2 ms·
The next question becomes, does US want to start a war over Estonia? Formally yes, of course, but I don't know.
by kzrdude 5y ago
The next question becomes, does US want to start a war over Estonia? Formally yes, of course, but I don't know.
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoI think yes. Estonia is part of NATO. Failing to defend them would lead to the collapse of NATO and the end of US hegemony.
- treis 5y agoThe problem is that it won't likely be a direct invasion. Estonia has a significant Russian minority and we've seen this play book before: Does NATO intervene when Russia starts (or really continues) courting pro-Russian politicians? Does it intervene if that minority starts protesting? Does it when that minority starts resisting? Does it when Russia smuggles them arms? Does it when little green men show up? Does it when the rebels (now mostly little green men) advance West? This go around the West tried sanctions and it obviously didn't work. Estonia is far more Western and fewer historic ties to Russia than Ukraine did. So it might not progress past step 1 in the playbook. Almost certain that Putin is going to try and likely will try for at least a couple decades to come.
- CRConrad 5y ago> The problem is that it won't likely be a direct invasion. Estonia has a significant Russian minority and we've seen this play book before: For instance, we've seen it dramatised in season 3 of Berlin Station: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5191110/episodes?season=3 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5191110/episodes?season=3
- hutrdvnj 5y agoThey absolutely will, I have zero doubt. Because otherwise NATO would be completely pointless and this would strengthen Putin even more, making him an even bigger treat for western countries.
- kzrdude 5y agoI think it's in NATO's interest to believe in this steadfastly, but my imagination says that there are other scenarios. It's a gamble, but the best way to damage NATO is to make an ambiguous or small attack that makes it not invoke article 5 or to not respond properly. My imagination says: as soon as new facts are established (let's say blitz invation of a city), you are tempted to not respond because you don't want to start a world war. Of course this fails the overarching theory (MAD, tit for tat etc), but I wouldn't think it's impossible. Maybe for example USA would say it wants to respond with sanctions to avoid a larger war.
- awb 5y agoThis book pretty much lays out those other scenarios: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics * Use subversive tactics to destabilize countries * Use natural resource control to pressure countries * Use military as a last resort when influence fails Basically, make energy deals with Germany, ignore the US and UK and install puppet governments in Eastern Europe through bribery and propaganda until they can be annexed or granted “special status”.
- kevin_b_er 5y agoIgnore US? Well that didn't happen. Former president appears to have some connection and dependence on Russian interests.
- awb 5y ago* Ignore the threat of US / UK conventional military intervention through threats of mutual assured destruction
- hutrdvnj 5y agoThe US has troops in the eastern NATO states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania ...), more than ever and likely more to come. Biden made it very clear, if russians open fire on US troops (NATO), we have WW3.