# Would a Russian invastion of the Baltics spark WW3? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2016, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747 "2016-12-15T04:09:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/41 "2016-12-16T10:36:14Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > **Grim Render** you have a mis-attributed quote in post #30. The last quote in your post is attributed to me; I did not make that statement. So I have. And the edit window has passed. I apologize. > [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > As for the underlying discussion: > > There are numerous examples through history of countries not honoring treaty obligations, when it suited them not to. Treaties are important, of this there is no doubt. I do not mean to imply that I think the United States would look at a Russian invasion of, say, Mongolia with the same aversion and sense of urgency as an invasion of the Baltics. But the incoming President has already asserted that the Baltics are perhaps not worthy of defending, despite the existence of a legitimate treaty, for relatively specious reasons (that is to say, for reasons that have little to do with the treaty itself, or the need for that treaty). So if **I** were living in Estonia, I certainly would not be counting on the United States to uncap the launch button at the first sign of Russian troops massing on the border. > > And, **Grim Render** , you totally ignored my point about how the average American feels about the possibility of being wiped out in a nuclear holocaust in return for guaranteeing the sovereignty of the Baltic states. If you think that any President would be willing to risk nuclear war over something that the people of this country generally speaking would NOT be willing to risk nuclear war over, that President most likely should be removed from office as quickly as the situation allows (preferably in accordance with the Constitution). Well, it is not so much that, it just that I think the US is icing. As in, on the cake. Russia is not the Soviet Union, and the Russian conventional forces are not a match for the EU or European NATO nations. Many EU nations have very, very strong feeling on Russia as an immediate threat. And even the ones that do not, have a view of Russia as a long-term threat. The Russian leadership seems unable to interact with other nations without physical displays of aggression such as [bombing runs](http://www.businessinsider.com/david-cenciotti-russia-simulated-a-massive-aerial-attack-2013-4?r=US&IR=T&IR=T),[border runs](https://books.google.no/books?id=JBqaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=russia+fighters+border+violation+norway&source=bl&ots=RzLT8mUImw&sig=Y36lzlBdwobqCn5S2hAaZum7ZBc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL4I6ov_jQAhUGiSwKHab_Bt0Q6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=russia%20fighters%20border%20violation%20norway&f=false)etc. The Russian leadership really has no-one else to blame that it is seen as a threat. An immediate one for its neighbours, an only slightly less so for countries further away. And no-one thinks there exists any point where Russia will be “satiated”. If a military conflict goes nuclear, no-one wins. And I don’t for a moment believe Russia will retarget all of its missiles to spare the US. If it doesn’t go nuclear, Russia is overmatched. That is why I don’t see the US decisions as being that essential. The US may decide not to join in, and if things do not go nuclear, they have to face up to not honouring its most essential alliance when the rest of the alliance beats down the opposition. If it does grow into a nuclear exchange, it loses just as hard as everyone else. > [@AK84](#): > > Really? They are going to use nukes if the Russkies break through in the Balts? In W Germany if the Russians got 20-30 KM, NATO ability to protect pretty much all of Europe East of Rhine was finished and therefore nucleafr weapons was the only hand left, here you have the ability to trade space for time and natural barriers (like the Vistula) to fall back on; you think they are going to go nuclear cause Tallinn is threatened? As far as I remember, in the days when the opposition was the Soviet Union, which was believed to have an advantage in forces, plans did include first-use of tactical nukes to stop Soviet advances. I cannot offer any cites, but I do believe this is still on the table, although the power disparity runs the other way now. (The one area where Russia still has the advantage is armour) ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/42 "2016-12-16T13:13:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Disagree. Poland would wonder what the fuck was going on, and there is no way the alliance would survive. > > I cast my vote with WW3. I think this is the main reason Russia hasn’t tried something yet. Just like how people commented after the invasion of Iraq that nobody ever thinks of invading North Korea, proving the value of nuclear weapons; the invasion of Ukraine and Georgia proves the importance of NATO. “The invasion of Ukraine”? ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/43 "2016-12-16T13:25:51Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Really? They are going to use nukes if the Russkies break through in the Balts? In W Germany if the Russians got 20-30 KM, NATO ability to protect pretty much all of Europe East of Rhine was finished and therefore nucleafr weapons was the only hand left, here you have the ability to trade space for time and natural barriers (like the Vistula) to fall back on; you think they are going to go nuclear cause Tallinn is threatened? Wouldn’t it be better to have a threat of rapid escalation at Tallinn than use the whole of Eastern Europe as a buffer zone and risk a long-drawn-out escalation that would be harder to step back from? Kind of a ‘nip-it-in-the-bud’ form of deterrent. ---
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/44 "2016-12-16T14:18:07Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > “The invasion of Ukraine”? You remember. When Russia sent its troops into a country that wasn’t Russia. And then declared it was part of Russia afterwards so it didn’t count as an invasion. