATO members took eight official actions, including Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour, a naval operation in the Mediterranean to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction.

While Ukraine is not a NATO member, it is a NATO partner country, and NATO has provided Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support in its conflict with Russia. This includes military aid, such as weapons, ammunition, and training, as well as non-lethal aid like cold-weather clothing, fuel, and medical supplies.

NATO's military aid to Ukraine

NATO is a defensive alliance of 32 countries from Europe and North America. It exists to defend its member countries and their one billion citizens.

Ukraine is not a NATO member but is a close NATO partner. NATO has been providing Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence. NATO and its allies account for 99% of all military aid to Ukraine.

Through NATO's Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) and related funds, allies have pledged around EUR 800 million (approximately USD 870 million) to meet Ukraine's critical needs for non-lethal aid, including cold-weather clothing, body armour, fuel, transport vehicles, secure communications, combat rations, demining equipment and medical supplies.

NATO member countries are also sending weapons, ammunition and many types of light and heavy military equipment to Ukraine, including anti-tank and air defence systems, howitzers, drones, tanks and fighter jets. Allied forces are also training Ukrainian troops to use this equipment.

To ensure that this support continues, allies have made a Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine, agreeing to provide a minimum baseline funding of EUR 40 billion within the next year, and to provide sustainable levels of security assistance for Ukraine to prevail.

Many allies are also providing humanitarian aid to civilians and hosting millions of Ukrainian refugees.

NATO's stance on Belarus enabling Russia's war

NATO has taken a strong stance against Belarus' role in enabling Russia's war in Ukraine. Belarus has made its territory and infrastructure available to Russia, allowing its forces to continue attacking Ukraine. This has drawn condemnation from NATO, which has urged Belarus to end its complicity and return to compliance with international law.

The relationship between NATO and Belarus has been strained since 2020, with NATO expressing concern over arbitrary detentions and abductions of opposition figures and calling for respect for human rights and the right to peaceful protest. In 2021, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Belarus while maintaining dialogue. This suspension came after Belarus forced a Ryanair flight to land in Minsk and arrested a Belarusian journalist and his partner on board.

NATO has also condemned Belarus for sending irregular migrants to the borders of Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia as part of its hybrid activities. The organisation urged Belarus to cease these actions and abide by international law.

The situation escalated further when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, with Belarus allowing Russian forces to use its territory as a platform for attacks. This prompted NATO to condemn Belarus for enabling Russia's full-scale invasion and for its ongoing complicity in the war. NATO has emphasised the negative implications of Russia's deepening political and military integration with Belarus, including the deployment of advanced military capabilities and personnel, as well as nuclear weapons in Belarus.

In addition, NATO has criticised Belarus' military doctrine, which emphasises the country's readiness to act as a platform for the peaceful resolution of conflicts while simultaneously justifying a constant state of high alert due to perceived threats from NATO and Ukraine.

While NATO has not explicitly mentioned any plans for direct military action against Belarus, it has taken a firm position in condemning its role in facilitating Russia's aggression. The organisation continues to urge Belarus to respect human rights, abide by international law, and end its support for Russia's war efforts.

NATO's nuclear rhetoric

NATO has been vocal about its condemnation of Russia's nuclear rhetoric, calling it "dangerous and irresponsible". NATO's vigilance remains high, and it closely monitors the situation to detect any changes in Russia's nuclear posture. NATO has also refuted Russia's misleading claims about NATO's nuclear sharing, emphasising that its allies act with full respect for their international commitments.

Russia's nuclear rhetoric has been a constant shadow over the war in Ukraine, and it has been used to manipulate risk and deter Western intervention and support for Ukraine. Russia's nuclear doctrine lists four scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons:

• Receipt of reliable data about the launch of ballistic missiles against Russia or its allies.
• Use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against Russia or its allies.
• Attacks against Russian nuclear command, control, and communications infrastructure.
• Aggression against Russia with conventional weapons that threaten the existence of the Russian state.

Experts debate the ambiguities in Russian doctrine and the conditions under which Putin might use nuclear weapons. The question of whether Putin distinguishes between the Russian state and his regime is crucial. Given the risks Putin has taken to gain control over Ukraine, defeat could be perceived as an existential threat to his rule, increasing the likelihood of nuclear escalation.

To counter Russian nuclear threats, NATO has taken a balanced approach by supporting Ukraine while avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. NATO has provided unprecedented levels of military, humanitarian, and financial aid to Ukraine, accounting for 99% of all military aid received by the country. NATO has also imposed severe sanctions on Russia, starving its war machine of resources. Additionally, NATO has strengthened its deterrence and defence capabilities, deploying thousands of additional troops and establishing new multinational battlegroups.

In response to Russia's nuclear threats, NATO has emphasised the consequences of nuclear use without specifying the exact nature of the response. Western leaders have consistently stated that Russian nuclear use will result in severe consequences, maintaining ambiguity while signalling certainty of retaliation. This approach aims to manage the risks of nuclear escalation while providing assurance to allies.

To summarise, NATO's nuclear rhetoric in the context of Belarus attacking Ukraine involves strongly condemning Russia's nuclear threats, providing unwavering support to Ukraine, and reinforcing its deterrence capabilities. NATO walks a delicate line between assisting Ukraine and avoiding direct conflict with Russia, aiming to prevent nuclear escalation while protecting its allies.

Frequently asked questions