4 ms·

Baltic states might be next, yes. I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of th

Baltic states might be next, yes. I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know.

jacquesm 5y ago
> I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know. Then the NATO charter is useless.
- chinathrow 5y ago
  I agree 100% but the only time Article 5 has been invoked was after 9/11, never to defend against a nuclear armed dictator.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    But that doesn't really matter. Article 5 was drawn up when nuclear weapons already existed, and presumably everybody that is a signatory to the NATO treaty knew full well what they were getting themselves in to.
treis 5y ago
There's NATO troops in the baltic states. 0 chance Russia sends in combat troops and if they did 0 chance NATO backs down. What's happened in the last ~10 years was that Ukraine was Russia's proxy, then the West's, and now it will be Russia's again. That's a very different story than one that starts with "was a member of NATO".
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Which makes NATO not only an arsehole but also a chump for not admitting Ukraine as a member at the latest shortly after Crimea.
  - _Tev 5y ago
    So you are saying NATO should have started nuclear war because of Crimea? Because when you admit state that has part of it's territory occupied into a defense pact, you are effectively declaring war on the occupying state. Imo it's not quite arsehole thing to not start WWIII due to non-alliance country.
    - mantas 5y ago
      What is enough to start nuclear war then? Baltic states? Poland? Germany? UK?
      - _Tev 5y ago
        Yes, when you are in defense pact with nuclear powers, you have way better detterence on your side. Why is that so hard to understand? People are also forgetting that you can't just instantly admit Ukraine into NATO and instantly teleport all the alliance armies onto the battlefield. Trying to make it quicker would very likely just hasten the Russian invasion (because the head douche apparently wanted Ukraine all along), so it really boils down to "do you want to start throwing nukes for state that you never made nuke-backed promises to?" It's appalling how many people here are not seeing bigger picture and would love to just try to end humanity just because some nation got dealt _really_ bad cards. Economically Russia is cratering, so the impatience to end it all here (or in 2014) is just irrational. They were already losing technology (e.g. see how their space program is faltering), this will just accelerate Russia's slide into irrelevance. Even their weapons tech is not keeping up, see the latest kerfuffle in Caucasus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
        mantas 5y ago
        Actually, promises were made to Ukraine when it gave up it's share of Soviet nukes.
        _Tev 5y ago
mantas 5y ago
Wrapping up NATO by not defending a NATO member would be very much the destruction of the world as we know it.

Baltic states might be next, yes. I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know.

jacquesm 5y ago

> I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know. Then the NATO charter is useless.

chinathrow 5y ago
I agree 100% but the only time Article 5 has been invoked was after 9/11, never to defend against a nuclear armed dictator.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  But that doesn't really matter. Article 5 was drawn up when nuclear weapons already existed, and presumably everybody that is a signatory to the NATO treaty knew full well what they were getting themselves in to.

treis 5y ago

There's NATO troops in the baltic states. 0 chance Russia sends in combat troops and if they did 0 chance NATO backs down. What's happened in the last ~10 years was that Ukraine was Russia's proxy, then the West's, and now it will be Russia's again. That's a very different story than one that starts with "was a member of NATO".

CRConrad 5y ago
Which makes NATO not only an arsehole but also a chump for not admitting Ukraine as a member at the latest shortly after Crimea.
- _Tev 5y ago
  So you are saying NATO should have started nuclear war because of Crimea? Because when you admit state that has part of it's territory occupied into a defense pact, you are effectively declaring war on the occupying state. Imo it's not quite arsehole thing to not start WWIII due to non-alliance country.
  - mantas 5y ago
    What is enough to start nuclear war then? Baltic states? Poland? Germany? UK?
    - _Tev 5y ago
      Yes, when you are in defense pact with nuclear powers, you have way better detterence on your side. Why is that so hard to understand? People are also forgetting that you can't just instantly admit Ukraine into NATO and instantly teleport all the alliance armies onto the battlefield. Trying to make it quicker would very likely just hasten the Russian invasion (because the head douche apparently wanted Ukraine all along), so it really boils down to "do you want to start throwing nukes for state that you never made nuke-backed promises to?" It's appalling how many people here are not seeing bigger picture and would love to just try to end humanity just because some nation got dealt _really_ bad cards. Economically Russia is cratering, so the impatience to end it all here (or in 2014) is just irrational. They were already losing technology (e.g. see how their space program is faltering), this will just accelerate Russia's slide into irrelevance. Even their weapons tech is not keeping up, see the latest kerfuffle in Caucasus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
      - mantas 5y ago
        Actually, promises were made to Ukraine when it gave up it's share of Soviet nukes.
        _Tev 5y ago

mantas 5y ago

Wrapping up NATO by not defending a NATO member would be very much the destruction of the world as we know it.