Skip to comments.The tiny Estonian town that could spell the end of NATO
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 ...
I agree. Wars start over such miscalculations.
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.
That’s what happens when libs control the schools.
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.
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.
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).
I’m at the point where i have a serious problem bringing myself to pay for their support
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.
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.
NATO is a sad joke under the current circumstances. And wed 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.
I know who poked the Bear while sleeping. It was the weakness from 0bama, and the disastrous five years of his foreign policy.
We could be witnessing the start of WWIII.
While I have no doubt US Forces would prevail eventually, I also have no doubt that Russia's best...not the export stuff...will have more than a few surprises for us.
They also maintain the ability to strike and do tremendous damage to US/NATO forces and airfields, depots etc.
A dozen Blackjack bombers can wreak havoc all on their own, but when combined with the rest of the Russian Air Force they will definitely get some targets.
The American public is not used to taking losses and Congress is even worse.
It was really up to the people of Estonia if they wanted to receive the NATO flag. Being a former "Soviet satellite" should have nothing to do with it, at least morally.
And your description that Estonia was "aggressively recruited" is hyperbole.
1914 all over again. Entangling alliances over nothing that matters to most of the American People.
Should the US go to war with Russia over a town in Estonia that is nearly all Russian?
Yup. ................................................... Of course, its like going into Czechoslovakia when parts of it was nearly all German. In fact I half expect Putin’s Navy may try and annex Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn soon. LOL will our Leader do then? Draw a red line in Queens? s/
By aggressively recruiting former Soviet satellites, the formerly defensive alliance shifted to offense by planting its flag on Russia’s doorstep -
Utter rubbish. Where did you come up with that? Alex Jones? Savage?
The fact is the new NATO members lined up and happily joined NATO. No recruitment necessary. They have plenty of graves in their country to remind them that periodically Russia murders them. That’s all the motivation they needed to seek NATO membership.
I'd like to hear a supporting argument for that contention.
the idea that the USA has an interest in defending Bulgaria from anyone, at any time is ludicrous to me.
And, would you expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia...and would their defense with US Forces make sense?
To "make sense" there would have to be a real US strategic interest.
You don't think the original members of NATO got a vote on that?
Of course all the European members thought it was a GREAT idea. What I want to know is where the hell was the US Senate when the treaty modification came up for a vote? Surely it had to be ratified by the US Senate.
I contend it was a major strategic blunder to expand NATO. There is no US interest served by doing so.
But I also contend we MUST honor that sh!tty treaty at all costs lest the entire world sink into chaotic destruction.
Putin is not going to annex Poland - he’s going to give Lwow, Grodno, Brest and possibly Wilno BACK to Poland.
Which begs the question - what about Breslau, Stettin, Danzig, and Königsberg?
So I ask you, do you think defending the original NATO countries make sense?
If so then why wouldn't Estonia make sense?
Nice guy that Putin.
On another site there was a heated discussion regarding what if California with its love for illegal aliens votes to join Mexico.
WTF? You don't think the original members of NATO got a vote on that?
Don't waste my time with your nonsense comment. Read what I wrote. Read every word. Do you know what the word "receive" means?
Just where would you draw the line? A few days ago you were saying Crimea but no more. Now you’re willing to start carving up Estonia. What are you going to say when Putin talks about the poor oppressed Russians in Brighton Beach?
I have it on good authority that Kerry-Heinz has sent a flurry of stern notes to the Russians. The Russian responses are #$@%%^^^^ you stupid dip sh!t!
My tone and words were totally uncalled for.
Notify NATO that any nation that does not spend 3% of GDP on Defense and meet certain readiness and capability requirements to be defined by our US Military professionals...will be expelled from the Alliance. They have 5 years.
If we cannot gain agreement with the majority of NATO countries on this, we will withdraw from the treaty in that same 5year timetable.
NATO died in 1986 when France denied the US overflight rights to Libya.
It died again in 2003 when Turkey denied the US overflight rights as well.
It is a two way street.
Now, when they are scared they want us to fly over in powerful aircraft. Right.
I understand completely.
The current circumstances aren’t the same. Events are still manageable if they had the will.
What is war but failed diplomacy?
