If he doesn’t, he’d be directly responsible for an eventual war. Once we back down on a sacred treaty obligation, Russia will logically assume that we’ll back down on the next one. THat’s the kind of thinking that led to the last world war.
Whereas, think about what must be going on in Putin’s inner circle should he suggest an attack on a NATO member. The Red Army will say, “That nuts!”, Putin gives the order, and if we back down, he looks like a genius and the Red Army is marginalized and Putin’s stature goes through the roof inside Russia. If we stand up to him and he has to back down, then it makes a coup likely, or his public is likely to turn on him.
Presidents near the end of the line start thinking of their place in history. If Obama is the man who hands over Eastern Europe to Russia, he’ll easily be the worst President of all time. I think he knows that.
Most of all though, Russia can’t contend with NATO conventionally. I don’t think Putin would start a nuclear war over the Baltic Republics, and NATO would have no interest in marching to Moscow. If there was a conventional war, it’s more likely we’d liberate the Baltics(using Russian territory if we had to), and Putin would be utterly humiliated. Obama would go down in history as a great wartime President and his prestige might be so high in his last months of office even the Tea Party might give him whatever he asks for.
You haven’t watched Crimea, have you? Notice there was no “attack” - it was all “self-defense” units, spontaneously formed, with Russian guns and Russian military equipment. Except this time they maybe will not be stupid enough to say where they live in Russia when asked by journalists.
You overestimate Obama.
You don’t get it. There can be no conventional war in which Russia is humiliated.
Why not? They would really destroy themselves rather than lose a war that doesn’t threaten their existence as a nation? As long as NATO kept its war aims to something similar to what the UN did in the Gulf War(liberation of the occupied territory, no march on Moscow, no attempt to overthrow Putin), then I can’t see why self-preservation wouldn’t be the primary motivator here.
No. They will threaten tactical nuclear weapon use. And, unlike Obama’s, Putin’s threats will be taken seriously. But it won’t even come to that.
Here is a scenario. Tomorrow, there are mass demonstrations in the city of Narva - right on the border, and with a population that is 90%+ Russians. They protest against their oppression by Estonia, raise Russian flag, and demand secession. Of course, there are a bunch of “self-defense” troops around, as if by magic. They declare independence.
Will NATO intervene? I don’t think so. After all, there is no “attack”. So, when the city runs a referendum that votes 99% for joining Russia, it will be a “done deal”.
No, you’re right about that, and NATO shouldn’t intervene unless Russia attacks directly. Russia cannot annex the Baltics without the use of real military force. Sure, they can peel off some territory that is Russian-majority, but they won’t be able to station their troops there(that’s an attack) without triggering Article 5.
While the Crimea playbook can get them to a certain point with the Baltic Republics, it doesn’t get them any actual territory. In the end, as with Crimea, they have to send troops across the border eventually. Which means war.
Once they “peel it off”, it is not Estonian territory anymore. It’s Russian. So stationing their troops there is not an “attack”. Western Europe will grab that lawyerly excuse like a lifeline in order not to get involved militarily. And Narva would only be the beginning.
Again, you greatly overestimate the resolve of EU and US. If there is any tiny technicality to be found that would allow no military involvement, it will be taken.
adaherRepeat after me, Russia is not Iraq. :rolleyes:
Those heavy armour formations that kicked Iraq out of Kuwait? Gone, disbanded, converted to light forces. The US has a few light brigades left in Europe. The Russians are already there, backed up almost to Moscow. And unlike Iraq, Russia has a large Navy and airforce which will heavily dispute any buildup attempt.
As for Article 5 NATO, the Budapest memorandum whether or not the actually committed anyone to war is irrelevant, it is only relevant whether the parties believe they are and what they will do. Until two months ago the general belief was that the W Allies would interfere in any attack on Ukraine. That had been disproved. The next question is, would NATO risk all to defend the Baltics. Article 5 or no Article 5. The answer is no. They would do so to defend Germany. Or hell perhaps even Poland and Czech Republic.
This is bordering on the simply stupid. This speculation about how Western European NATO states will do anything to look the other way if a NATO country is attacked – simply to avoid using their armed forces, is just laughable.
France sends troops to Mali but it won’t to Estonia? Are you freaking kidding me?
Italy and France lead efforts to bomb the snot out of Libya during a civil war there, but they’re just going to run and hide if Russia attempts to annex Latvia?
The contention that Western European powers care more about intervening in Mali and Libya than they would in defending alliance partners doesn’t pass the laugh test.
[ETA - I’m referring to Terr’s unfounded assertion that the West is prepared to lay back and let Putin roll over NATO to his heart’s desire.]
Then we disgrace ourselves and eventually have to fight anyway, just in Germany rather than further east.
I hope you and Terr are wrong. We didn’t intervene in Ukraine because Ukraine is not a member of NATO. the Baltic Republics are, and furthermore when we invoked Article 5 they came to our aid. They even contributed troops to Iraq. To sell them out would be an even greater dishonor than selling out the Czechs. And it wouldn’t bring “peace in our time”.
I wouldn’t call it laughable, given Europe’s history, but thank you. NATO is a military alliance, and once you let members get attacked and conquered while sitting on your hands, NATO ceases to exist, at least in the former Warsaw Pact.
The notion that NATO won’t defend NATO members from territorial annexation by a massivly inferior power seems to rest on three assumptions:
That the existence of NATO is worth less to the member states than the cost of curbstomping Russia. That seems to be taken out of thin air.
That western nations will let personalities decide their response to such an event, rather than the long-term iterests of the nationstates. This is actually more like how Russia operates.
And that Russia is big and powerful militarily. And therefore scary enough to make NATO think three times before engaging them. This is not factual. Yes, compared to Ukraine Russia is powerful. Much like France is powerful compared to Belgium. Or Italy compared to Croatia. But Russia is not a match for NATO in much the same way as Woddy Allen is not a match for Mike Tyson.
Unfortunately we all know that Russia doesn’t have to be a military match for NATO. The fact that it has ICBMs targeted on American and European cities is the rather bulky fly in the ointment. NATO must ask itself before each encounter is the game worth the candle? Many times it won’t be. Would we really risk a nuclear holocaust to protect a small East European country?
The fact that NATO has a shitton of ICBMs targeted on Russian cities is a similarly corpulent ointment-swimmer. Would Putin really risk a nuclear holocaust to annex a portion of a small East European country?
I believe most Warzaw Pact-vs. NATO scenarios had NATO go nuclear first. NATO was as I remember pretty upfront about planning to be the first to use tac nukes. Russia was well aware of that.