There is already a thread discussing a NATO-Russia war, this thread focuses on what would happen if most members ignore the treaty.
So, what would happen?
I’m in the camp that doesn’t think it would be a sudden world victory for Russia.
I think Russia would suffer severe economic consequences. If there was a fervor of nationalism that drove continued expansionism, I think they might expand their way into a war if they stretched too far. Personally I think the powers at the top have a better sense of where that line is than we do.
Well, the treaty would obviously be dead, for one thing. I’d imagine it would lead to an increased military buildup in Europe. You’d also probably start seeing some of the Eastern European countries shift their alignments in a pro-Russian direction.
NATO would be dead, as would all treaties and agreements signed by any major NATO member. The US, UK, and other major NATO powers would cease to be trusted to stick to any agreement between nations, and it would probably take several decades, if not more, to rebuild that trust.
This is another way of saying that there’s no way whatsoever that NATO wouldn’t respond to an attack on a NATO member.
People like to say everyone would set their hair on fire and jump off a bridge as NATO collapses all around them like a house of cards, though I doubt that’s what would *actually *happen. There would probably be a real politik realization that Estonia is too small, not important, and on the periphery of Western power while everyone wrings their hands over the “weakening West” or whatever rhetoric carries the day. The strategic and cultural ties that led to the formation of NATO in the first place would still exist.
For example, why would, say, Poland leave NATO? What does it gain? They could beef up their military just in case, but it’s not impossible the rest of NATO would come to their defense even if they didn’t do so for Estonia. Maybe they have little faith. A 1% chance of rescue is still better than 0%.
Here’s another hypothetical. It probably won’t happen because Russia isn’t that strong, but let’s say the West did come to Estonia’s rescue and was repelled in glorious combat. Then what? Are they supposed to attack Russia itself now? Bomb Moscow? Risk nuclear war over Estonia?
Dangling NATO membership as an incentive for small countries wouldn’t be as attractive anymore.
The realpolitik demands that Russia believes NATO would function, even for small states like Estonia – so I think the realpolitik would be a massive show of force that would scare Russia into backing off. If Russia didn’t back off, then they would quickly lose a one-sided affair – Russia wins wars that slog across Russian territory, but not wars of aggression that take place outside of Russia.
No, we defend Estonia and that’s it. If Russia won’t make peace we keep a heavily defended border on Estonia and other NATO countries in the region.
That belies the history of the West toward the Baltics. Since 1940, the US and basically all of free Europe refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Soviet invasion of the Baltics. An invasion of Estonia wouldn’t be a ho-hum, what country is that again, eh never heard of them sort of thing – it would recall the long-standing position of NATO and Western countries that the Soviets/Russia had no business ever having domination over the Baltic states. It would be a big deal, and I just don’t think you understand the history of what makes it a big deal.
And if the West backed off its position that has been held from the earliest days of World War II and refused to carry out their legal obligations under a mutual defense pact, well, that’s it. This would be the equivalent of Chamberlain simply handing over Czechoslovakia to Germany.
There is an ongoing discussion here of what would happen if NATO did respond to a Russian invasion, whereas I believe the OP was seeking views in this thread of what happens if NATO didn’t respond.
I disagree.
