OK, fair enough. So in our hypothetical, where Estonia has been overrun by Russian forces basically overnight, what’s the best path forward? What should NATO do? Promise Poland that if the Russians go there next, well, we will take it seriously?
Yeah, I’m also not following your point: is it that any NATO counterattack will lead to nuclear war? I don’t agree with that. I’m with the others who think it would be closer to Gulf War I (except the Russians would be a far more able adversary).
That’s my point, yes.
The solution is the establishment of sufficient forces in Europe, in such a manner that a Russian invasion would place NATO’s major powers in a war right away, thereby guaranteeing Russia’s destruction in a nuclear war if they try to invade a NATO country.
It worked before.
This isn’t true. They invaded Iceland with a ship masquerading as a NATO ship, in order to cut the G-I-UK SOSUS line so NATO couldn’t detect the Soviet Subs. If Russia still has subs, not sure why this wouldn’t work today.
So you believe that in this scenario, the leader of Russia will initiate a nuclear war rather than lose Estonia? I don’t believe that for a second.
If NATO were to threaten to seize Russian territory during the war, yes, I could see things going nuclear. But explain to me why Russia would start a nuclear war over Estonia, because that makes no sense to me.
Plus we wouldn’t be likely to have the luxury of an uncontested buildup and then starting the attack on our terms. Russia would maintain the initiative for quite some time.
The difference is that everyone thought the next war in 1914 would be a fast, mobile affair that would end within three months, because that’s what happened the last time Germany and France went to war.
Plus, if we assume Putin is rational, an invasion of the Baltics would be an attempt to destroy the NATO alliance. The attempt costs him very little. He could stage some kind of affront to Russia’s dignity, invade, and if NATO comes to their aid, he can pull out and say that the “punitive expedition” has been finished to Russia’s satisfaction. If we don’t come to their aid, NATO is dead.
Don’t B-2s with B-61s pose that deterrent better?
The danger of that is that the Russians might conceivably convince themselves that the Americans surely won’t risk global thermonuclear war over some country most of them haven’t even heard of, amirite, Vladimir? When they have to make that choice, they’ll blink, those decadent Westerners, and then NATO will be history!
Whereas, if a bunch of G.I.s are sitting around on the outskirts of Tallinn and Riga, the U.S. is pretty clearly involved from the very start.
I doubt it would be anything more serious than a boycott on Russian vodka.
In the unlikely event that Russia did invade Estonia, I don’t think they would seek to push their luck. It would be in their interest to keep this as a small localized war just as much as it would be in ours. Neither side benefits if the other side panics and escalates to the nuclear level.
Even leaving nuclear weapons out of it, Russia would be better off trying to present the invasion as a one-time event rather than the opening step in a wider war. While I don’t believe NATO would ignore the invasion of Estonia, I don’t think anyone believes NATO would sit by while Russia invaded Estonia and then invaded Latvia and then invaded Lithuania and then invaded Poland and then invaded Hungary and then… At some point, even the most dovish opponents of war would have to concede that Russia had to be stopped.
Instead Russia would follow the usual pattern of conquering countries one at a time, while stopping in between to assure other countries that this was the last invasion and that they had no further plans for expansion and everyone should relax and accept the new status quo.
As I’ve said, I completely disagree. There’s really no reason to think the United States would ignore the Russian invasion of a NATO ally. We didn’t ignore it when South Korea was invaded and we didn’t ignore it when Kuwait was invaded and the invasion of a country we have a formal treaty with would be a lot more serious than either of those were.
This is exactly what a cleverer Hitler and the Nazis would have done. Conquer gradually over decades, piecemeal, as peacefully as possible, rather than blitzkrieg Europe.
No.
You don’t HAVE to send B-2s if Russia invades Latvia. The Us could opt to not send them, and the UK and France and Germany and so on could also opt to not do anything. But if NATO forces are already in Latvia, at least partially defending it, there is, to use the common metaphor, an immediate tripwire.
This is rudimentary game theory. Russia is less likely to attack NATO if they are convinced NATO will actually, really act as a defensive alliance and act in concert if a member is attacked. The best way to convince them of this is to arrange NATO’s defenses such that NATO has to be at war if Russia attacks. The existence of a choice to not defend Latvia puts Russia in a position where they might believe that, indeed, NATO will not defend Latvia, and therefore they could possibly invade it successfully. But if it doing so they must fight through American troops, they know NATO must retaliate, and so they are vastly less likely to do it.
In high tension, sending US troops might stop war from breaking out.
In peacetime, the public would balk.
But the OP assumes and presupposes a Russian attack and is asking what the response would be after the fact.
What should happen is what I think would happen. All Russian assets in NATO countries would be frozen. All NATO members would move forces to the area, which would take several weeks. During that time, NATO would demand Russia withdraw. If Russia doesn’t withdraw, NATO would invade Estonia and liberate it. Afterwards, NATO would not trade with Russia until none of the major players are involved in their government anymore. NATO would financially and diplomatically isolate Russia as much as possible, which would hurt Russia, bad.
If anything less than an active military response happened, then NATO would collapse. What’s the point of an alliance that won’t defend its members?
That is pretty close to what Hitler did. The Saar, the Rhineland, Austria, Memel, the Sudentenland, Czechoslovakia - Hitler managed to take a lot of places without starting a general war. He thought he could also take Poland but he misread the situation. Britain and France had realized Hitler wasn’t going to stop unless he was stopped so they had resolved to declare war if he invaded Poland.
But you can understand why Hitler ignored the British and French declarations. France and, to a lesser extent, Britain had made commitments to some of the other countries I listed - and had failed to stand by them. The result was Germany figured it could ignore Britain and France.
This shows why NATO wouldn’t ignore its commitment to Estonia or some other small member of the alliance. History has shown what happens.
Counterpoint/Devil’s Advocate (I’m really with you on this) : the defence of Korea was essentially about telling the Communists to generally back the fuck off because dominoes everywhere OMG ; while Kuwait swims in tasty tasty oil. Whereas Estonia… hmm… they have all our Skypes ? I 'unno.
[QUOTE=manson72]
This isn’t true. They invaded Iceland with a ship masquerading as a NATO ship, in order to cut the G-I-UK SOSUS line so NATO couldn’t detect the Soviet Subs. If Russia still has subs, not sure why this wouldn’t work today.
[/QUOTE]
That was the initial surprise attack. IIRC then they proceed to ferry humongous piles of war mat. there, using the Fleet to cut off the island from counter-invasion (plus using it to shut down Transatlantic shipping). It’s been a while since I’ve re-read it though.
And yeah, Russia still has subs. Good ones, too - they’ve always been very good at subs (y’know, give or take a critical reactor failure :o).
That being said, it’s self-evident that any kind of large scale, overt strike against NATO would hinge on shutting down the Atlantic ASAP. If not, well, ask Hitler how goes a war against an industrial superpower you can’t touch, that is dumping all of its production directly into the lap of the guys on the frontlines :).
Exactly so. Any further discussion centering on the President is off limits in this thread.
At the request of Estonia, NATO members would be obliged to reinforce and probably after an initial ultimatum, cross into Estonia and fight the Russian troops.
Also, the NATO response forces would be ready to cross into Estonia anyways, preventing the whole conquering of Estonia by Russia.