# Why wouldn't Putin try to destroy NATO? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434 "2014-04-05T20:54:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/81 "2014-04-07T16:53:34Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > They have no chance regardless. That’s why they don’t bother spending, it’d be wasted spending. If Russia wants to come in, they’re coming in. That was my point, yes. It doesn’t mean Estonia et al aren’t serious about maintaining their sovereignty, if means they are physically incapable of fighting off an invading Russian force. Under just war theory, they shouldn’t even attempt to do so, in fact. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > And honestly, nobody here really gives a crap about Estonian freedom. 😕 Um, I do. The Baltic states suffered terribly under Soviet occupation, and condemning them to another round of foreign occupation and puppet leaders shouldn’t be done lightly. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Yet you think it’s vital for America to risk WWIII to defend it, all because the neocons made it their project to expand NATO east. Not for any vital American interest, but to hem in Russia and expand the list of patsies we could call on to help us with future War on Terror misadventures. These were not serious commitments. Article 5 of the NATO treaty _is_ a serious commitment. Neither of us has a crystal ball, but I’d wager heavily on the U.S. honoring that commitment, because doing so is, in itself, a vital American interest. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > We did not stand as a nation in 2004 and pledge our sons and daughters to the defense of Estonia. Did we do so in 1949 over the defense of Luxembourg? Or in 1952 over Greece? Or 1982 over Spain? What makes Estonia the exception? ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/82 "2014-04-07T16:55:27Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > You still need to identify the interests at stake. Standing up to Hitler was of vital interest to the rest of Europe, but they backed down and tried to appease him. How vital is America’s interest in protecting the Baltic states from Russia? Two months ago, what percentage of Americans do you think knew that those countries are part of NATO? Who remembers the Prague summit? And why should we feel bound to honor the blank checks the neocons wrote, willy-nilly, to a bunch of militarily irrelevant states in Russia’s backyard? Probably because the US has a massive interest in being seen as a country that can be treated with. If the US chickens out on its biggest treaty, who is ever going to bother making a treaty with the US again? “_We only meant we’d help you if you were invaded by someone less than 1/100th of our power. Yeah, we know you sent us help when we were attacked._” is not really going to cut it as an excuse. The time to think about wheter it is in your interest to be allied with someone is when you enter the alliance with them, not when you’re called on to honor it. However there is actually a point in there: Russias conventional forces is more than a match for the UK. Or Germany. Or France. But all three of them together in a conventional war is more than Russia can handle. The only question then is how much damage Russia takes before its over. And as you add more and more NATO and EU nations, the match gets more and more lopsided in Russias disfavor. The US is not really needed to curbstomp Russia. Russia ain’t the Soviet Union. It would make it easier and cost less lives on the allies side is all. The EU has more people and a bigger economy than Russia and the US together. A situation where the EU realizes that it can and has to take out the bullies without the US is _ **definitly** _ not in the US interest. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/83 "2014-04-07T16:58:04Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Oh? You really think Poland and Germany and the UK would withdraw from NATO because we refused to go to war over Estonia? You bet. Being in NATO puts them across a clear line. If there is no benefit for being on this side there would be much to gain by going their own way in foreign policy, especially as regards Russia. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/84 "2014-04-07T17:05:37Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > And honestly, nobody here really gives a crap about Estonian freedom. Its kindof funny. You’re saying “nobody” yet still everyone except you obviously does. You can’t invoke “everyone agrees with me” in a debate where everyone vocally disagrees with you. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Oh? You really think Poland and Germany and the UK would withdraw from NATO because we refused to go to war over Estonia? Nah. I think they’d kick the US out of NATO. Or what amounts to it, replacing it with exactly the same organization but without the US. Justifiably. Although after beating Russia to rubble. Whats the point of having a member in an alliance that won’t throw down against even a minor opponent? