European countries, as far back as I can remember from the history books, have been notorious about excusing invaders until they are on their own border. I don’t think they would interfere with a power grab of the Baltic States if they didn’t have the US threatening Russia with retaliation if they don’t withdraw.
There are no ‘junior’ or ‘provisional’ members of NATO. Article V is pretty clear about what will happen: An attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
To answer the OP: Yes, an invasion of a NATO member by Russia would start WW3.
Your history books may be different from mine then.
As far as I remember it, WW2 started in 1939 with the UK and France honouring the alliance with Poland and declaring war on Germany due to their invasion of Poland. Then Italy declared war on them honouring its alliance with Germany. Later Germany declared war on the US because they were allied to Japan.
WW1 similarly grew into a world war because everyone honoured the alliance system of the time.
Most European countries have figured out that plan doesn’t work. So now they’re going with collective security: invade one of us and all of us will fight you.
But that only works as long as you back it up. Let one country in the alliance be invaded without a response and every country in the alliance is vulnerable to the same thing. It’s in the self-interest of European countries to back up their NATO commitment.
It’s in the self-interest of the United States as well. But it may not be in the self-interest of President Trump and he might put his interests ahead of America’s.
You, predictably perhaps, ignore the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, all of which were handed over without a whimper, prior to finally drawing the line at the Polish border. So obviously, when and where the nation-states of Europe will get stiff backs is not all that predictable, but one can expect that some bones will be thrown to the dogs to try and keep things from getting out of hand.
And, actually, WWI is probably the reason for that, precisely since everyone ended up in a huge mess over a simple assassination.
Nuclear deterrence only works if the other side believes that an action will result in the guaranteed use of nuclear force sufficient to assure destruction (MAD). In the 50s, 60s, 70s, even the 80s, it was easy to believe that the United States would be willing to push the button over an attack on NATO countries, just as no one doubted that the Soviet Union would do so over Warsaw Pact countries, or other Russian surrogates like Cuba, or North Korea. Indeed, one of the reasons that the two superpowers stayed out of the various Middle East wars was because no one could easily calculate exactly how MAD would work out in those situations, and no one was particularly interested in finding out.
In the years since the Soviet breakup, the NATO countries have, in my opinion, foolishly expanded their effort to hem in Russian aggression by offering membership to former Warsaw Pact countries and countries which were former Soviets in the Union. This includes the Baltic nations, whose existence at all is owed to the diplomatic power of the Western European nations after WWI. The trouble with expanding the umbrella to cover them is that there simply isn’t the same visceral identification of identity between Americans and people from the Baltics. This fact, combined with the fact that Americans are increasingly less likely to think of the world in bi-polar terms, less likely to see things from a Cold War perspective, makes it extremely unlikely that they would support going to the brink of nuclear war to stop a Russian attempt to re-take the Baltics. I am not certain I would support doing that, and I’m educated on the subject, and not a particular fan of Russian expansionism. The typical “man-on-the-street” who is under the age of 40? I doubt it’s even a close question.
What would the rest of Europe do? That’s a closer question, I think. But no one in the “West” really blinked that hard at Crimea, no one in the West blinked at Abkhazia, or South Ossetia. Expect that pattern to continue so long as the West does not care enough to rattle some sabres of their own.
Miscalculations are a real possibility true, but how effective a treaty provision also depends heavily on how much credence the enemy gives it. Its telling the Russians have questions about core NATO countries (yes yes, all are equal under the treaty, yadda yadda yadda; lets get real) willingness to actually defend the Baltics. ANd I cannot say its a total miscalculation; NATO forces committed to the Baltics clearly show that the alliance deems the territory undefendable; the forces consist of 8(!) aircraft rotated in and out and from next year a brigade of troops in the Baltics and Poland. Compare with the two US and two Allied Corps in W Germany at the height of the Cold War.
Lawyering is pretty much what every nation does wrt a Treaty or an agreement. The US if it had wanted to have gone to war, could certainly have used the text of the Budapest Declaration to support the Ukraine. And you seem to not have actually read Article V of the Treaty itself which is
(Emphasis mine). The Article does not actually commit anyone to actually fight alongside rest. It says “each of them” shall take “such action as is deemed necessary”. Action which could be “deemed necessary” can be actual armed force. It can also be your strongly worded letter.
WHat you write basically proves my point, I can see you and others happily claiming in the aftermatch of armed takeover, that Article V did commit anyone tp actually engage in direct action, the new sanction/protests/conferances are sufficient necessary actions for the purposes of Article V.
