If Putin moves Against Estonia...

[Giz]

It had its own government, ostensibly self-determined. This was shown to be true when they withdrew from the Warsaw pact in 1990.

Let's say it was occupied in the same way West Germany was occupied.

I'd say that the events in Hungary in the fifties and Czechoslovakia in the sixties show a bit of difference between NATO and Warsaw pact membership. Russian Occupation/domination is not a bad term for tge situation of Warsaw pact countries.

 

[Damien Evans]

You can start off with Count Kosciuszko during the American Revolution, then, Free Polish troops as allies during WW-II, and the belief that Poland was an occupied nation during the cold war.

Both also have a connection to Australia there, incidentally. Kosciuszko of course has our highest mountain named after him and the Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade fought alongside our 9th Division as Rats Of Tobruk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Independent_Carpathian_Rifle_Brigade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tobruk

 

[Ryokan]

Yes, but has there ever been a scenario which called for that charter aspect to be invoked? It's one thing to have it down on paper, it's another to actually put it into practice when real, major consequences are on the line.

Article 5 of the NATO charter, which states that an attack on one member state is an attack on all member states, was invoked on September 12th 2001.

 

[dudalb]

It had its own government, ostensibly self-determined. This was shown to be true when they withdrew from the Warsaw pact in 1990.

Let's say it was occupied in the same way West Germany was occupied.

You are joking, right?


Any comparsion between West Germany and Poland is Moral Equvilency carried to the brink of insanity.

 

[uke2se]

You are joking, right?


Any comparsion between West Germany and Poland is Moral Equvilency carried to the brink of insanity.

The only comparison I made was to their state of occupation. Opression was naturally much greater in Poland.

The word "occupation" normally refers to foreign military governance. That wasn't the case for Poland, at least once a regime was put in place. The other use of the word "occupation" that could apply is the mere precense of Soviet forces in Poland, which equally applies to West Germany and various NATO forces.

 

[Nihilianth]

Article 5 of the NATO charter, which states that an attack on one member state is an attack on all member states, was invoked on September 12th 2001.

To be fair, though, Iraq (and largely, a terrorist organization in Afghanistan,) were both easy targets. Facing down the Russian military head-on is.....not quite so "easy," and would have a far more dramatic effect on the world economy.

I have about a 50% faith in NATO doing something if Russia were to launch a military invasion on a small Eastern European Baltic country like Estonia.

The only comparison I made was to their state of occupation. Opression was naturally much greater in Poland.

The word "occupation" normally refers to foreign military governance. That wasn't the case for Poland, at least once a regime was put in place. The other use of the word "occupation" that could apply is the mere precense of Soviet forces in Poland, which equally applies to West Germany and various NATO forces.

I don;t necessarily disagree with you, which is why I never argued against your point. I was just merely asking how it wasn't an "occupation." Though, I do sort of agree with dudalb that it kind of does come off as being a false equivalency. Just not to the dramatic degree that dudalb says.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

But why Estonia?

It's in NATO, borders Russia, and some border towns in Estonia have heavy native-Russian populations.

The Russian population mostly lives in Tallinn, the capital, in the Russian speaking suburbs. Packets of things like corn flakes and sugar and printed in Estonian on one side and Russian on the other side. There is little animosity between the two groups as most tourism revenue comes from Russia coming to see Peter the Great's gardens and "cottage".

There is absolutely no advantage in Russia irritating Tallinn today, any more than irritating Helsinki during the Cold War. It's a trading and cultural exchange relationship that's mutually beneficial.

 

[rjh01]

The only comparison I made was to their state of occupation. Opression was naturally much greater in Poland.

The word "occupation" normally refers to foreign military governance. That wasn't the case for Poland, at least once a regime was put in place. The other use of the word "occupation" that could apply is the mere precense of Soviet forces in Poland, which equally applies to West Germany and various NATO forces.

One difference between NATO and Warsaw pact was that there were several rebellions against the Soviet forces by the Government which was put down by Soviet forces. Hungry in 1956 was one example. There was nothing like it by NATO.

 

[uke2se]

One difference between NATO and Warsaw pact was that there were several rebellions against the Soviet forces by the Government which was put down by Soviet forces. Hungry in 1956 was one example. There was nothing like it by NATO.

Yes, that is one of many many differences. I was never trying to make any kind of point of morality. Purely one of semantics.

 

[LorenzoValla]

NATO would have very little choice.

You'd think the lessons of WWI might have been put to use before signing these kinds of agreements...

 

[Nihilianth]

You'd think the lessons of WWI might have been put to use before signing these kinds of agreements...

But the lessons of WWII say otherwise.

 

[LorenzoValla]

But the lessons of WWII say otherwise.

That argument can be made, but I'm not sure it's convincing.

 

[jimbob]

I'd say that the events in Hungary in the fifties and Czechoslovakia in the sixties show a bit of difference between NATO and Warsaw pact membership. Russian Occupation/domination is not a bad term for tge situation of Warsaw pact countries.

