3 ms·
> having a United States that doesn't seem like a country you can count on In what way? A Russian attack on Germany or a NATO ally is something the US would de
by muninn_ 9y ago
> having a United States that doesn't seem like a country you can count on
In what way? A Russian attack on Germany or a NATO ally is something the US would definitely go to war over. I know it's popular now to freak out because Trump is president, but nothing has changed in this regard.
- matt4077 9y agoWords have meaning, and there's no denying that Trump has, quite literally, questioned the US' commitment to the common defence doctrine. It's not like there's some court of law somewhere that would make Latvia whole again if Trump decided not to fulfil the US' treaty obligations after the "Latvian association of I-am-just-a-farmer–oh-look-I-found-a-Russian-tank" wins the referendum to join Russia.
- muninn_ 9y agoQuestioned, but I don't think that means the US is ready to abandon countries like Germany. I think Latvia is an interesting case because, frankly, should the US go to war over Latvia if Russia invaded? I think we would because of the treaty, but idk if the US (absent NATO) should do it. At one point is it worth the risk? That's the thing with Russia. At one point do you say no and go to war with them over a land grab? Germany is a clear case of going to war, same with other Tier 1 US allies, but Latvia?
- dogma1138 9y agoDo you remember how WW2 started, and more importantly what preceded it? ;)
- muninn_ 9y agoSure, but so what?
- notfromhere 9y agoif NATO doesn't defend the Baltics the whole alliance falls apart.
- dogma1138 9y agoThe baltics are effectively czechoslovakia. You can't decide who to go to war for under NATO, it's all or nothing. Not to mention that ssignaling to Russia that the US might not intervened under Article 5 is a good way to start WW3. NATO works because the fate of a the Baltics is equal to the fate of Germany. The problem is that Europe has enjoyed the umbrella that the US provides under NATO too long without owning to its own obligated defense commitments under the treaty. I don't understand why people are calling out the Trump administration because of this. Sec def Gates had much more damning things to say about NATO under Obama and the EU's unwillingness to commit its obligated military spending goes as back as Reagan.
- muninn_ 9y agoI don't really disagree, my larger point was that I question whether the US would go to war over the baltics, but I don't question that they would go to war over Germany. The alliance may fall apart if they didn't go to war over the baltics, but there is no question in my mind that, if instead of attacking the baltic, the Russians attacked Germany that the US would be full-on in Germany's defense.
- dogma1138 9y agoIt definitely would because not honoring Article 5 means that the US loses its relevance in its entirety in the region leaving Europe for Russia if nothing else then purely in the geopolitical landscape for the taking.
- muninn_ 9y agoNo, it doesn't. There's a huge mess associated with Article 5, but not defending Lativa is not the same thing as unwilling to defend Germany, or France, or the UK, etc....
- LyndsySimon 9y agoIt could be argued that the US's (lack of) reaction to Russian occupation of Crimea and its lack of involvement in the situation between Russia and Turkey has eroded the guarantee that NATO is supposed to provide.
- votepaunchy 9y agoNeither the Ukraine nor Turkey are NATO members and have no bearing on the NATO guarantee.
- somewhatoff 9y agoTurkey is very definitely a NATO member, and has been since 1952.
- muninn_ 9y agoNot much the Us can do about Turkey. Crimea is far more complicated than can be discussed reasonably here. Germany though, is a whole different ball game. There are different tiers of countries in the view of the US. Countries like Germany, are in the tier of "we will go to war if you declare war against them". Even if Trump is president. He is right to question the alliances, though.