[QUOTE=Grim Render]
While many western nations do not believe the Baltics is worth a war, pretty much all the smaller NATO members believe NATO is worth a war. And no-one believes NATO would be worth a dead rat if it failed to defend member states from a Russian invasion.
[/QUOTE]
No smaller NATO member is going risk the Ruskie Rogering they will certainly get unless they have actual backing from the Big Boys.
And the US knew that any of its security guarantees wouldn’t be worth a dead rat if it failed to protect the Ukraine effectively and nuclear guarantees have been the hallmark of US anti-proliferation efforts over the decades. They still went ahead anddecided to de facto accept Russian actions in the Ukraine.
Incidentally, De Gaulle did’nt believe US guarentees either, and he had much more substantial and tangible guarentees than the Baltics do.
I wouldn’t say I ignore them, more that I don’t know that they were allied to anyone.
The Rhineland was a part of Germany that were occupied after world war one until Germany marched troops in in 1936 right? And Austria wasn’t exactly invaded. In fact I think the guy running Germany at the time was an exceptionally grumpy Austrian.
Czechoslovakia I think was allied to the Soviet Union since 1935? Stalin wasn’t a real trustworthy guy I guess. Except he did honour his pact with Germany when it came to Czechoslovakia. So half a point for him.
DSYoungEsq puts it elegantly. The defence of Western Europe is going to be much easier to sell politically than that of East Europe and the Baltics, never mind the Caucasus.
The cynic in me says that these countries were given Security Guarantees because no one expected to one day have to honour them.
Clinton at least decided to keeo substantial forces in Europe as a hedge. It was Bush 2 who began to remove them. Then Obama came with his Russian reset and we are at Task Force Smith Levels.
[QUOTE=Grim Render]
I wouldn’t say I ignore them, more that I don’t know that they were allied to anyone.
The Rhineland was a part of Germany that were occupied after world war one until Germany marched troops in in 1936 right? And Austria wasn’t exactly invaded. In fact I think the guy running Germany at the time was an exceptionally grumpy Austrian.
Czechoslovakia I think was allied to the Soviet Union since 1935? Stalin wasn’t a real trustworthy guy I guess. Except he did honour his pact with Germany when it came to Czechoslovakia. So half a point for him.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, when a nation is disinclined, they will find an excuse. And France did have an obligation with Czechoslovakia. And Poland, the plucky hero of 1939 also had no problem being pro-Nazi in 1938 when they though they could get stuff out of it.
I believe it is quite relevant that none of those countries were NATO allies.
I believe the point of thebattalionsin the Baltics is not to put enough troops there to stop an invasion -which was the point of the US in Germany during the cold war- but to insure that an armed invasion of the Baltic automatically results in armed conflict between Russia and NATO. that’s why they are called tripwire forces.
Depends on what you mean by smaller NATO members. Also, I don’t think anyone will believe that Russia will stop with the Baltics. They won’t weigh the freedom of the Baltics up against a fight with Russia, they will weight fighting Russia now and together up against fighting Russia alone later.
I don’t think the US was allied to the Ukraine. Once again, this is probably an important point. You may have noticed that no-one is considering the Ukraine to have lowered the value of US alliances.
Also, I think you overestimate Russian military power.
You do have a point in relation to France and its alliance with Czechoslovakia, but I believe you are very much exaggerating the not honouring alliances. I think we have established that this seems to be by far the exception rather than the rule.
Very far away from “notorious”
With Trump in the White House, Putin could get away with it, as long as he took it slow. Say, there’s a pro-Russian uprising there, and he’s sending in troops to “keep the peace”.
I think it probably would lead to war. I’m not sure though that Putin even wants the Baltics. More trouble than they’re worth.
I don’t see why everyone thinks Trump is the deciding factor. Congress is the only entity that can declare war. They don’t need his cooperation, all they need is to be less craven than they have in every engagement since WWII. Whether you think the current batch would pull it off, well, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
No one declares war anymore.
The presence of X troops in the Baltics at present doesn’t mean the territory is “undefendable” but rather that NATO doesn’t feel a need to fight a full scale conventional war there. They’re there simply to make it so that Russia has to kill NATO soldiers to take the land, thereby setting off the tripwire.
In other words, they’re there to provide a reason to launch nuclear weapons.
Yes, we used to keep a whole army in Germany but neither side has that level of manpower anymore.
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.
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).
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?
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?
[QUOTE=Velocity]
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
[/QUOTE]
Please read the actual Article V (in post 27 above) and see what committments it has. Simply put it does not mandate the use of force as a reply to an attack, rather nebulous and undefined “actions deemed necessary”.