The former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are now all members of NATO. Putin has made it fairly clear that he’s trying to restore Russia to include its formerly held territories. Is there any chance that he’s crazy enough to attack or invade any of the Baltic countries? NATO Article 5 states that an attack on any member is to be considered an attack against all members but the only time that’s really been put to the test is in the war on terror.
I’d like to think that Putin has some sanity left in him but I’m not entirely certain that he does.
I think he would first check and see how Ukraine goes. He’d first see whether the invasion fared well, how NATO reacted. If he sensed that NATO were weak and prone to fracturing…maybe. But even then, it’s iffy. There’s not much benefit to be had in annexing the Baltics and a huge amount of downside.
Militarily, though, a fait accompli is definitely possible. Russian armor could march right into the 3 Baltic states and then Putin could smirk at NATO, “Your move.”
He could certainly stir up trouble in the Russian speaking regions. He has done this before. Language is a constitutional fault line in the Baltic states.
Whether the Russian speakers really want to be part of Russia is quite another matter. There are far more economic opportunities within the EU.
The short answer is, no…he’s not crazy enough to make a move on the Baltics unless he’s willing to go to war with NATO. He could, quite plausibly, take the Baltics if he really, really wanted to. For a while. But the cost to Russia would be immense.
Of course, this is all based on NATO being willing to fight for the Baltic states…or any other NATO member. I know the US would, but I’m not as sure about all of our European friends, especially the citizens of some of the NATO members. Germany springs to mind. Would they be willing to take the losses, both economic and military to take back the Baltic states? Or would they rather see NATO and any alliance with the US go down the tubes? And, perhaps as importantly…what is Putin’s calculation on all of that? Does HE think NATO nations in Europe would be less than eager to fight for the Baltic states after Russia invades? Does HE think the US would fight anyway? Or would it be more sanctions such as what we seem to be planning over Ukraine.
On the one hand, these are two very different scenarios. We don’t have any sort of formal treaty with Ukraine, so it’s not really something we are compelled to defend (and fairly obviously we aren’t going to be). The Baltic states are a whole 'nother kettle of fish, however. We DO have a treaty with them, and it’s one that cuts to the heart of the NATO alliance. Folding on that would pretty much be the end of that alliance and probably the end of US involvement in Europe. I’m sure many Europeans would do handsprings of joy just thinking about the US being out of Europe, though they might consider what that would mean for them if they allowed Russia to take the Baltics. Eastern Europe especially would be pretty edgy about that, but even western Europe would need to take note.
What makes you think that should Trump get back in the White House, or one of his ilk, that he would shed American’s blood for the sake of the Baltics?
You said that you “know” that the U.S. would be willing to fight for the Baltic states. I don’t take that as a given at all. Putin likely wouldn’t move against the Baltics until he’s consolidated his position in Ukraine, so it could well be in the next Administration before such a crisis occurs. And whoever’s in the White House at that point would be the one to decide whether the US. would be willing to fight for the Baltics.
If we didn’t we’d be breaking a formal treaty. The US, and regardless of who is in charge, takes that kind of seriously. So, when I said ‘know’ I meant it from that perspective. What this has to do with Trump is, again, beyond me. I didn’t mention the asshole nor even implied anything about him…nor do I think he will ever be president again for that matter.
Certainly. Whoever that is in the WH would be breaking a treaty and probably would be wildly unpopular with most voters, but whoever they are they would certainly have a say. I think the odds of the US deciding unilaterally not to fight and leaving the Europeans holding the bag are remote. More likely would be that some NATO allies choose to interpret the treaty to mean they need to send off a strongly worded protest as ‘mutual defense’, and even that I think is remote since it would be the end of the alliance. It could happen, but it’s not likely…IMHO and all.
The conduct of President Trump over Article 5, and the lack of any push-back domestically, sent a message to your erstwhile “allies” that that is not true. There was a news article after that happened that Canada’s diplomatic service was briefing the government that it was no longer taken as a given that the US would stick to its treay obligations, regardless who was in the White House.
Putin isn’t going to just charge in and attack any Baltic country, particularly one that is part of NATO. He will begin by beginning a cyber and disinformation campaign to destabilize the country with the goal of sending it into civil war. If that succeeds than he picks a side and supports it clandstilnely, similarly to what he did in Crimea. NATO is not obligated to get invovled in the internal struggles of its member states. So it then becomes a question of what kind of support Putin get away with sending before NATO decides it counts as an external threat.
