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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
You’d be willing to die, and risk the death of your family, to protect Estonia? Talk is pretty cheap.
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.
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?
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.
You mean, except for the binding legal commitment of the United States to defend NATO allies, and the personal commitment of the President of the United States?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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].
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.
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.