Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The tiny Estonian town that could spell the end of NATO
The Week ^ | 3/27/2014 | By Michael Ben-Gad

Posted on 03/27/2014 3:54:03 PM PDT by Mariner

Will Putin call NATO's bluff?

The Russian invasion and rapid absorption of the Crimean peninsula might seem like the spark ready to ignite a new Cold War. In fact, given the feeble Western response so far, the more likely outcome is not the division of Europe once more between NATO's Western alliance and a neo-Soviet Russia, but rather the fracturing and ultimate demise of NATO and the Western alliance itself.

Of course, no one expects the West to use military force to protect Ukrainian territory, despite the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for its relinquishing the nuclear weapons that remained on its territory after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet even the Russians now seem surprised, indeed somewhat amused, by how disunited and weak the Western response has been. So what comes next?

Having demonstrated to the Ukrainians with his Crimean excursion the emptiness of Western guarantees...

(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: estonia; moldova; nato; obama; putin; ukraine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-152 next last
To: kabar
"We must respond against any attack period in both word and deed. There should be no doubting our resolve. "

You don't think the Congress and the American People are going to get a vote in that?

It's one thing for the professionals to talk of the essential need to honor the treaty but it's a whole nuther ballgame when it comes to an actual fight.

I thing it unlikely Congress would quthorize military force to protect Estonia. Very unlikely.

41 posted on 03/27/2014 4:52:47 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici

No. We have no business fighting over Narva than we have over Crimea. What strategic interest do we have there? None as far as I can see.


42 posted on 03/27/2014 4:53:20 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AlexW

Few Americans even know who the VP is.


43 posted on 03/27/2014 5:00:18 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
" I expect that NATO will dissolve along with the will of its members."

I agree, when US weakness is combined with European weakness, NATO will wither on the vine and will soon be little more than a parlor joke.

Sadly. It was once the bulwark of civilization.

44 posted on 03/27/2014 5:03:24 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

We have been talking about Narva for weeks here. Looks like somebody is reading FR. LOL.


45 posted on 03/27/2014 5:04:15 PM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
"Yup."

You have fun with that.

46 posted on 03/27/2014 5:13:54 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
This is an interesting scenario and begs the question: Should the US go to war with Russia over a town in Estonia that is nearly all Russian?

I bet "peace thru strength" will not be the answer by more than a few here. And that peace thru retreat and appeasement will be the answer.

Besides Estonia is way over there, they will say.

47 posted on 03/27/2014 5:15:43 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

This could be fun, ...for undertakers.


48 posted on 03/27/2014 5:17:04 PM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

A lot of people would say this is exactly why NATO should not have been expanded eastward. We find ourselves on the hook defending tiny countries no one cares about. The original NATO made sense. The new one doesn’t.


49 posted on 03/27/2014 5:18:22 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

the vast majority of Americans are either too stoned or drunk to read the question, let alone know that estonia was a country or where it was.

we’ve got a nation of drooling half wits demanding the competent 20% pay for everything they need


50 posted on 03/27/2014 5:21:41 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
I believe the essential issue to be that NATO was over-extended when Russia was weak and none of the Neo Cons involved ever stopped to ask the question: Would we really defend such a country at crunch time against a nuclear power?

I agree. Wars start over such miscalculations.

51 posted on 03/27/2014 5:21:51 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

What if it is not just Estonia? What happens if it is all the Baltics and Poland at the same time? We live in interesting times.


52 posted on 03/27/2014 5:25:03 PM PDT by phormer phrog phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sten

That’s what happens when libs control the schools.


53 posted on 03/27/2014 5:25:34 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

No one will ever die over Narva.

NATO is a bloated organization without nowhere near the resources to adequately defend every member country.

We would do well to drop every country east of Germany and get back to NATO’s core mission of defending the West, which is sustainable.

A NATO of 28 is far less credible for Western security than a NATO of 12.


54 posted on 03/27/2014 5:26:27 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: phormer phrog phlyer

The Russians can take over the Baltics in 48 hours. It would’t be a close contest. We have nothing with which to stop them and the Cold War Tripwire is gone. And if Russia re-annexed those countries, we wouldn’t instigate World War III over it.

NATO guarantees are so much p*ss*ng in the wind and we know it and Moscow knows it. At the moment the Kremlin doesn’t want to bite off more than it chew.


55 posted on 03/27/2014 5:31:08 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
A lot of people would say this is exactly why NATO should not have been expanded eastward. We find ourselves on the hook defending tiny countries no one cares about. The original NATO made sense. The new one doesn’t.

If the original NATO made sense then an expanded NATO makes sense.

And if there is any country worth defending in the expanded NATO it's Estonia.

Peace thru strength (dare I say).

56 posted on 03/27/2014 5:35:18 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

I’m at the point where i have a serious problem bringing myself to pay for their support


57 posted on 03/27/2014 5:35:31 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

And how do you propose we do it?

We’re cutting our military to the bone and there is no political constituency in the EU for higher defense spending.

NATO is a sad joke under the current circumstances. And we’d be fighting a war on terrain advantageous to the Russians.


58 posted on 03/27/2014 5:39:32 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
A lot of people would say this is exactly why NATO should not have been expanded eastward. We find ourselves on the hook defending tiny countries no one cares about. The original NATO made sense. The new one doesn’t.

I am one of those who disagreed with the eastward expansion of NATO. By aggressively recruiting former Soviet satellites, the formerly defensive alliance shifted to offense by planting its flag on Russia's doorstep -- and then attempting to flank its "former" enemy and seize its sole year-round warm water outlet. The aggressive expansion also diluted NATO's franchise, reducing the small, united and committed alliance to a large and disparate gaggle with less in common and fewer shared interests.

59 posted on 03/27/2014 5:45:54 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

NATO is a sad joke under the current circumstances. And we’d be fighting a war on terrain advantageous to the Russians.


Hardly. It’s simple op to defend the Baltics. Put up some air defense. Then deploy an armored brigade and some of the 173rd Airborne from Italy. Pansy Putin won’t do a thing with a credible NATO force on station. His no insignia homo army would be crushed immediately if they tried to play games inside a NATO country.


60 posted on 03/27/2014 5:50:33 PM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-152 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson