3 ms·

I don't buy this. The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. In

I don't buy this. The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. In fact, I'd say that current response in Ukraine enforces this (though it's not a NATO member it got plenty of offensive equipment, intelligence, money, support, etc. - basically everything possible short of direct declaration of war / direct military involvement from all NATO members). Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. And he probably knows it. This is the weakest position he can be in - if the west attacked him, he could at least mobilize the Russians to "defend against western aggression" and could even justify the nuclear bombs to his generals; As things stand, his rhetoric and position are very shaky (he's not being defeated by mighty USA, but by the "weak" Ukrainians who "aren't even a nation")

geoka9 5y ago
> The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. How did Putin take that message? I think that's the only thing that matters at this point. > Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. _If_ that mythos was blown to pieces, in the eyes of the Russian public. That remains to be seen.
- asah 5y ago
  And _if_ the general public of Russia still matters... ...and _if_ a viable alternative leader exists...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nl 5y ago
> The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. Unfortunately that's not true. The previous US president (who still has significant backing with US Congress and Senate) said this when asked about Article 5: > I want to keep NATO but I want them to pay. I don’t want to be taken advantage of… We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three… Give me a break[1] And he later refused speeches that included a commitment to article 5: > The crucial nuance is that Trump did not say that NATO’s original mission of countering Russian power in Europe is no longer obsolete. Indeed, he has never acknowledged this. The closest he has come is a general statement of strong support with caveats attached for burden sharing and counterterrorism. Trump’s failure to endorse Article 5 is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.[1] Now eventually, Trump did endorse Article 5[2], but that kind of reluctance would have been very well noted in Moscow. > Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. After 9 days of war you think there is no way he can survive? Are you not familiar with the origins of Putin's Chechen War? Claiming that Putin is done because a war he is winning is unpopular in the West is naive. It's certainly possible he is in trouble, but there is a long, long way to go before he falls. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/trumps-nato-article-5-problem/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/t... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to-natos-article-5/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in...

geoka9 5y ago

> The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. How did Putin take that message? I think that's the only thing that matters at this point. > Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. _If_ that mythos was blown to pieces, in the eyes of the Russian public. That remains to be seen.

asah 5y ago
And _if_ the general public of Russia still matters... ...and _if_ a viable alternative leader exists...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nl 5y ago

> The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. Unfortunately that's not true. The previous US president (who still has significant backing with US Congress and Senate) said this when asked about Article 5: > I want to keep NATO but I want them to pay. I don’t want to be taken advantage of… We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three… Give me a break[1] And he later refused speeches that included a commitment to article 5: > The crucial nuance is that Trump did not say that NATO’s original mission of countering Russian power in Europe is no longer obsolete. Indeed, he has never acknowledged this. The closest he has come is a general statement of strong support with caveats attached for burden sharing and counterterrorism. Trump’s failure to endorse Article 5 is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.[1] Now eventually, Trump did endorse Article 5[2], but that kind of reluctance would have been very well noted in Moscow. > Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. After 9 days of war you think there is no way he can survive? Are you not familiar with the origins of Putin's Chechen War? Claiming that Putin is done because a war he is winning is unpopular in the West is naive. It's certainly possible he is in trouble, but there is a long, long way to go before he falls. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/trumps-nato-article-5-problem/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/t... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to-natos-article-5/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in...