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/45 "2016-12-16T16:34:31Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I’m struggling to wrap my mind around your logic. You’re essentially saying that it’s OK for the United States to remain in NATO as a member nation, with all of the associated Article Five obligations, but that if any POTUS \*is willing to actually abide by the commitments \*promised in NATO, that they had better be removed from office ASAP. > > Right? No. First of all, you’ve already been answered by having your nose rubbed in the actual text of the treaty. I’ll let you deal with that separately. But second of all, the treaty covers a whole lot of countries I do believe the American public DOES consider vital, and WOULD support going to the brink of nuclear war to protect. England, for example, or France. Or quite possibly Greece, still. Maybe even Turkey, though if they continue down the road of Islamist dictatorship, they may well lose our public support. Since the treaty does cover such countries, I don’t think the US should withdraw from the treaty. I do, however, think that the core NATO members, especially those upon whom most of the military commitments would fall (US, Turkey, UK, France, Germany) should re-think the offer of membership to the former Soviet-bloc nations, in light of the fact that Russia is quite clearly NOT going to go along with the 90s tide of good feelings and join NATO itself. I know that everyone back then thought that this was going to be an international “Era of Good Feelings”, and we were all going to be singing from the same page of the hymnal, but clearly, the bear has re-awakened, and sees the moves made by NATO as hemming it in. Russia has never liked being hemmed in. If you truly believe that an invasion of the Baltics requires a nuclear response from NATO, that there are no other options allowed under the treaty, then I strongly suggest that those nations be excised from NATO. The people of the United States will not support such a response. For what it’s worth, as I’ve pointed out in the thread regarding Taiwan and Trump, we probably wouldn’t support a nuclear response over that island, either. Which might have Taiwan thinking twice about the bit of calling Trump. Or, it might not, if they think they already have their own nuclear capabilities… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/46 "2016-12-16T16:58:19Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] First of all, you’ve already been answered by having your nose rubbed in the actual text of the treaty. I’ll let you deal with that separately. [/QUOTE] I guess you interpretation of ‘nose rubbed’ is different than mine. I saw some attempt at rules lawyering and underlining some portions to try and emphasize the spin that NATO nations could weasel out of their commitment if they really wanted too. The gist of the article is, however ‘The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…’, and any attempt to deny that if any member were attacked would basically gut NATO, as no country could or would be sure that it wouldn’t happen to them next if it was inconvenient for the others to honor the treaty if they were in turn attacked. > [@](#): > > But second of all, the treaty covers a whole lot of countries I do believe the American public DOES consider vital, and WOULD support going to the brink of nuclear war to protect. England, for example, or France. What do you base this belief on? And even if true…so what? This is why we have a representative democracy, so that idiots who don’t understand the international ramifications of their knee jerk populist stances don’t affect the long term position of the country. I seriously doubt that a US administration is going to not honor our treaty commitments or try the sorts of rules lawyering you and AK84 are talking about. I doubt any of the other NATO members would do so either. Now, whether the RUSSIANS actually believe that or not is a separate question. > [@](#): > > I do, however, think that the core NATO members, especially those upon whom most of the military commitments would fall (US, Turkey, UK, France, Germany) should re-think the offer of membership to the former Soviet-bloc nations, in light of the fact that Russia is quite clearly NOT going to go along with the 90s tide of good feelings and join NATO itself. Why? I mean, my first response to this is ‘fuck the Russians…if they have a problem with countries they formally held in their sphere of influence by the boot to neck method want to join NATO for protection, that seems like a personal (Russian) problem’. I’m struggling to figure out why we should pander to the Russians on this. NATO didn’t force those countries to join, Russia pretty much did, and if they don’t like it…well, tough. I don’t particularly care if there aren’t good feelings over this or not, to be honest, and not sure why the US SHOULD care if there are or not in this case. Can you explain why NATO should care, or should turn away countries who want to join because Russia might not like it? And what should be done in those cases? Just let Russia do what it’s been doing, slowly snapping those countries back up because they aren’t members and can throw their military weight, such as it is, around with those smaller nations? Just sit