Fat. Greedy. Weak. That’s the Russian perception of Western Europeans.
If that’s what they think, then they may attack a NATO country, and then they’ll lose in a one-sided war and Putin would likely be ousted.
They would not be the first to mistake a high threshold for going to war with a lack of resolution about it. It tends to be a very stupid mistake. In any case, I would hope Putin has a more accurate perception of the west. He does have access to a lot more information than the average Russian.
The danger is that he’ll have surronded himself with so many yes-men that he is losing his grip on what real and what people say to please him.
If the strategic benefit to the alliance is large enough, and if the third party wants the defense, then it could make ordinary strategic sense to extend the defense.
To put it really crudely, it’s better to let a non-NATO country serve as the battleground, rather than have to fight inside the borders of a NATO country. Mess up the landscape of the third party, not a treaty member. If the third party prefers this intervention to being overrun by the initial aggressor, then it’s good both ways.
The problem is that Putin (and probably many other Russians) have lost touch with reality as to where Russia actually stands in the world. For example, all the news stories about Russians longing for the glory days of the Soviet Union, but the reality is that the Soviet Union had no glory. Ever.
In other words, stop excusing this Russian nationalism and start pouring some cold water on it.
The longing for the “glory days” goes back before the Soviet Union, back to the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. That the expansion of the Soviet Union was almost entirely enabled due to the weakness of post-WWII Central Europe is immaterial to how the Russians see themselves; they’re a culture with a collective inferiority complex about not being considered part of “civiliized” Europe. This is how Putin is justifying the enormous expendature of building up Russian nuclear forces. There is no question as to whether Russia could stand up a conventional war against combined NATO forces; it can’t, and probably never could for an extended engagement even at the height of Soviet power. But it can certainly rattle its saber and wield power over smaller nations without the protection of a modern military. It can bully and harrass smaller nations, even the NATO aligned Baltic states, provided it doesn’t cross a line. And this is a difficult position for NATO, which doesn’t want to provoke open conflict but has to ensure protection of its member states and their interests. The Crimea is this brave new world’s Czechoslovakia; everybody knows allowing it to be annexed is morally wrong, but nobody wants to be the asshole who starts a war over it.
Stranger
I think Crimea is more akin to Austria, or even the Rhineland. It was made part of Ukraine SSR by the old Soviet government.
To me, the equivalent of Czechoslovakia is the Baltic states. Historically part of Russia only through conquest, never through ethnic affinity, and protected by an alliance(as Czechoslovakia was) which some want to fink on, thinking maybe the alligator will eat them last.
Baltic states are part of the EU and have been for a while. Letting Russia invade them seems hardly conceivable to me.
After reading the whole thread and in complement to my previous post : it’s natural I guess that on an American board people would discuss mostly about a NATO reaction, but as I just said, Baltic states are part of the EU. From my French point of view, they’re primarily members of the EU and only very secondarily members of NATO. I can go to Tallinn this evening, spend my money there and even stay forever if I feel like it.
The EU hasn’t much teeth, but it is much more of a reality than some posters here seem to believe. The Union is of the highest importance, and even more so for politicians. An attack against a member of the Union is an attack against the Union as a whole. Other members can’t just let it fly. In practice, despite the existence of an embryo of common defense, a military response would happen under the baner of NATO. But lacking that, it would have to be organized otherwise. And I’m pretty certain it would be. Maybe Malta or somesuch could tolerate such an action by Moscow, I don’t know, but most member states couldn’t. Can you see Poland letting Russia seize forcefully her neighbours’ territory without reaction? Can you see Germany? Personnally I can’t.
I guess the USA might decide not to, but regarding the moral obligation : what is the meaning of the word “treaty”, according to you, then?
How much of your sentiment is due to you being French? I may be wrong, but isn’t France sort of the most ardent supporter of the EU, and that citizens of other countries might not feel the same level of commitment? Obviously, you are going to find the full spectrum of support in most countries, but isn’t the overall feeling toward the EU strongest in France?
Russia aren’t interested in taking the Baltic states or eastern Ukraine for that matter. They want to keep Sevastopol as it’s their main Black Sea naval base and they want to keep NATO off their borders, that’s why they’re involved in Ukraine. They clearly felt that the only way to keep Sevastopol was to allow Crimea to rejoin Russia. The fact that US/EU backed Neo-Nazis in Kiev want to exterminate ethnic Russians may have something to do with it too.
These Eastern European states would be a drain on Russia economically and militarily, they don’t want them.
Allow? I wasn’t aware that “allow” meant “force”.
Russian propaganda is not fact.
If by “these Eastern European states” you mean the Baltic countries, I completely disagree. Russia would be much better off if it had Estonian levels of corruption and institutional efficiency. And all three Baltic states have higher Human Development Index ratings than Russia. They would not be an economic drain on Russia any more than Hong-Kong is one on China.
Also, neo-Nazis exterminating ethnic Russians? Come on!:rolleyes:
I’m guessing they’re probably feeling the love for the EU in Eastern Europe right now.
France and Germany are the main drivers of the EU, but I don’t see anything indicating that the French in general are more supportive of the union. From a European Commission report:
France barely gets mentioned in that summary, so I assume they are pretty middle ground. I have to think that the Europe Union being invaded by Russia has got to be at least as important to Europeans as NATO being attacked.
(Maaaaassively off-topic, but I’m surprised that more Swedes than Brits are against EU membership. Interesting finding with many possible readings)
Estonia - $23,144
Lithuania - $22,747
Latvia - $19,120
Russia - $17,884
I hope you’re right; and I certainly admit to much ignorance. A great deal of my view of European weakness goes back to the Yugoslavian Wars, where the U.S. had to be a major player. I always felt that Europe should have taken the leadership there, and the U.S. could have stayed out entirely, or else donated forces to be put under European strategic direction.
Germany and France and Great Britain should have dealt with that mess, but, as it turned out, the U.S. did most of the dirty work. I hope this wouldn’t be the case in a Russian invasion of Estonia!