The second meeting that week had followed the same pattern as Sunday’s meeting, with nothing to show from it except a series of self-serving statements from ambassadors of NATO nations whose countries had little in the way of armed forces worth speaking of in any event, and whose commitment to the cause of collective defense appeared to be measured anywhere between paper thin and non-existent. But McKinlay also knew that, however irritating the tortuous process of the NAC, it had proved in the past to be remarkably statesmanlike in its decision making. And once a decision had been made, the need for consensus meant that the nations were usually prepared to stick with it. Shame at being seen as a backslider was a great motivator.

He never ceased to be impressed by Secretary General Kostilek, the former Polish prime minister, for the way he steered the NAC’s meetings. True, many ambassadors complained that he did not allow them enough time to fully explain their nations’ positions.

But at least, thought McKinlay, he kept things moving.

When ambassadors began to repeat the same platitudes, he cut them short and asked them to focus on the issues at hand. As for the Chairman of the Military Committee, the Danish general, Knud Vahr, if anything McKinlay admired him more. Not only did he have to sit through endless NAC meetings listening to the ambassadors, he also had to put up with the dead weight and disinterest of the Military Committee, that group of senior military representatives from each of the Allied nations who were meant to add value to the NAC, but who seldom could be prevailed upon to say anything. Many were at the end of their, usually, distinguished careers, and were more focused on enjoying the Brussels diplomatic dinner-party circuit and the excellent networking opportunities it offered for future consultancy opportunities.

Today’s meeting had been called following the chaos in Riga yesterday. The decision-making body of NATO was debating the issue that underpinned the Alliance’s very existence: whether recent events in Latvia warranted the declaration of Article 5, the founding principle of the North Atlantic Treaty. This stated that an attack on one member state was an attack on all. It bound all members to come to the aid of the victim—as if they themselves were under attack. The motion before the NAC was whether to declare an Article 5 emergency on behalf of the three members who had called for it: Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

This was first time since the 9/11 attacks, and only the second time in history, that an Article 5 emergency had ever been called and that, McKinlay knew, made this meeting deadly serious.