here, thumb in ass while they do it? Maybe send a few diplomatic protest letters their way so they know we are unhappy? > [@](#): > > f you truly believe that an invasion of the Baltics requires a nuclear response from NATO, that there are no other options allowed under the treaty, then I strongly suggest that those nations be excised from NATO. A military response is not necessarily a nuclear response. I believe that NATO should honor it’s commitments to members who are in NATO, and that an attack on one is an attack on all…i.e. an attack on one means all of them are in a state of war. Doesn’t necessarily mean NATO’s response is or would be nukes…conventionally, NATO would hand the Russians their heads in a conventional fight. The RUSSIANS might resort to nukes, in which case NATO would have no choice…but I doubt NATO would be the first to use the things. > [@](#): > > The people of the United States will not support such a response. Again, what do you base this assertion on? If NATO were attacked, I’m pretty sure the people of the US WOULD support the use of military force in NATO’s defense. Whether our new feckless leader would or not is certainly a question, but I am not seeing anything to indicate that the majority of US citizens would be good standing by while a NATO member was invaded and annexed with our thumbs up our collective butts. If you have some evidence otherwise, feel free to share. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/47 "2016-12-16T17:11:54Z")
Oh, and ETA: [QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] I do, however, think that the core NATO members [/QUOTE] Where does this idea that there are ‘core NATO members’ and, presumably, cannon fodder that can be cut loose if it’s inconvenient to defend them come from? All members are pretty much equal wrt the treaty obligations…even those members who don’t bother to meet the 2% GDP spend on defense target are still full members. Maybe you can parse the treaty to show me how you arrive at this? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/48 "2016-12-16T17:55:30Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Really? They are going to use nukes if the Russkies break through in the Balts? In W Germany if the Russians got 20-30 KM, NATO ability to protect pretty much all of Europe East of Rhine was finished and therefore nucleafr weapons was the only hand left, here you have the ability to trade space for time and natural barriers (like the Vistula) to fall back on; you think they are going to go nuclear cause Tallinn is threatened? Perhaps not right away, but within a few days, a week at most. An honest-to-God shooting war between NATO and Russia will end in nuclear war. Of that I am quite certain; there is no possibility it won’t. If Russia invades the Baltics I suggest you make peace with God and say goodbye to your loved ones. ---
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/49 "2016-12-16T18:17:30Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Perhaps not right away, but within a few days, a week at most. > > An honest-to-God shooting war between NATO and Russia will end in nuclear war. Of that I am quite certain; there is no possibility it won’t. If Russia invades the Baltics I suggest you make peace with God and say goodbye to your loved ones. I don’t think it’s inevitable. I don’t see the Baltic states as an interest so vital to any nuclear power that they would rather destroy the world than lose them. And I include Russia in that. They lost the Baltics in 1920 and 1991 and Russia survived. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/50 "2016-12-16T18:23:33Z")
Putin and Trump will make a deal and the people of the Baltics will be screwed. No one will be able to do a damn thing about it. I can’t see NATO going to war over US objections. I can’t see Trump prosecuting a war against Putin under any circumstances, even if the US Congress declared war. Hell, I don’t think Trump would cross Putin even if Russia took over France and the UK. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/51 "2016-12-16T18:31:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t think it’s inevitable. I don’t see the Baltic states as an interest so vital to any nuclear power that they would rather destroy the world than lose them. And I include Russia in that. They lost the Baltics in 1920 and 1991 and Russia survived. Well,. sure, but 1. In 1920 there was nothing they could do about it, and 2. In 1991, Russia did not lose the Baltics. The USSR did, and it also lost Russia. At the time, Russians were not preoccupied with whether or not they were keeping Latvia; the larger concern was the stability and health of Russia and Russians, which was understandably something about which people were a little unclear. These days the situation is rather different. ---
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/52 "2016-12-16T18:48:23Z")
Not to fight the hypothetical, but I am wondering what exactly Russia would gain from conquering the Baltics. Other than direct land-access to Kaliningrad and a few more ports to the Baltic Sea. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/53 "2016-12-16T18:59:50Z")
