[Goose]

https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-has...025-06-09/

I hope we are never in a position to answer the question of whether NATO would respond to a “little green men” in Estonia situation.

BC

I don't believe we would ever see "little green men" in the Baltics. That approach worked in Ukraine because there were a very large number of people in the Donbas that did actually prefer Russia. Thus the "little green men" with no insignia could credibly be locals. That isn't true in the Baltics. The real danger there is that Russia can overwhelm one or more of these countries in a few days, maybe a few hours. Collective defense would be a tough sell facing such a fiat accompli. IMO the BND is correct to question the willingness of the various NATO nations to risk everything in the defense of their neighbor, let alone their neighbor thrice removed.

During the Cold War the assumption was that Article 5 would only be invoked in response to a Russian attack upon some NATO member state. The members were certain the US would respond militarily and in force. The the various members really had little choice but to do the same in those circumstances (although France was a question mark for many years). It was also assumed that Russia would not stop with a "limited" aggression and a general war was unavoidable anyway. Today, since the US participation is far from certain, other NATO countries are performing their calculus. For many years the US preserved the peace by treating Article 5 as a sacred bond. Article 5 actually only requires that each nation will take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” That is far from a sacred bond. NATO only worked because everyone, including the US, pretended it was. The current administration has removed that pretense. Unfortunately that is a Pandora's box.
 
https://cepa.org/article/willfully-vague...91EALw_wcB
I am pretty sure today the US would send TV re-runs, not coal oil.

[Goose]

https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-has...025-06-09/

I hope we are never in a position to answer the question of whether NATO would respond to a “little green men” in Estonia situation.

BC

I don't believe we would ever see "little green men" in the Baltics. That approach worked in Ukraine because there were a very large number of people in the Donbas that did actually prefer Russia. Thus the "little green men" with no insignia could credibly be locals. That isn't true in the Baltics. The real danger there is that Russia can overwhelm one or more of these countries in a few days, maybe a few hours. Collective defense would be a tough sell facing such a fiat accompli. IMO the BND is correct to question the willingness of the various NATO nations to risk everything in the defense of their neighbor, let alone their neighbor thrice removed.

During the Cold War the assumption was that Article 5 would only be invoked in response to a Russian attack upon some NATO member state. The members were certain the US would respond militarily and in force. The the various members really had little choice but to do the same in those circumstances (although France was a question mark for many years). It was also assumed that Russia would not stop with a "limited" aggression and a general war was unavoidable anyway. Today, since the US participation is far from certain, other NATO countries are performing their calculus. For many years the US preserved the peace by treating Article 5 as a sacred bond. Article 5 actually only requires that each nation will take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” That is far from a sacred bond. NATO only worked because everyone, including the US, pretended it was. The current administration has removed that pretense. Unfortunately that is a Pandora's box.
 
https://cepa.org/article/willfully-vague...91EALw_wcB
I am pretty sure today the US would send TV re-runs, not coal oil.