The United States, NATO, and Collective Security

#1
Burhead

Burhead

God-Emperor of Politics
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
26,264
Likes
10,056
#1
Since the war in Ukraine started many of us in the Ukraine thread have had discussions regarding the United States commitment to ensuring the collective security of our NATO partners should the Russian Federation start special war in NATO states. Personally I'm of the opinion I don't think the current leadership in America or Europe would risk World War III for say the Baltic countries. Now let's assume a Ukrainian scenario starts playing out in the Baltic republics and the invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and request assistance in putting down a foreign backed insurgency after discovering firm evidence of Russian links to supplying and financing of the insurgency. The Kremlin says if article 5 is invoked and NATO troops are deployed they will defend "ethnic Russians" from genocide or some other trumped up charges.

Knowing this would lead to war between the United States and Russia would you still support providing assistance to defending the territorial sovereignty of our NATO friends in the Baltic's in the face of potential nuclear war? Do you think our current government would even follow through with such a request? Or would you simply be willing to sit back and sacrifice these countries in an attempt to preserve the greater peace and security of Europe?
 
#2
#2
Burhead said:
Knowing this would lead to war between the United States and Russia would you still support providing assistance to defending the territorial sovereignty of our NATO friends in the Baltic's in the face of potential nuclear war?

I don't think it would ever reach nuclear levels personally. But absolutely provide support.

Do you think our current government would even follow through with such a request?

Nope.

Or would you simply be willing to sit back and sacrifice these countries in an attempt to preserve the greater peace and security of Europe?

Not on your life. I'm of the school that when you give your word about something, you honor that no matter what. But...see my second answer for the likely response.
Click to expand...

Some people just can't be trusted as far as you can throw them.
 
#3
#3
I don't think we should have ever let them in NATO to begin with. 1) They're useless. No offense to the people. I'm sure they're fine people. My wife's family are Latvian/Lithuanian, but they're useless as far as collective defense goes. More likely to get us in trouble than get us out. And 2) Putin/Russia can always use the Baltic membership as another means of "See, the US and NATO are coming after us. So obey every damn word I say, slaves."

But, that's not what you asked. Yes, since they are now in NATO, and for as long as they are, we should honor our commitments to them, like Grand said. I don't particularly fancy Americans dying for the freedom of the Baltic states, but, if you're in the military, then you knew the score when you signed up. Unless you were an idiot.

There's been some talk that Vlad may be willing to use small tactical nuke strikes in the Baltics to strain NATO's resolve and basically end it. I don't think he'd ever go that far, but, should he, I say let him have them, NATO or not. The Baltics are not worth risking a nuclear war with Russia.

Only a conventional, limited engagement to keep them from falling under Russian control again.

And yes, despite what many think, I believe even the Obama administration would be willing to provide conventional US forces support in such an engagement. I think he would draw the line where I do: the first Russian nuke in Tallinn.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
volprof said:
I don't think we should have ever let them in NATO to begin with. 1) They're useless. No offense to the people. I'm sure they're fine people. My wife's family are Latvian/Lithuanian, but they're useless as far as collective defense goes. More likely to get us in trouble than get us out. And 2) Putin/Russia can always use the Baltic membership as another means of "See, the US and NATO are coming after us. So obey every damn word I say, slaves."

But, that's not what you asked. Yes, since they are now in NATO, and for as long as they are, we should honor our commitments to them, like Grand said. I don't particularly fancy Americans dying for the freedom of the Baltic states, but, if you're in the military, then you knew the score when you signed up. Unless you were an idiot.

There's been some talk that Vlad may be willing to use small tactical nuke strikes in the Baltics to strain NATO's resolve and basically end it. I don't think he'd ever go that far, but, should he, I say let him have them, NATO or not. The Baltics are not worth risking a nuclear war with Russia.

Only a conventional, limited engagement to keep them from falling under Russian control again.

And yes, despite what many think, I believe even the Obama administration would be willing to provide conventional US forces support in such an engagement. I think he would draw the line where I do: the first Russian nuke in Tallinn.
Click to expand...

So would it be better to draft a new alliance with only strong European powers (Britain, France, and Germany)?
 
#6
#6
Burhead said:
So would it be better to draft a new alliance with only strong European powers (Britain, France, and Germany)?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I wouldn't necessarily mind just returning to the pre- end of the Cold War alliance, save for Poland. I think Poland actually adds something to the alliance.

None of the other new members really add anything, especially now that the Soviet Union isn't around to hold a gun to their heads and tell them to spend half their GDP on defense like back in the good ole' days of the Warsaw Pact.
 
#7
#7
volprof said:
Honestly, I wouldn't necessarily mind just returning to the pre- end of the Cold War alliance, save for Poland. I think Poland actually adds something to the alliance.

