5 ms·
The current Baltic NATO states and Norway are much easier to defend having control over the Baltic Sea, plus Finland has a considerably strong military that now
by GolDDranks 4y ago
The current Baltic NATO states and Norway are much easier to defend having control over the Baltic Sea, plus Finland has a considerably strong military that now joins to strengthen NATO, so it should be a win-win for the both sides.
- rightbyte 4y agoWhy are we pretending conventional war between NATO and Russia is a thing?
- trash8435798 4y agoIf that's the case, why does the border need "expensive patrolling" (which is already done by Finland anyway)?
- tremon 4y agoBecause Russia is currently doing conventional war inside Ukraine?
- jacquesm 4y agoBecause Russia could easily start a conventional war and there is no way NATO would escalate that to nuclear without Russia using nuclear weapons first.
- JasonFruit 4y agoWhat makes you think NATO nations wouldn't do such a thing, if there were a conventional war between them and Russia? War is essentially irrational, and it causes governments and the general population to desire ends that can only be pursued by harmful, immoral means. What makes NATO immune to this?
- jacquesm 4y agoIn principle nothing, but in practice NATO has shown considerable restraint so far and I see no reason why they would suddenly and catastrophically deviate from that. So unless Russia uses nuclear weapons first - which they have threatened now multiple times - I do not see this or any other conflict NATO is involved in escalate to nuclear. NATO has never publicly committed to a NFU policy because that would weaken their hand on the political stage but in practice they seem to be following that line. It's a smart way to position themselves, and other nuclear capable entities have done the same.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoRussia also has not committed to a NFU policy. In fact, they have explicitly stated that, if Russia's survival is threatened (such as, you're rolling tanks over their border), then nukes are in play. Of course, the problem is that Putin has a very expansive idea of "what threatens Russia"...
- jacquesm 4y agoPutins ideas of what threatens Russia are not rooted in reality.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoI absolutely agree. It's just that, if Putin has these unrealistic ideas of what threatens Russia (like an independent Ukraine), and Putin has stated that Russia can use nukes if it is threatened, and Putin is the one who gets to make the call about whether Russia is threatened enough to use nukes... then I really don't like that one man, disconnected from reality, can start a nuclear war.
- jacquesm 4y agoYes, but he's so decoupled from reality that if he wants to do that any pretext will serve so I don't think this will make a difference at all. Putin will do what he thinks he has to do regardless of the rest of the world. It's well beyond logic by now. Russia will suffer for decades after Putin is gone on account of what is happening today no matter how much worse he makes it.
- dodobirdlord 4y agoBecause NATO would overwhelmingly defeat Russia in a conventional war. There is no real upside and there is very real downside for NATO to escalating a conventional war with Russia to a nuclear war.
- pbourke 4y agoThe US maintains nuclear ambiguity. A first strike wouldn’t happen under current conditions, but one could easily imagine it happening if the US had credible evidence that Russia was preparing a nuclear attack. Nuclear logic and the ladder of escalation are very terrible things.