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/85 "2014-04-07T17:10:31Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 😕 Um, I do. The Baltic states suffered terribly under Soviet occupation, and condemning them to another round of foreign occupation and puppet leaders shouldn’t be done lightly. You’d be willing to die, and risk the death of your family, to protect Estonia? Talk is pretty cheap. > [@](#): > > Article 5 of the NATO treaty _is_ a serious commitment. Neither of us has a crystal ball, but I’d wager heavily on the U.S. honoring that commitment, because doing so is, in itself, a vital American interest. It would be nice if the clowns who made it their project to expand NATO into Russia’s backyard, with no regard for the future consequences, had treated it with the seriousness it deserved. > [@Sitnam](#): > > You bet. Being in NATO puts them across a clear line. If there is no benefit for being on this side there would be much to gain by going their own way in foreign policy, especially as regards Russia. I don’t see Germany doing that. Poland might. Maybe that would be for the best. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/86 "2014-04-07T17:12:40Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > Its kindof funny. You’re saying “nobody” yet still everyone except you obviously does. Talk is cheap. > [@](#): > > Nah. I think they’d kick the US out of NATO. Or what amounts to it, replacing it with exactly the same organization but without the US. Justifiably. Although after beating Russia to rubble. Whats the point of having a member in an alliance that won’t throw down against even a minor opponent? Yeah, they’re going to kick out the premier military power in the alliance. Out of principle. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/87 "2014-04-07T17:16:53Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > You’d be willing to die, and risk the death of your family, to protect Estonia? Talk is pretty cheap. On a message board, I can only respond with talk, so I won’t bother with this question, except to note that this argument could be applied to any military action in defense of an ally. Why you single out the Baltic states eludes me. Should my hypothetical self be more willing to die for France or Germany? > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > It would be nice if the clowns who made it their project to expand NATO into Russia’s backyard, with no regard for the future consequences, had treated it with the seriousness it deserved. Maybe so, but it doesn’t follow that the U.S. wouldn’t honor its treaty obligation to defend those countries if they are attacked. That’s a terrible idea. What would be _really_ nice, would be if Russia could restrain itself from conquering its neighbors. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/88 "2014-04-07T17:17:12Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > We have no interest in defending the Baltic states. Even the Baltic states know that. You mean, except for the binding legal commitment of the United States to defend NATO allies, and the [personal commitment](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/08/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-baltic-idUSBREA270PS20140308) of the President of the United States? > [@](#): > > If they were serious about maintaining their own sovereignty, they wouldn’t be spending less than 1% of GDP on their military forces. You have that completely ass-backwards. The Baltics – just like most European countries – probably spend less on defense BECAUSE of the NATO alliance. That’s the whole fucking point of an alliance. > [@](#): > > We did not stand as a nation in 2004 and pledge our sons and daughters to the defense of Estonia. Yes, that’s exactly what we did. I don’t know how else to explain it to you. It is against all reason and logic to say that the US (and others) inviting the Baltics to a mutual defense pact was not an invitation to a mutual defense pact. Your argument here is total horseshit. I’m going to ask you a silly question here, but I’m genuinely interested in your answer, because it seems you and virtually everyone else in this thread are not on the same page: Do you know, and can you explain, what the North Atlantic treaty is? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/89 "2014-04-07T17:18:53Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This really is a no brainer. NATO is not some average, everyday treaty – it is _the major treaty since WWII_. If a NATO country is attacked, and the US (and others) don’t come to their aid militarily, that’s the end of _any active treaty the US has ever signed_. > > So there’s no way the US doesn’t honor the treaty if a NATO country is attacked. > > And in light of this, I think there’s very little chance that Russia attacks a NATO country. As I described, it will not be an “attack”. The part of the country in question will secede, by “referendum”, with “self-defense” forces “protecting” the vote. Then it will join Russia. And the West will sigh and say - well, Russia didn’t attack, so there’s nothing we can do. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/90 "2014-04-07T17:22:10Z")
Or what amounts to the same thing, was what was said. The premiere military power ain’t that useful if it won’t stand up. They would have to form a more EU based alliance. And the next 9/11they can say “no thanks” in helping American retribution. ---