Economic pressure is the proper method. Tell Russia that they would be financially responsible for any area they would annex. The IMF loaned Ukraine $18B and since Crimea is still recognized as sovereign territory, Russia would have to pay proportionally.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the expansion of NATO.
How many millions of American kids are you willing to sacrifice for that town?
With Obama at the helm, Putin is living rent-free in the heads of all the Congress-critters in D.C.
The stakes are enormous, potentially existential.
Exactly. Too many want to be like Obama where one's word doesn't mean anything anymore.
Ooops didn't mean to exclude your apology
Should be apology "accepted".
Eliminate NATO and also the European Union!
They are both nothing but roads to a ome world socialist government!
While they are at it scrap NAFTA.
Lithuanian president wants to raise defense spending to 2% of GDP...
I’m not saying we shouldn’t fight where our vital interests are at stake.
But Americans are not going to awakened to action over a town hall in a city they can’t even name in a foreign country they couldn’t locate on the map.
Good luck with invoking the NATO Charter’s Article 5 - if that ever happens.
I was a part of it in the "Partnership for Peace" days. Of course they signed up to join NATO, believing our promise that we would wage total war to defend them. Now it is dawning on the world that NATO (and America, its guarantor) wrote checks that it can no longer cash. It was "The End of History" back then, and there was never going to be another major war.
You signing up for the front lines? Or just sending other folks?
Meanwhile the larger, richer countries spend weakly while relying upon a US umbrella:
France, Germany and Italy are ALL under 2%.
The only country that could reasonably be considered as caqrrying their fair share is the UK at 2.4%.
The US spends 4.4%. And all the blood.
Where is the spot where you’ll say “enough”?
I see that there is plenty of Chamberlin fans here in response to your question.
But I think ultimately there wouldn’t need to be a war if NATO would just mobilize to the eastern bloc. Call Russia’s bluff, in the end it would be Russia that would need to start the war.
There virtually no ethnic Russians in Poland.....That was one benefit of Poland getting her Eastern part taken away after the war....Poland is almost exclusively Polish, unlike pre-war Poland that was only 70% Polish.
“There’s really no need for US ground forces to get involved. We’d shoot down anything the Russians sent up, and recreate the highway of death for Russian ground forces in Estonia, “
You are crazy.
First, I think we have about 180 F22’s and zero F35.
The f22 does not have a long “loiter time” because it has no external fuel tanks to be stealthy. The f22 also needs a lot of down time for maintenence. Committing our entire f22 fleet would mean having maybe 20 in the air at all times sustainable for maybe 1 month.
All the other jets can be shot down by russian AA missles.
There will be no highway of death.
“In 2004, the F-22 had a mission ready rate of 62%, this rose to 70% in 2009 and was predicted to reach 85% as the fleet reached 100,000 flight hours. Early on, the F-22 required more than 30 hours of maintenance per flight hour and a total cost per flight hour of $44,000; by 2008 it was reduced to 18.1, and 10.5 by 2009; lower than the Pentagon’s requirement of 12 maintenance hours per flight hour. When introduced, the F-22 had a Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM) of 1.7 hours; by 2012 the figure was 3.2 hours, exceeding the requirement of 3.0 hours by 2010. By 2013, the cost per flight hour had grown to $68,362, over three times as much as the F-16.
Each aircraft requires a month-long packaged maintenance plan (PMP) every 300 flight hours. The stealth system, including its radar absorbing metallic skin, account for almost one third of maintenance.”
Exactly. We are not mercenaries for hire. Let them receive some telegrams for a change.
The problem is, does Estonia have enough men in arms to do any good? I think they have spirit and would fight if they thought they had any chance to hold out, but they might all be dead or captured before we could get enough assets into the area to turn the tide. :-(
Sure. They asked me to come back in once. I'll go again. Wise ass.
Heh - what was it the Estonian President said about some book describing Americans as being from Mars, and Europeans from Venus: He said the Euros are from Pluto.
I think a valid question is, “What would the Euro’s need to spend to counter Russia’s buildup?” I think that if they all participated, an average of the oft quoted 2% of their GDP might get them there, as their economies in total far surpass Russia. The problem is that it’d take several years to catch up at that rate.
At least some of them are actually talking about it:
On the other side of the argument, though, long term there is great danger in a heavily armed Europe and an ineffectual U.S.
On this, I agree with you.
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.