None of the other new members really add anything, especially now that the Soviet Union isn't around to hold a gun to their heads and tell them to spend half their GDP on defense like back in the good ole' days of the Warsaw Pact.
Click to expand...

The Baltic nations add something to the alliance as well. On a symbolic level, they show that young nations can be free and can chart their own path in international diplomacy. And that the Soviet Empire was truly dead and the former nations were allowed to go their own way.

You have to remember, the Baltic's were free prior to WWII and were annexed involuntarily after their "liberation" from the Germans. Actually prior to in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty. So it went to show that the Russians (Soviets) never cared about them anyway. And when they became independent again, they could join the remainder of the nations as equals on an international level and choose what organizations they wanted to be a part of. And trust me, had they not been a part of NATO, I'd bet the chances of "incidents" like we saw in the Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea would have already happened in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

It's not always about military power or economic status (although the Baltic nations do okay on their own economic wise), but rather the free choice to determine who they choose to associate with on an international scale without fear or repercussion and what destiny they chart for their nation into the future.

Sometimes you gotta stand up for the little guy.
 
#8
#8
And if we want to talk about additions to the NATO Alliance, Portugal and Iceland really didn't add a whole lot militarily. France was on and off for a long time. Denmark wasn't exactly a powerhouse of NATO strength.

The Eastern European nations like Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria actually have contributed significant military resources into the alliance.
 
#9
#9
Eh, I'll actually agree with Rastradamus on this point. We don't have to be the world's savior.

It's great when we can be, but 100 dead Romanians aren't worth 1 dead American soldier, in my opinion.
 
#10
#10
volprof said:
Eh, I'll actually agree with Rastradamus on this point. We don't have to be the world's savior.

It's great when we can be, but 100 dead Romanians aren't worth 1 dead American soldier, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the big kid on the block can't always sit it out. And those nations have supported us as well in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

And when we started adding those nations, who would have thought we would be in the position we are today?
 
#11
#11
Burhead said:
Since the war in Ukraine started many of us in the Ukraine thread have had discussions regarding the United States commitment to ensuring the collective security of our NATO partners should the Russian Federation start special war in NATO states.
Click to expand...

If it's a special war it wouldn't come in the form of an outright invasion.
 
#12
#12
Grand Vol said:
Unfortunately, the big kid on the block can't always sit it out. And those nations have supported us as well in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

And when we started adding those nations, who would have thought we would be in the position we are today?
Click to expand...

Fighting a bunch of insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan is not the same as fighting the Russian military.
 
#15
#15
Grand Vol said:
If we let our friends and allies down, who comes to help us when we need it?
Click to expand...

They wouldn't come to help us period. Probably just the British. And that's it.

And, to be clear, I've said we should honor all of our treaty agreements. I just question our treaty agreements.
 
#20
#20
#23
#23
If the Baltics were attacked I think they would be overrun and little we could do. It would be no different than Poland being attacked and sort of the sitzkrieg that happened in WWII. Strategically, not much we can do to defend the Baltics. They would be taken fairly quickly. If Russia stopped there or warmed up the tubes, we'd pause before doing anything. The only counter to that is what we're doing now and that is sending small units over there - it means US soldiers would be killed or captured. This is the only deterrent we have that could prevent something from happening. Would Russia risk war over a few hundred US soldiers even if they held little value in those soldiers holding off the invasion? Would the West risk anything further if Russia said they'd pause?

This documentary on Crimea that aired one day early (for some odd reason) said Putin was ready to use nukes if anyone resisted Russia's efforts to take Crimea. This is Putin's card. He will always threaten the nukes because he knows the West will back down. This little fact in the whole Crimea "acquisition" shows who was really the war monger as well. The invasion was planned, it had nothing to do with the will of the people OR a referendum, and Putin threatened nuclear war over the seizure. Even with these facts that came from Putin himself Ras and Pacer will still say Putin was forced to say and do these things...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
Burhead said:
Care to comment?
Click to expand...

You all already know where I stand on this. We need to mind our own business and worry about securing the borders here instead of the borders in Iraq or the Ukraine.

I'm just going to sit back and observe the conversation until I feel like adding something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
To answer the question, yes we should invest in protecting them, we have made the alliance we have to up hold it.

I think what we should do is put the American troops over there with paintball guns within a mile of Russian border. spread them out across the whole front, with literal paint ball guns, if we give them anything. and wait for something to happen to them. make it so they are clearly not a threat, get agreements from the host nation about their location, and that is where you station the Americans. Make the Russians make the first move, if they are going to grab up more land they are going to have to move the peaceful Americans sitting on that territory. see if Russia is willing to risk that move.

also if Russia uses one nuke on the Baltic nations isn't that going to ruin half the territory they are grabbing? nuking the baltics to take the baltics is dumb.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top