4 ms·

I've seen this take before, but I don't understand it at all. The whole point of a defensive treaty is to draw a line in the sand. Ukraine is on the other side

by TillE 5y ago

I've seen this take before, but I don't understand it at all. The whole point of a defensive treaty is to draw a line in the sand. Ukraine is on the other side of that line, unfortunately. This is black and white. Russia would certainly screech threats of nuclear retaliation in response to conventional defenses, but NATO has no choice but to defend all its members. To do anything else is madness, it destroys the treaty entirely.

jacquesm 5y ago
Indeed it does. Now ponder that for a while. NATO has never been actually tested, except when it was convenient (see: the coalition of the willing/bribed). I totally understand the point of the treaty. But the treaty never took into account nuclear blackmail - because that is what is happening here - and if that works once I don't see any reason why it would not work again. Country 'x' should leave NATO or we'll nuke everybody. After all, why not? Once you've crossed the line of using nuclear weapons for blackmail I really don't see why you'd stop.
- MockObject 5y ago
  Because strategy isn't binary. Putin expected to gain a certain amount of benefit and suffer a certain amount of cost. It seems like he's paying a higher cost than he'd predicted. Nothing about that scenario makes it obvious for him to consider paying an even higher cost for a different adventure.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    That depends. If you look at it from the perspective of a rational player in a non-zero sum game, then yes, you are right. But if you look at it from the perspective of a gambler with nothing to lose then there is no reason why at some point he would not go 'all in' to get a potential win versus a sure loss.
    - MockObject 5y ago
      Well, geopolitics is (generally) rational players in a non-zero sum game. I can't imagine how any world leader could have "nothing to lose", but regardless, it doesn't describe Putin.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        This is the problem, it may very well describe Putin.
legalcorrection 5y ago
A defensive treaty has to be plausible. When NATO was just Western and Southern Europe, it was at least somewhat plausible that the US would go to the brink of nuclear war in its defense. The expansion into Eastern Europe, and especially the expansion into small (and with all due respect, not geopolitically important) Eastern European countries, NATO has lost credibility. The US should not be willing to go to total war in defense in the Baltic countries. Everyone knows that. Honestly, the only reason to take the threat seriously is if you think the US establishment is irrational. And there is reason to think that. See, for example, the hysterical demands for a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine from sitting US Senators and retired generals. The US should encourage the development of a European army and the creation of a purely European defense pact. Certainly, Germany, France, and Poland have more interest in the Baltics than the US. Then, NATO should be contracted to only include core US interests.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Certainly, the United States had more interest in Iraq and Afghanistan than say Germany, France and Poland.

by TillE 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

Indeed it does. Now ponder that for a while. NATO has never been actually tested, except when it was convenient (see: the coalition of the willing/bribed). I totally understand the point of the treaty. But the treaty never took into account nuclear blackmail - because that is what is happening here - and if that works once I don't see any reason why it would not work again. Country 'x' should leave NATO or we'll nuke everybody. After all, why not? Once you've crossed the line of using nuclear weapons for blackmail I really don't see why you'd stop.

MockObject 5y ago
Because strategy isn't binary. Putin expected to gain a certain amount of benefit and suffer a certain amount of cost. It seems like he's paying a higher cost than he'd predicted. Nothing about that scenario makes it obvious for him to consider paying an even higher cost for a different adventure.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  That depends. If you look at it from the perspective of a rational player in a non-zero sum game, then yes, you are right. But if you look at it from the perspective of a gambler with nothing to lose then there is no reason why at some point he would not go 'all in' to get a potential win versus a sure loss.
  - MockObject 5y ago
    Well, geopolitics is (generally) rational players in a non-zero sum game. I can't imagine how any world leader could have "nothing to lose", but regardless, it doesn't describe Putin.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      This is the problem, it may very well describe Putin.

legalcorrection 5y ago

A defensive treaty has to be plausible. When NATO was just Western and Southern Europe, it was at least somewhat plausible that the US would go to the brink of nuclear war in its defense. The expansion into Eastern Europe, and especially the expansion into small (and with all due respect, not geopolitically important) Eastern European countries, NATO has lost credibility. The US should not be willing to go to total war in defense in the Baltic countries. Everyone knows that. Honestly, the only reason to take the threat seriously is if you think the US establishment is irrational. And there is reason to think that. See, for example, the hysterical demands for a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine from sitting US Senators and retired generals. The US should encourage the development of a European army and the creation of a purely European defense pact. Certainly, Germany, France, and Poland have more interest in the Baltics than the US. Then, NATO should be contracted to only include core US interests.

jacquesm 5y ago
Certainly, the United States had more interest in Iraq and Afghanistan than say Germany, France and Poland.