# What's the difference between NATO and the powder keg of alliances that led to WW1? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847 "2017-07-09T16:39:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/41 "2017-07-10T14:07:49Z")
Well when you have i) Dead Russian servicemen ii) Excesses against a despised minority. This being Europe it’s a guarantee is going to happen. Even if they are limited like say to the levels of Bloody Sunday of 1972 in N Ireland. Now imagine Bloody Sunday, in the era of Social media… Events might get out of even Vlad the Bad’s hands. ETA reply to **Ravenman** ’s post no 39 above. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/42 "2017-07-10T14:09:29Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I can’t tell whether you’re being sarcastic or deliberately obtuse. Or simply misunderstood my point. > > Your suggestion here is a very, very poor reason to enter a war. It may have been a common rationalization in the past. There’s not much excuse for it being an acceptable one today or going forward. At least not for any civilized country. I don’t know precisely what you mean by ‘in the past’, but it was a very common rationale for both American and Soviet interventions during the Cold War (which certainly counts as the nuclear era). Civil wars are also much more common than international wars, so if there is a sort of crisis that NATO feels like they might need to respond to its more likely to involve a Vietnam-type civil war than a Korean War style invasion of one country by another. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/43 "2017-07-10T14:13:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Yes, they invaded an annexed part of a country that posed no military threat to them, and the world let them get away with it. Of course they succeeded. Just like Stalin succeeded. I’ve just explained why losing Crimea would be a threat to them. Losing the Black Sea base to NATO would be a significant threat. Crimea was a part of Russia up to to 1954, when it was handed to Ukraine for administrative reasons only. It has always been seen as part of Russia, so from a Russian point of view it wasn’t ‘annexing’ part a foreign country, but preventing what had always been Russian from being lost. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/44 "2017-07-10T15:32:59Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > I’ve just explained why losing Crimea would be a threat to them. Losing the Black Sea base to NATO would be a significant threat. > > Crimea was a part of Russia up to to 1954, when it was handed to Ukraine for administrative reasons only. It has always been seen as part of Russia, so from a Russian point of view it wasn’t ‘annexing’ part a foreign country, but preventing what had always been Russian from being lost. It has not always been part of Russia, since Ukraine has been a fully independent country since 1990, and well before that. Putin and other nationalists put out lies to justify aggression for a piece of land they want – you can say all you want about how people can understand where the Russians are coming from, but what they did is still naked aggression. There were people who could understand where the Germans were coming from with respect to the Sudetenland, too. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/45 "2017-07-10T15:49:05Z")
And it was Turkish before it was Russian (admittedly mostly as a place to get Sultan some buxom bedwarmers, but it was Turkish), so lets just hand it to Erdogan. There are perfectly understandable strategic reasons why Russian felt it acted the way it did. And even more understandable strategic reasons why the US and NATO reacted the way they did. No need to bring morality into it. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/46 "2017-07-10T16:07:36Z")
A major difference is that pre-WWI both sides had reason to believe they would win and had their own desires to go to war. In the current situation, a full scale conflict between Russia and NATO inevitably ends in Russia’s defeat. And, NATO doesn’t have any desire or goal that could be achieved through war. In short, Russia has no incentive to go to war because they would lose badly and NATO has no incentive to go to war because there is nothing for them to gain. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/47 "2017-07-10T16:42:00Z")
> [@treis](#): > > In the current situation, a full scale conflict between Russia and NATO inevitably ends in Russia’s defeat. For what reason(s) would it inevitably ends in Russia’s defeat? Russia’s military is not up to par with NATO in general terms but it may not need to be. It spent decades planning for war in central Europe, would largely be defending, have short supply lines and has been busy minimizing the effects of NATO’s air superiority. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/48 "2017-07-10T20:28:08Z")
I would say that hundreds of nuclear missiles raining down on Moscow counts as a loss for the Russkis, even if Washington DC and London and Paris also get a light dusting of nuclear isotopes. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/49 "2017-07-10T20:33:53Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I would say that hundreds of nuclear missiles raining down on Moscow counts as a loss for the Russkis, even if Washington DC and London and Paris also get a light dusting of nuclear isotopes. I don’t agree that a NATO-Russia war should be expected to end in nuclear war. It really depends on the scenario. For example, let’s say Russia does the little green men invasion of the Baltics. If NATO responds and starts creaming those guys left and right, but NATO doesn’t go into Russian territory, would Russia want to escalate the war to the point that nuclear weapons start being used? I have a hard time seeing that. Even if Russia rolls into Poland in a big way, let’s say they don’t use tactical nukes to soften up NATO defenses. If/when NATO pushes them back, and NATO doesn’t seek to go beyond Poland’s borders, would Russia want to launch nukes? Doesn’t make sense to me – why destroy your own country in the exchange when the stakes are entirely about the hypothetical Russian domination of Poland? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/50 "2017-07-10T20:55:01Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > So as I understand it, if Putin so much as sends an armored car into Estonia by mistake, this would lead to immediate open conflict between all the member nations of Europe and Russia. Russia would begin to lose the conflict, and resort to using nuclear weapons to even the odds, which would then inevitably lead to escalation and most major cities in Europe, Russia, and the United States (or basically the civilized world minus Asia) as smoking radioactive craters. This is a massive exaggeration. Are NATO members committed to mutual defense under Article 5? Yes. Does this mean the slightest provocation leads to all-out global nuclear holocaust? No. If Russia sent an armored vehicle into Estonia by mistake, what would likely happen would be that the vehicle would be intercepted by Estonian forces, who would tell it to …go back to Russia. There might be a small diplomatic row, but nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/51 "2017-07-11T00:39:45Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > This is a massive exaggeration. Are NATO members committed to mutual defense under Article 5? Yes. Does this mean the slightest provocation leads to all-out global nuclear holocaust? No. > If Russia sent an armored vehicle into Estonia by mistake, what would likely happen would be that the vehicle would be intercepted by Estonian forces, who would tell it to …go back to Russia. > > There might be a small diplomatic row, but nothing more. Ok, the scenario is the vehicle crosses the border by accident. The Estonians intercept it, but due to a misunderstanding and itchy trigger fingers, the BMP guns down the Estonian troops. They engage it with more troops and eventually destroy it but it manages to get across the border before getting destroyed by a missile. Putin gets mad, claims the russian servicemen in the vehicle were killed for no reason, and fires an artillery barrage at Estonia to get revenge. The Estonians shoot back and scream for NATO to send reinforcements. Thousands of U.S. troops are airlifted in, and in the artillery fire exchange, some of them are killed… ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/52 "2017-07-11T00:54:00Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Ok, the scenario is the vehicle crosses the border by accident. The Estonians intercept it, but due to a misunderstanding and itchy trigger fingers, the BMP guns down the Estonian troops. They engage it with more troops and eventually destroy it but it manages to get across the border before getting destroyed by a missile. Putin gets mad, claims the russian servicemen in the vehicle were killed for no reason, and fires an artillery barrage at Estonia to get revenge. The Estonians shoot back and scream for NATO to send reinforcements. Thousands of U.S. troops are airlifted in, and in the artillery fire exchange, some of them are killed… Meanwhile, in reality, a Russian missile shot down a commercial airliner departing a NATO country, for no reason whatsoever, and nothing happened. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/53 "2017-07-11T00:57:14Z")
And putting the shoe on the other foot, the Turkish military fairly recently deliberately and knowingly shot down a Russian fighter killing one crewman. And nothing happened. A lot of people seem to think that escalation is automatic, kneejerk, and inevitable. Is it possible? Yes. Is it automatic or inevitable? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cornelius_Tuggerson)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/54 "2017-07-11T17:42:30Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > …even if Washington DC and London and Paris also get a light dusting of nuclear isotopes. I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/55 "2017-07-11T17:54:17Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > And putting the shoe on the other foot, the Turkish military fairly recently deliberately and knowingly shot down a Russian fighter killing one crewman. And nothing happened. > > A lot of people seem to think that escalation is automatic, kneejerk, and inevitable. Is it possible? Yes. Is it automatic or inevitable? Nope. Well, Kurdish rebels fighting Turkey “coincidentally” started [getting the latest Russian MANPADS a few months later.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0DYs1PBoVw) ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/56 "2017-07-11T20:07:22Z")
Agreed. As well, there was a Western reaction to the MH17 shootdown. Which was a combo of sanctions and diplomacy and probably some black ops inside Ukraine. What there was \*not \* in either case was prompt escalation in the two-tits-for-a-tat style that some folks up-thread were suggesting leads directly and inevitably to WWIII. To be sure, the use of aggressive “hybrid warfare” by non-\*status quo \*powers such as Putin’s Russia poses hard dilemmas for mostly conventional mostly \*status quo \*powers such as the US and NATO. Even the more functional parts of the UN and the foreign affairs punditocracy doesn’t really have a good vocabulary, much less a good response, for overt but vaguely deniable and loudly denied aggressive acts by supposedly irregular forces plus internet vigilantes. One of the iron laws of competition is that a tactic that lacks a good countertactic will keep being used more and more until and unless a countertactic is developed. I’d definitely be buying “hybrid warfare futures” if somebody was selling them. I’d make a killing. Probably in more ways than one. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2017, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/57 "2017-07-11T20:54:32Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > For what reason(s) would it inevitably ends in Russia’s defeat? Russia’s military is not up to par with NATO in general terms but it may not need to be. It spent decades planning for war in central Europe, would largely be defending, have short supply lines and has been busy minimizing the effects of NATO’s air superiority. NATO collectively spends 10x what Russia does on defense. There’s just no comparison in terms of equipment and training quality. ---
**Author:** ![Ispolkom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e47774/32.png) [@Ispolkom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ispolkom)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2017, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847/58 "2017-07-12T00:09:48Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > If Putin encourages local “Russian” to rise up in Estonia using say SVR and undercover Spetsnaz operators, he places NATO in a quandry. Stay out and they are accused of not helping a member state against aggression. Go in and the world is treated to images of NATO-Alliance troops putting down a disliked minority. Talk about a Hobson’s choice. No, that’s a dilemma. A Hobson’s choice is take what is offered or nothing at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-difference-between-nato-and-the-powder-keg-of-alliances-that-led-to-ww1/790847.md?page=2)