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 ...
Article 5 of the NATO Washington Agreement:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Article 5 is at the basis of a fundamental principle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. This is the principle of collective defense.
If the US "walks away" from NATO, we are finished. You can expect China to go after Taiwan. Japan will no longer be able to depend on the US nuclear umbrella nor will South Korea be safe.
We had no problem with Article 5 during the Cold War. Why would we back down now?
“It COULD happen. Putin smells blood in the water”
_______________________________________________________
The problem is that the territories that are being disputed were part of the SSR, unlike the other countries of Communist dominated central Europe, such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.
The worlds a bitch when your leader is a bitch.
What are we going to do in that circumstance?
Unleash the nukes? Not happening.
Deploy our armored divisions?
Nope, now only deployed at 15% of our 1989 troop levels, and we have closed hundreds of bases and radar stations.
I believe that we have 40,000 or so troops left in Germany but a large number of that are not combat troops.
The average EU country spends 1.7% of GNP on defense and they are in the middle of military drawdowns.
England does have about 20,000 troops left in Europe.
War? Hardly, unless you are going to use strategic nukes.
And an air war in the Ukraine could be a potential disaster.
Russian air power isn’t exactly 3rd world status.
Let the European Union handle it. I am so sick of the “In case of war call the US” attitude.
I'm not saying we should and I would advocate for existential war to honor the NATO treaty...but I think I'm part of a very small minority.
It would be a very, very tough sell politically and the POTUS that gave the order could well find himself impeached.
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?
The Baltics would. They're fighting for their own land. And if they don't, that's their problem. This is gonna be a lot like Afghanistan. We will destroy their air defense systems along the border, swat their aircraft from the sky and then destroy Russian units in Estonia with by having Estonian ground units point them out.
“Didn’t 20000 of them just vote to secede on a petition?”
________________________________________________________
Few Americans know that Alaska was Russian, and that it was bought from Russia for less then 8 million bucks.
Sheer folly. And Putin is exposing it.
We should inform the EU we will commit our resources proportionally as any other NATO country. The days they enjoyed the luxury of their socialism and neglected their duty to their own security are done.
Well ... it rightfully belonged to Russia at one time, so shouldn’t Obama return it to its rightful owner? ... :-) ...
Possibly.
I personally do not know.
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?
Absolute nonsense. NATO is not over-extended. It can meet any Russian capability up to and including a nuclear one. We had plenty of small countries before NATO was expanded. And the test of any alliance is that the other side must believe in your intention to act if provoked. NATO needs to make it very clear to the Russians that any attack against a treaty member is an attack against all. There should be no room for any miscalculation. We must respond against any attack period in both word and deed. There should be no doubting our resolve. Otherwise, we will have a war.
This is an excellent article which should be read in its entirety. NATO has reduced itself to a paper tiger as America is nearing bankruptcy and can no longer carry Europe’s military burden. As our strength wanes, Russia and China are looking for opportunities while our nervous allies are beginning to look elsewhere for safety. I expect that NATO will dissolve along with the will of its members.
Either that or break up the alliance. Let Russia gobble up Ukraine and Belarus all they like. But a NATO member? Either keep your commitment, or quit.
Article 5 was implemented only once—when the US was attacked on 9/11. It is the reason why NATO was/is involved in Afghanistan.
We’re sending you to the front lines of that fight pal.
Who’s “we?” You’re going to send him to fight for the Russians on your behalf?
“Let the European Union handle it.”
____________________________________________________
The logical solution would be for elections to be held in each disputed territory. two choices, go with Russia, or go it alone.
I know...fat chance.
European freeloaders must assume responsibility for their own defense. Americans are not willing to shoulder the burden for Europe any longer. Its time the Continent grew up. And if it isn’t?
It will have to live with Russia. That’s a fact of life.
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.