Russia is adamantly opposed to Eastern European states being members of NATO. For these countries, being in NATO would make the likelihood of a Russian invasion far more likely, were it not for the protection of a NATO guarantee. If that guarantee turns out to be worth very little, then countries like Poland would have to reassess whether it’s worth it for them to continue to let their NATO membership be a thorn in the side of the Russians and for not much gain in the way of protection, or to try to protect themselves against Russian invasion by moving closer to the Russian sphere of influence.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
People like to say everyone would set their hair on fire and jump off a bridge as NATO collapses all around them like a house of cards, though I doubt that’s what would actually happen. There would probably be a real politik realization that Estonia is too small, not important, and on the periphery of Western power while everyone wrings their hands over the “weakening West” or whatever rhetoric carries the day. The strategic and cultural ties that led to the formation of NATO in the first place would still exist.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are saying is you think that a major treaty obligation should only be invoked if you happen to be a large and powerful country in the center of the alliance. If they are ‘too small, not important, and on the periphery of Western power’ (to you anyway) then fuck em, we didn’t really mean that treaty we signed after all? And you figure people and, more importantly, nation states would be good with that and hand wave it off as ‘real politik’? :dubious:
Why would anyone stay in NATO if we collectively decided to cut a country in the treaty out because it was deemed they were too small and out of the way to bother defending?? You do realize that being in NATO has obligations from the member states, right? And if NATO could just decide when they would or wouldn’t honor the treaty they all signed based on some arbitrary decision of size and location then, well, why would ANYONE stay in, since who would know who would be next? Poland certainly wouldn’t have great confidence that they would be one of the chosen who NATO would defend if we cut Estonia loose.
As Ravenman said, you don’t seem to have a lot of knowledge about the history of the region and are making assumptions that don’t fit in with the scenario in the OP coupled with the history of the region. Poland is nervous enough about things as they are today, and this is without NATO betraying a member state for ‘real politik’ reasons.
Yes, they are supposed to risk nuclear war over Estonia…and any other NATO member, no matter how small and insignificant (in your eyes) they are. That’s what the treaty is all about…it’s a mutual defense pact invoked whenever a member is attacked. As for the rest, I don’t think it’s necessary to pursue Russia once Estonia has been defended, but attacking into Russia to cut off logistics or hurt their ability to support their attack is certainly what would happen. Once Russia was beaten back and assuming the war didn’t escalate into a nuclear confrontation some sort of peace or cease fire could be worked out, but defending a member state under attack is what NATO is all about, and failing to do so would render the treaty and all it stands for moot.
It certainly wouldn’t be if we followed your course of action…hell, it wouldn’t be an incentive for the larger countries to stay in either. I seriously doubt the US would stay in, assuming it was the Europeans who decided they would give Estonia up to the Russians (as a ‘last’ territorial concession by the Russians, of course :p).
I’d suspect that nations like Poland and Japan might consider a nuclear program.
If NATO decided to not defend a member state:
-
NATO would cease to exist. What would be its point, if nobody could rely on it?
-
The European Union would also break up. You can’t have economic trust if there isn’t political trust.
-
Russia would be much stronger. It would no longer need to worry about the United States interfering in Europe or the Western European countries interfering in Eastern Europe.
-
Russia would issue demands to the nations of Eastern Europe. Not being able to resist, they would comply. You’d see a new version of the Warsaw Pact formed.
-
Russia’s next move would be into Western Europe and the Middle East. These countries would be relatively less vulnerable than Eastern Europe had been. But if you won’t defend Estonia, why are you going to defend Belgium or Turkey? And if nobody was going to stand up to Russia when it was alone, why would anyone stand up to Russia as it grew more powerful with its new empire?
-
While Russia is expanding into the power vacuum in Europe and the Middle East, China will be doing the same in Asia for the same reasons. If we don’t defend our ally Estonia, why expect us to defend Taiwan or South Korea?
-
As Velocity noted, there would be a massive wave of nuclear proliferation as countries realized the only hope they have of remaining independent is being able to threaten nuclear retaliation.
Then why did this realpolitik allow Estonia - too small, not important, and on the periphery of Western power - to join NATO in the first place?
Especially considering that the Ukraine already had nukes and gave them up in exchange for a promise that didn’t turn out to be worth much.
There’s an old joke about the two guys walking, one of them carrying an umbrella, when it starts to rain. The other one tells the umbrella guy “open your umbrella” and he responds “it’s broken”.
“So why did you bring it to begin with?”
“Because I didn’t think it was going to rain.”
At the time these countries joined NATO, Russia was in a weakened and chastened state, and it was thought that merely joining would be enough of a deterrent. Now that Russia is empowered and emboldened, they are slowly testing Western resolve and calling their bluff, which changes the dynamic.