That’s because you are translating ‘many Europeans’ to ‘Rest of Europe’. They don’t equate. Basically, in case you are unaware of this, many Europeans aren’t too keen to risk themselves for the Baltic states. And, many Europeans…some in this same category…don’t like the US much and would be happy if we left. This also doesn’t translate to them being overjoyed that the Russian’s move into the Baltic states. Parts of Russia, of course, are already in Europe, so it’s not like they would ‘just’ be moving in, but they would certainly be closer to western Europe than they have been since the cold war.
I think that covers everything.
Do you have a cite showing that Trump said that article 5 means we wouldn’t defend Europe…or that this meant anything wrt US policy? AFAIK, he basically was unclear as to what his stance was…which is typical of the idiot. But, again AFAIK, he didn’t actually state for the record that the US wouldn’t honor article 5 and defend other members of NATO, and basically his babbling was meaningless wrt any sort of policy.
Something that formally changed US policy would be fairly ground breaking especially wrt this. You do realize that it’s not solely up to whoever is President as to whether the US would or wouldn’t honor a treaty obligation, right? Even if he did state, for the record that the US certainly wouldn’t honor the treaty he can’t just do that unilaterally.
And that was enough. Article 5 is the keystone of NATO. If the president of the US doesn’t unequivocally support it, that was enough in the world of diplomacy for the conclusion to be drawn that the US was no longer a reliable ally.
Yes, and it’s the President who has sole authority to send US troops into battle. It doesn’t take a formal renunciation to shake your reputation as an ally. If the President of the United States does not give his firm committment to invoke Article 5, that means that your “allies” cannot count on the United States to live up to its treaty obligations.
Funny that this isn’t how ‘the rest of the world’ reacted. You’d think that, if this were true, NATO would have dissolved and/or they would have kicked the US out. I mean, it’s a mutual defense treaty, so defense of the partners would kind of be fundamental. Instead, I see most European nations trying to entice the US to come back to Europe and strengthen ties to Europe. Even before this current Ukrainian crisis.
Horseshit. Sorry, but that’s not how treaties work wrt the US and the Constitution. A president could terminate a treaty if said treaty gave him permission in the terms. The NATO treaty doesn’t do that. If Trump or whoever violated a treaty that has been ratified then the constitution calls it the supreme law of the land, and it has the force of federal law. A president could be impeached for this.
As to what the rest of the world thinks, it doesn’t seem to me that countries are streaming away from being allies to the US. Quite the opposite, in fact, despite our recent fuckups in Afghanistan.
This is how it works. Treaties are the “supreme law of the land,” but the law is not self-executing. It requires the Commander-in-Chief to order U.S. forces into battle. There is no mechanism to force him to do so.
Sure, he could be impeached. Maybe third time would be the charm.
I will admit, it’s untested. But he or she would be violating the constitution, and I seriously doubt it would be the same as the attempt to impeach Trump (or Clinton for that matter). This would be a serious violation. Myself, I think they would be impeached very quickly and that neither party would support such a move.
However, as there isn’t a definitive answer, there doesn’t seem much point in continuing this argument as it’s going to be whatever the majority willing to scream about this says it means. Basically, getting back to Northern_Piper’s point, if nations really, truly thought that a US president would, in fact, not honor the treaty, and that this translated into US policy, then I think their actions would be different than what we are seeing. And, again, this despite our Afghanistan debacle. YMMV…and, given the forum, you would probably be in the majority.
Realistically, I agree with you that the odds of a Trump or Trump acolyte in the White House refusing to meet a clear-cut military invasion of a NATO ally with an armed response is low. But prior to Trump, I would have said the odds were zero. What are they now? One percent? Five percent?
As @Northern_Piper said, this uncertainty now has to be built into the calculations of both our allies and our adversaries. This is going to be one of Trump’s lasting legacies – if the U.S. could elect a madman who shit all over our international commitments once, what’s to keep us from doing so again?
Sign. Yeah, I agree…Trump and his presidency fucked us pretty badly in many ways, and on this he did a lot to undercut the US wrt our allies and alliances. I don’t think what he said actually is what it’s being interpreted as…it was basically a non-statement that, IMHO anyway, was intended to pressure our allies into making a deal. That’s how Trump thinks. But it certainly hurt us, as did many, if not most of the shit he did while he was president.
I would never say anything had a zero percent, especially if we are talking about my fellow boneheaded citizens in the US, but I think 5% is about the percentage of people stupid enough to believe we should back out of our alliance in NATO in such a situation. I would rate the odds of it actually happening as less than 5%, as I don’t think a politician or even a political party could survive. But then I believe the same thing about Taiwan, and we don’t have a formal treaty of mutual defense with them. I think that if a president tried to leave Taiwan out to dry that they wouldn’t survive politically…and that the US wouldn’t survive as an ally either, as everyone really would abandon us in that case.
