#1 they have the annual Estonian blonde parade
No. No. And no again.
NATO is the enforcement arm of the Globalist NWO. Follow Washington's advice and get the US out of NATO, the UN, and all Globalist organizations.
If the Ruskies invade Estonia, we take back Kaliningrad. At worst, break even. Perhaps Estonians would prefer that place, like the Sami people chose Finland over the USSR after WWII. The Russians in Kalliningrad could just go back where they came from.
Then there are the little places that Russia is cozy with in this hemisphere, like Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua. Goodbye to dachas in the tropics. But mainly, it is cut off pipelines from Russia to Europe that go through Poland and Ukraine. No euros for apparatchiks.
As for Ukraine, the U.S. guaranteed the territorial integrity of that country as part of the agreement by which it gave up nuclear weapons. This is not the same high level of guarantee that we have for Estonia, but it’s not nothing either.
It won’t be nuking of U.S. cities. If Vlad wanted a very cheap way to cripple us, he could send in a couple hundred loyal, decently trained men with exceptionally clean backgrounds. Once they are on our soil (either by coming in “legally” or hopping our border) all they have to do is spread out in two-three man teams across the nation, obtain hunting rifles and got to work on many key transformers. Hell, there was report a couple months ago that basically told the world which area’s would hurt us the most and that the big ones would take years to replace. It wouldn’t be game over, but we would be in “check” for many years and our economy would fail BIG TIME. We would still have a strong military but with no real means to replace equipment should we get into a serious engagement which means we would probably just hunker down in pure defense mode. THAT is when Russia would go to work invading other nations.
First off this troll needs a history lesson: Estonia was a COUNTRY INVADED BY THE SOVIET UNION IN WWII!
After that, I've lost interest in another troll article written by a moron.
Hell, we may need to fight World War Three in order to defend the United States from itself!
How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.
However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account.
If we won’t stop the Mexican invasion of America, why should we concern ourselves with Russians in Estonia? The Mexican (others, too, but overwhelmingly Mexican) invasion will destroy America more quickly and surely than Russians parking tanks in Estonia.
Who decides at which point one has to "act"? When? There was a marvellous episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" in which the PM is asked the question "at which point do you use nuclear weapons? When the Soviets act to quell riots in West Berlin? When they walk into West Germany? When they cross the Rhine? When they approach the Channel? Or when they reach Piccadilly?"
We (the U.S.) are no longer a superpower.
I do not know my country.
5.56mm
You're asking the wrong question here. The question should be, "Should America have to fight World War Three in Order to Defend Estonia?"
The bottom line here is that we should never be in that position. As long as we exhibit strength, Russia will not dare to attack Estonia. The fact that such a possibility now exists shows that we have already lost.
'Leading from Behind' is not leadership. It is surrender to the outcome of everyone elses' leadership.
#1 they have the annual Estonian blonde parade
Should America Fight World War Three in Order to Defend Estonia? No , just threaten to and thereby prevent it altogether.
This is a question best answered after the fact, probably.
For example, should Hitler have been stopped at the Sudetenland, or Austria, or Poland?
Vanity Tag missing?
In the same way that Norway was once a province of Nazi Germany.
In logic, this is known as a false dilemma which in my opinion is a rather pathetic use of non-rational persuasion. The point you offer is that if we defend Estonia, then two dozen American cities will suffer nuclear holocaust. The conclusion is that nothing is worth defending because it will result in nuclear holocaust. To that, I offer the same response given by General Anthony McAuliffe almost half a century ago: "Nuts!"
Oh look, history is repeating.
Take a long hard look at where this will likely go, and decide whether you want to fight WWIII now or later. Not if, when.
Methinks the Obama wouldn’t even resist Russia annexing Alaska.
“Do you believe that a couple of dozen nukes falling in American cities is a price worth paying, in order to defend teeny-weeny Estonia? Or should NATO limit itself to defending high value NATO nations?”
Wrong question.
The situation is, either fight now before the enemy is fully prepared, or fight later after the enemy is fully prepared.
We’ve been taught this lesson before. We will fail to learn this lesson now too. And we will pay a much more massive butchers’ bill later too. And we will still lose that fight in the long run, because the Cult of Cowardice so thoroughly dominates our society now, the nation can not even conceive of actually fighting a war to win it.
And, any who do not fully comprehend that the current issues stem directly from our refusal to functionally deal with recent issues, has his/her head so far up their exit that they’ve suffered brain damage from oxygen deprivation.