I’m pretty sure Russia can’t take Turkey ( “take” in this case means conquer or substantially subjugate ) or for that matter Germany, which would be needed to get to Belgium. Russia is a major power but it is no longer a Great Power. It simply doesn’t have the economy and military assets to go on a expansionary spree outside of its immediate environs. You could argue it could go into a major military buildup over time, but then so could Germany. Another Cold War is possibly, but a neo-Russian Imperial Hegemony over Europe and the Near East seems pretty far-fetched to me.
NATO collapsing would be bad mostly for the political fallout in the EU. But opening the gates to Russian world dominance? I don’t see it.
ETA: As to why defend Turkey or Belgium instead of Estonia, it’s because they are Belgium and Turkey and not Estonia. Sucks for Estonia, but it’s the sad fact. The former two are vastly more important strategically, economically and politically. Nobody is getting into Belgium without stirring up most of Western Europe, NATO or no NATO.
The notion that Russia is going to roll over Turkey and Poland and Belgium if we wuss out over Estonia is laughable.
Russia is an economic basket case. Its military is in shambles. Yes, they have capable forces. But most of the tanks and ships and planes from the Soviet Era are sitting in junkyards with weeds growing through them.
And most of Russia’s economy depends on exports of oil and gas to Europe. How’s it going to work out for them after invading Estonia?
The success of the Crimea annexation shouldn’t be taken as proof that Russia can do whatever it wants. It already had military bases and forces stationed in Crimea. They didn’t actually have to invade Crimea, they just changed the signs.
If Estonia’s government collapses, and there are pro-Russian militias running around Estonia, well, I believe that’s pretty bad news for Estonia and they can expect Russia to support those pro-Russian militias heavily, even including sending Russian troops covertly or overtly. The message of Ukraine is, if you’re a weak and divided country on Russia’s borders, expect Russia to fuck you over. So don’t do that.
You think Putin’s Ukrainian adventure is causing neighboring countries to fall into Russia’s orbit? No, exactly the reverse. All the neighbors that aren’t already Russian clients are scrambling to integrate themselves into European economic, political and military systems. Poland isn’t leaving NATO because Russia is lurching around, and further Russian adventurism would result in more commitment to NATO, not less.
You’re looking at the world as it is today. Things can change, and one of the things that can change is Russian growing in power through incremental expansion.
One of the main reasons Russia is no longer the superpower they once were is because their country broke up. Put it back together and add in some oil & gas money and they can get back to somewhere close to where they were.
[Part of the problem that Europe has is that they appear to be as dependent on the Russians for energy supplies as the Russians are on them for funds.]
Of course there is, they’d have whatever real of fabricated Casus Belli to save face as the tanks roll over.
No European politician wants to sacrifice tens of thousands of young men, especially if an election is coming up. There’ll be long-term diplomatic costs, but they are costs their successor will pay, not them. No one wants to risk nuclear war over Estonia.
One thing is for certain, Poland will mobilise, and increase funding for a standing army as Poland currently relies on conscripts and a small skeleton core of professional officers
Definately. NATO itself will just be a social club.
Russia already has troops in Estonia, major NATO members don’t. All the posturing would do is give them more time to dig in, and deploy their anti-air systems.
Agreed, Taiwan and Australia too.
I predict the opposite, I would see it as the start of a common EU military, you’ll have large armies stationed in the border countries and more countries seeking to join.
Why? They’d hate the Russians even more. Before the coup, [the] Ukraine was actually quite friendly to Russia, now look at the situation.
They could probably conquer Poland now, but when the Polish military is fully mobilised, they have no chance.
The only acceptable policy is to defend Estonia with troops and air power. The USA was defended by NATO partners after the Sept. 11 attacks.
How so?
Agreed, you might as well ask what would happen if China invaded Hawaii and the US didn’t respond.