**Author:** ![Batistuta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58956e/32.png) [@Batistuta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batistuta)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/91 "2014-04-07T17:23:02Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > As I described, it will not be an “attack”. The part of the country in question will secede, by “referendum”, with “self-defense” forces “protecting” the vote. Then it will join Russia. And the West will sigh and say - well, Russia didn’t attack, so there’s nothing we can do. I can’t say much about Latvia or Lithuania. But I’m sure that Estonia is too stable to fall for the whole ‘minority rights’, ‘self-defence forces’ and ‘referendum’ game. I just don’t think that’s a likely scenaria ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/92 "2014-04-07T17:29:27Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > On a message board, I can only respond with talk, so I won’t bother with this question, except to note that this argument could be applied to any military action in defense of an ally. Why you single out the Baltic states eludes me. Should my hypothetical self be more willing to die for France or Germany? > [@Ravenman](#): > > Yes, that’s exactly what we did. I don’t know how else to explain it to you. It is against all reason and logic to say that the US (and others) inviting the Baltics to a mutual defense pact was not an invitation to a mutual defense pact. Your argument here is total horseshit. If war threatened the UK and Estonia, where would the United States be likely to direct the bulk of its support? Same treaty, same obligation, different interests. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/93 "2014-04-07T17:32:43Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > TYeah, they’re going to kick out the premier military power in the alliance. Out of principle. No, for being useless. What kind of “premier military power in the alliance” is a power that won’t acutally support its allies? What is the point of retaining them in an alliance? > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > It would be nice if the clowns who made it their project to expand NATO into Russia’s backyard, with no regard for the future consequences, had treated it with the seriousness it deserved. They did. You seem to have some kind of incredibly overblown image of Russia, and its power an importance. Why should Russia get a veto on who joins NATO? Are they special in some way? Was Iraq consulted when Turkey joined? Russia is a medium-rank power, which ranks even with Italy on economy and somewhat above the UK on military. You got its importance all out of proportion if you think the US is going to chicken out of all its treaty commitments for fear of upsetting it. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/94 "2014-04-07T17:38:04Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > No, for being useless. What kind of “premier military power in the alliance” is a power that won’t acutally support its allies? What is the point of retaining them in an alliance? What’s the point of the alliance itself? > [@](#): > > You seem to have some kind of incredibly overblown image of Russia, and its power an importance. Why should Russia get a veto on who joins NATO? Are they special in some way? Was Iraq consulted when Turkey joined? See, this is what happens when people acquire their understanding of geopolitics from Rambo movies. The United States and NATO is not all-powerful, particularly when it comes to Russia’s sphere. This was proven in Georgia and now Ukraine. How many more examples do you need before you get it? > [@](#): > > Russia is a medium-rank power that can turn the world to ash. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/95 "2014-04-07T17:40:18Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > We did not stand as a nation in 2004 and pledge our sons and daughters to the defense of Estonia. You’re completely wrong. That’s exactly what we did. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/96 "2014-04-07T17:41:12Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Oh? You really think Poland and Germany and the UK would withdraw from NATO because we refused to go to war over Estonia? I think it would result in the dissolution of NATO, so yes. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/97 "2014-04-07T17:42:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re completely wrong. That’s exactly what we did. On paper. Not morally. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/98 "2014-04-07T17:46:22Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > If war threatened the UK and Estonia, where would the United States be likely to direct the bulk of its support? > > Same treaty, same obligation, different interests. I have a hard time imagined a situation where the United Kingdom and Estonia were being invaded at the same time. But if it happened, we’d send troops to defend both countries. The correct answer is: Same treaty, same obligation, [del]different interests[/del]. ---
**Author:** ![Batistuta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/58956e/32.png) [@Batistuta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batistuta)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/99 "2014-04-07T17:49:02Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > On paper. Not morally. Can you explain the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434/100 "2014-04-07T17:49:33Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > On paper. Not morally. What on earth does that even mean? Yes, on paper. Yes, morally. There is a treaty. We signed it. We ratified it. It’s legally binding. We promised. We meant it. Cross our hearts and hope to die. The fact that you somehow think this is all an illusion is your problem. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-wouldnt-putin-try-to-destroy-nato/685434.md?page=6)