Estonia considers itself a front-line state, a Nato member where its border guards stare across the Narva River at the Russian fortress of Ivangorod.
This tiny Baltic state, once a part of the Soviet Union, is convinced that once the fighting stops in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin will turn his attention to the Baltics, looking to bring countries like Estonia back under Moscow’s control.
To help stave off that possibility, Estonia’s government has poured money and weapons into Ukraine’s war effort, donating more than 1% of its GDP to Kyiv.
I would think Russia’s next target will be Georgia. The invasion there is only frozen for the moment, but with the pro-Russian government there it only needs some more Russian style laws like those anti-LGBTQ or foreign-agents one, plus massive protests in the young city population and Russia will “come to help the government”.
Estonia considers itself a front-line state, a Nato member where its border guards stare across the Narva River at the Russian fortress of Ivangorod.
I don’t know why, but the way I read that made it sound like Estonia is Gondor. Which, now that I think about it, seems pretty apt. At least being a NATO member, if/when they call for aid, they should expect an answer.
At least being a NATO member, if/when they call for aid, they should expect an answer.
It’s already clear that Hungary and possibly Turkey can’t be counted on to help with Russia, and if far right parties win more elections in Europe and if Trump wins in the US (both of which seem probable), it’s unlikely they would actually step up against Russia considering that conservatives generally see them as an ally and not a threat. Russia may well test the limits of Art. 5 if Trump wins
That is certainly a fear I carry, yes. Unfortunately, the most I can do is vote against Trump and the US’s far-right and hope for the best.
Same here in Finland, although at a national level we already lost and now have an extremist right wing government which has a bit of a neo-Nazi problem (and I’m talking literal neo-Nazis). The ongoing EU Parliament elections fill me with dread
That’s really sad.
And nearby is a state known for its horseback warriors.
Considering Poland’s tank fleet purchases I think you can reasonably still describe it as a state known for heavy cavalry
“When the
winged hussarsK2 tanks arrive”When your flatland country gets marched on from both east and west several times you get pretty good at cavalry.
Not to be too snide, but we do have a plan B of sorts. It’s just Estonia, that’s all. Sorry Estonia. Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are all right there with you.
Poland’s army is getting pretty impressive too, and this time they get plenty of prep time and only one direction to worry about. Assuming they can keep influence operations from undermining their defensive posture.
Well the plan B is NATO article 5. It’s a shame Ukraine wasn’t in it.
For all the bluster there’s no way Russia would take on NATO.
And that’s why Putin really wants Trump to win, because I’m pretty sure that shitstain would decline to respond to an Article 5 invocation, even if he hadn’t already started to withdraw from NATO at that point.
Trump would leave NATO no doubt. But from what we’ve seen NATO without US can easily take Russia.
That’s far from a foregone conclusion. NATO without the US is roughly the same size military as Russia, but Russia is currently massively outproducing NATO without the US and has more soldiers.
And then you have the possibility that when article 5 happens that the NATO allies pussyfoot around again and worry more about their own defense than the NATO alliance defense. In such a case, Putin can go pick off country by country and use them for cannon fodder against the next.
Russia couldn’t go against fucking Ukraine, one of the poorest countries in Europe. Russia couldn’t do much against NATO minus US. The only problem is the baltics have no depth.
I think everyone learnt plenty from Hitler that appeasement and country and country doesn’t work. That’s the whole point of NATO. Your view is antithetical to the entire doctrine of NATO.
Russia couldn’t go against fucking Ukraine with the help of the entire NATO (including US) stockpile backing it up.
Imagine what those early days would have looked like without MANPADs and man portable anti tank weaponry. Imagine the rest of the war without tanks and artillery systems and air defense. It wouldn’t have lasted long.
The narrative that Russia just sucks is prevalent and fun, but the reality is that it only sucks when the entire West works together to counter it. Fracture that support and it’s a lot more formidable. And it’s learning and becoming much more battle hardened.
Ukraine held off the initial invasion all on their own until the supply started. Then it’s stalemate with slow, surplus weapons. Entire stockpile? Lol no. Ukraine is getting crumbs.
I’m not having fun with this. It’s just fact that Russia couldn’t do much against one of the poorestcountries in Europe. Apparently full of corruption. Hard to imagine they had any decent training over large parts of their military (a Canadian sniper went over and came back because he effectively thought they had no idea what they were doing). There’s simply no comparison with any proper military.
I wonder why you’re on this drumbeat of yours (doesn’t take much to figure it out). Ciao.
Then let’s hope that Trump won’t be president… For him, Article 5 seems to be kind of optional…
Article 5 is only a can-do, not a must-do. Which is also why NATO partner armies are stationed in those countries. If one of those partner soldiers gets hurt, it should make NATO’s decision to intervene easier.
That’s not true, the language is pretty clear:
“Article 5
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 consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
It’s not an option to respond to an attack on one, it’s mandatory according to the text of the treaty.
The “as it deems necessary” is the escape hatch for those who don’t want to intervene. It isn’t as wishy-washy as the EU’s mutual defense clause, but it certainly isn’t absolute.
I don’t know why someone down voted you. Given the current political environment. Trump if he wins would absolutely use that as a loop hole if the US is even still in NATO at that point.
People here will downvote the most objectively factual statements… I’ve stopped wondering what goes through their head.
This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.
It’s not iron clad, but nor is it voluntary as the person I responded to made it seem to be.
This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.
“such action as it deems necessary” could be no action at all.
“will assist such Party or Parties” comes right before that, though. Supporting an attacked treaty member is not optional.
And the clause which follows your quotes takes as granted that action has occurred, since it specifically states an intended result is a return to stability in North America or Europe. The action it deems necessary is predicated on the fact that it’s responding.
The way you are interpreting this quote is taken out of its context, which is not how the law works.
In any case, both of these arguments are technically valid, and it comes down to a whole lot of other factors, including political will, to enforce a response among members.
However it’s not ambiguous that an attack on a member of NATO will have a joint response, and a member neglecting to undertake such action would not have a valid legal argument for its inaction.
Edit: made a sentence real English instead of gibberish.
It’d be great if the rest of Europe and the US acted like it instead of pussyfooting around so much
If Ukraine falls, the plan B is securing the land connection between Poland and the Baltics from a potential offensive coming from Belarus, and cutting Kaliningrad from Russia-Belarus. Conversely, Russia’s plan is establishing a land connection to Kaliningrad and cutting the Baltics, although now that Finland has joined NATO, it isn’t that much of an useful goal for them anymore.
All in all, a direct Russia-NATO war is extremely unlikely, unless there are extreme geopolitical realignments in the EU.
The Suwałki Corridor is even less important strategically after Sweden joined NATO and forces can move through there. Its main importance right now is for reinforcing Kaliningrad, which itself is not very supportive of Mother Russia actions. So in a hypothetical invasion scenario who even knows what would happen in Kaliningrad.
You would think they would try to kill Putin more.
I don’t think they would publicize this…
I am sure a lot of people would be interested
Living next to Russia is fun.