And several histories of the cold war have suggested that Russia regarded Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary as potentially unreliable allies - especially Poland because of their unpopularity (ETA and Solidarity).

As an aside, my father went on an agricultural Civil Service exchange with a Czechoslovak in 1985 and said that even he could see that the Russian in Czechoslovakia were very unpopular - he said more so than the Germans. One anecdote he told was of a broken down Red Army lorry about quarter of a mile from a fully equipped collective farm workshop (practically able to build tractors from scratch) and the Russian soldiers didn't dare to ask for help there his phrase was that "they were looking as miserable as hell".

 

[timhau]

As an aside, my father went on an agricultural Civil Service exchange with a Czechoslovak in 1985 and said that even he could see that the Russian in Czechoslovakia were very unpopular - he said more so than the Germans. One anecdote he told was of a broken down Red Army lorry about quarter of a mile from a fully equipped collective farm workshop (practically able to build tractors from scratch) and the Russian soldiers didn't dare to ask for help there his phrase was that "they were looking as miserable as hell".

Heard from a Polish guy: A Polish soldier is in a foxhole with his rifle. From the West, a German soldier is approaching, from the East, a Russian one. He has one bullet left; whom does he shoot?

Answer: The German. Business before pleasure.

As far as I know, the Russians were enormously unpopular in all of the former Warsaw Pact countries -- except Bulgaria. I have no idea why.

 

[Nihilianth]

That argument can be made, but I'm not sure it's convincing.

So there needs to be a reasonable balance between hardline alliances (al la: WWI,) and alliances strong enough to be able to seriously oppose a potential aggressive nation (or other alliance; al la: WWII.) Combined with effective communication between the two opposing forces (al la: Cold War).

I think that NATO has done that quite effectively.

 

[LorenzoValla]

So there needs to be a reasonable balance between hardline alliances (al la: WWI,) and alliances strong enough to be able to seriously oppose a potential aggressive nation (or other alliance; al la: WWII.) Combined with effective communication between the two opposing forces (al la: Cold War).

I think that NATO has done that quite effectively.

Perhaps, but we don't know what Putin will do next. If the Russian economy continues to suffer, I can see him successfully chipping away at the low picking fruit with not much more than angry finger pointing coming from the international community.

 

[Nihilianth]

Perhaps, but we don't know what Putin will do next. If the Russian economy continues to suffer, I can see him successfully chipping away at the low picking fruit with not much more than angry finger pointing coming from the international community.

Then we may suffer the consequences of not learning from the lessons of WWII. Not WWI.

But I seriously doubt that the west (meaning, other NATO members, particularly the US and Germany) would just sit back and point angry fingers at Russia. I do not expect major, open warfare to occur. I think it more likely that minor skirmishes, and threatening meetings between opposing airforce pilots and naval vessels would be the order of the day. And of course, various economic sanctions in increasing severity up to full-on embargoes.

 

[LorenzoValla]

Then we may suffer the consequences of not learning from the lessons of WWII. Not WWI.

That would require Putin to have grand imperialist ambitions akin to Hitler's. I haven't seen any evidence of that, so the comparison to WWII doesn't hold up.

But I seriously doubt that the west (meaning, other NATO members, particularly the US and Germany) would just sit back and point angry fingers at Russia. I do not expect major, open warfare to occur. I think it more likely that minor skirmishes, and threatening meetings between opposing airforce pilots and naval vessels would be the order of the day. And of course, various economic sanctions in increasing severity up to full-on embargoes.

Wars are usually started when one side doesn't act the way the other side predicts. The Cold War never turned into a hot war b/c both sides were predictable.

Now, if you want to make a WWII analogy, you can argue that a crippled Russian economy allows Putin to whip up nationalist fervor and claim Russia is a victim at the hands of Europe. But, I don't think he could pull it off to gain enough support to go full tyrant. He would be risking a civil war, and NATO would only be too happy to support that. A maxim of fighting a European war is don't invade Russia, so the last thing Putin needs is to fight his own nation.

But, then again, Putin might believe he's invincible...

 

[Tony Stark]

Obama has already stated that the USA would live up to its obligations and defend its NATO allies from Russia. This may have been a bluff but Putin would have to be absolutely insane to test it. Putin doesn't strike me as insane.

 

[Nihilianth]

That would require Putin to have grand imperialist ambitions akin to Hitler's. I haven't seen any evidence of that, so the comparison to WWII doesn't hold up.

Wars are usually started when one side doesn't act the way the other side predicts. The Cold War never turned into a hot war b/c both sides were predictable.

Now, if you want to make a WWII analogy, you can argue that a crippled Russian economy allows Putin to whip up nationalist fervor and claim Russia is a victim at the hands of Europe. But, I don't think he could pull it off to gain enough support to go full tyrant. He would be risking a civil war, and NATO would only be too happy to support that. A maxim of fighting a European war is don't invade Russia, so the last thing Putin needs is to fight his own nation.

But, then again, Putin might believe he's invincible...

Touche.