[QUOTE=XT] I saw some attempt at rules lawyering and underlining some portions to try and emphasize the spin that NATO nations could weasel out of their commitment if they really wanted too. The gist of the article is, however ‘The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…’ [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: There was no “rules lawyering” it was reading the actual material part of the text;in other words basic statutory construction techniques. And I look forward to hearing about your years of experience in those. The treaty specifically does not mandate any particular course of action if a party is attacked and the article implemented, it leaves the decision on what measures to take up to the individual member states. The legal aspect is fairly clear on this point. However, as far as treaties matter; their exact legal effects is less important than the political ones, the Axis pact did not mandate the Germans declare war after Pearl Harbour, yet they did since politically that was seen as advantageous. Here from what I can gather, **DSYoungEsq** is of the opinion AIUI (and I have the same) that it is not clear whether the US will be willing to politically go into a war over the Baltics, in the same way as they would over Frace, Germany or the UK. You I take it have a different view, and its a valid one to have. However, you have based it on “cause the treaty says so”, which is not accurate. [QUOTE=RickJay] Perhaps not right away, but within a few days, a week at most. An honest-to-God shooting war between NATO and Russia will end in nuclear war. Of that I am quite certain; there is no possibility it won’t. If Russia invades the Baltics I suggest you make peace with God and say goodbye to your loved ones. [/QUOTE] I agree that a full on NATO-Russia war will turn nuclear. I don’t think even a full reverse in the Baltics and Eastern Poland would necessarily compel a nuclear response unlike Fulda Gap scenario. In the latter, a Russian breakthrough would pretty quickly run the risk of making the position of NATO on the continent untenable, in the later NATO has the option of conducting a fighting withdrawal to defendable positions and build up for a counter attack. ---
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/54 "2016-12-16T19:20:48Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Well,. sure, but > > 1. In 1920 there was nothing they could do about it, and > > 2. In 1991, Russia did not lose the Baltics. The USSR did, and it also lost Russia. At the time, Russians were not preoccupied with whether or not they were keeping Latvia; the larger concern was the stability and health of Russia and Russians, which was understandably something about which people were a little unclear. These days the situation is rather different. The situation is always different. But I don’t see anything in the current situation where any country has an interest in the Baltics that’s worth launching a nuclear attack. It’s a region on the level of Afghanistan or Vietnam or Iraq; a place where if you lose a war, you just move on. ---
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/55 "2016-12-16T19:24:56Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Putin and Trump will make a deal and the people of the Baltics will be screwed. No one will be able to do a damn thing about it. I can’t see NATO going to war over US objections. I can’t see Trump prosecuting a war against Putin under any circumstances, even if the US Congress declared war. Hell, I don’t think Trump would cross Putin even if Russia took over France and the UK. I agree we have no idea what Trump might do; he might conceivably be willing to hand over Europe to Putin. But I disagree that the Europeans will just blindly follow Trump and allow themselves to be handed over. The Europeans have a much more immediate interest in containing Russia westward expansion and would fight with or without American support. ---
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/56 "2016-12-16T19:40:37Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > The legal aspect is fairly clear on this point. However, as far as treaties matter; their exact legal effects is less important than the political ones, the Axis pact did not mandate the Germans declare war after Pearl Harbour, yet they did since politically that was seen as advantageous. If nations are just going to do what is advantageous anyway, why do we bother with treaties? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/57 "2016-12-16T19:42:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree we have no idea what Trump might do; he might conceivably be willing to hand over Europe to Putin. > > But I disagree that the Europeans will just blindly follow Trump and allow themselves to be handed over. The Europeans have a much more immediate interest in containing Russia westward expansion and would fight with or without American support. Except for the Brits and the French, the European dependence on the US is pretty heavy.Europe will not have much of a shout sans the US. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/58 "2016-12-16T19:44:03Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > If nations are just going to do what is advantageous anyway, why do we bother with treaties? I am sorry, ut which nation has ever done something that (on balance) it did not think was advantageous? ---
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/59 "2016-12-16T19:46:12Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Except for the Brits and the French, the European dependence on the US is pretty heavy.Europe will not have much of a shout sans the US. Certainly the case in a nuclear exchange. And without the US, UK and France, coordination might prove difficult. I am not entirely convinced they would be significantly behind on forces though. ---
**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:** [December 16, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747/60 "2016-12-16T19:48:09Z")
```auto ``` > [@AK84](#): > > I am sorry, ut which nation has ever done something that (on balance) it did not think was advantageous? My point is, if nations are just going to do what they feel like anyway, what is the point of making treaties? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-russian-invastion-of-the-baltics-spark-ww3/774747.md?page=4)