Ukraine war: We have no Plan B if Ukraine falls, Estonian PM says
bbc.com
Estonia considers itself a front-line state, a Nato member where its border guards stare across the Narva River at the Russian fortress of Ivangorod.
This tiny Baltic state, once a part of the Soviet Union, is convinced that once the fighting stops in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin will turn his attention to the Baltics, looking to bring countries like Estonia back under Moscow’s control.
To help stave off that possibility, Estonia’s government has poured money and weapons into Ukraine’s war effort, donating more than 1% of its GDP to Kyiv.
I would think Russia's next target will be Georgia. The invasion there is only frozen for the moment, but with the pro-Russian government there it only needs some more Russian style laws like those anti-LGBTQ or foreign-agents one, plus massive protests in the young city population and Russia will "come to help the government".
Georgia and Moldova are easy non-NATO pickings. I would be very worried if I were them.
Georgia yes but Moldova uhh definitely not, unless you're referring to Transnistria specifically, and even that is in a tenuous position.
Why not Moldova? Russia has been undermining them for years.
Yes, but Moldova is having none of it. They are firmly EU-aligned and will not go over to Russia willingly. That means they are essentially untouchable barring Russia taking all of Ukraine or launching an absurdly large-scale military operation into the black sea and through Odesa. Considering their Black Sea fleet was already crippled by a country with no navy, that seems unlikely. I also doubt Romania would look the other way.
I would assume they'd use Transnistria as a proxy. The attempted coup in 2023 is a huge indication that Russia is still very interested in Moldova and will further thier hybrid efforts after they've settled when they take Ukraine. Georgia is most likely going to be a vassal state under the Georgia Dream.
Moldova doesn't have strategic value, Georgia on the other hand is a choke point for anyone trying to invade Russia through the Caucasus. And Russia will do everything in its power to control it. It really is a matter of national security.
In modern wars, the invasion isn't actually the hard part. It's the occupation that's the hard part. And Russia is having a really difficult time trying to accomplish the easy part (the invasion).
The only way Russia can go after Georgia (or anywhere else) would be if they withdrew from Ukraine immediately. Taking territory from Ukraine means more land they have to deal with a resistance campaign. Occupying any country takes a large amount of manpower, and Ukraine is a very large country and will likely be dedicated to resist a Russian occupation for at least a decade.
By most estimates, Russia simply doesn't have the manpower to successfully occupy Ukraine. Even if Russia can take all of the territory (which I doubt) they'd bogged down for at least a decade, with the most likely outcome being a withdrawal and collapse of of the Russian Federation similar to how the Soviet campaign ended in Afghanistan.
Thank you for your words, setting this in another perspective. What bothers me most with this, somewhat -please excuse my words- cold view is the pain inflicted on all involved. I do not have any deep personal ties to both of these countries, but a huge sympathy to their inhabitants. Plus, I think any death or injury, even on the Russian side, hits mostly innocent, but probably misguided persons. And all of that because of one man's aspirations. I'd rather like my and other's governments to be more involved in this conflict, and also to show some more balls in regard of weapons usage and support. Do they all really think that person's gonna push the button when totally cornered? Because that's what he is, alone in that Kremlin of his, depending on his mafia buddies.
I would think that if shit ever seriously hit the fan for them he would suddenly find a lot less allies in his cabinet than he thought.
But that is very much an uninformed armchair opinion.
I don't know why, but the way I read that made it sound like Estonia is Gondor. Which, now that I think about it, seems pretty apt. At least being a NATO member, if/when they call for aid, they should expect an answer.
It's already clear that Hungary and possibly Turkey can't be counted on to help with Russia, and if far right parties win more elections in Europe and if Trump wins in the US (both of which seem probable), it's unlikely they would actually step up against Russia considering that conservatives generally see them as an ally and not a threat. Russia may well test the limits of Art. 5 if Trump wins
That is certainly a fear I carry, yes. Unfortunately, the most I can do is vote against Trump and the US's far-right and hope for the best.
Same here in Finland, although at a national level we already lost and now have an extremist right wing government which has a bit of a neo-Nazi problem (and I'm talking literal neo-Nazis). The ongoing EU Parliament elections fill me with dread
That's really sad.
And nearby is a state known for its horseback warriors.
Considering Poland's tank fleet purchases I think you can reasonably still describe it as a state known for heavy cavalry
"When the
winged hussarsK2 tanks arrive"When your flatland country gets marched on from both east and west several times you get pretty good at cavalry.
Not to be too snide, but we do have a plan B of sorts. It's just Estonia, that's all. Sorry Estonia. Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are all right there with you.
Poland's army is getting pretty impressive too, and this time they get plenty of prep time and only one direction to worry about. Assuming they can keep influence operations from undermining their defensive posture.
Well the plan B is NATO article 5. It's a shame Ukraine wasn't in it.
For all the bluster there's no way Russia would take on NATO.
And that’s why Putin really wants Trump to win, because I’m pretty sure that shitstain would decline to respond to an Article 5 invocation, even if he hadn’t already started to withdraw from NATO at that point.
Trump would leave NATO no doubt. But from what we've seen NATO without US can easily take Russia.
That's far from a foregone conclusion. NATO without the US is roughly the same size military as Russia, but Russia is currently massively outproducing NATO without the US and has more soldiers.
And then you have the possibility that when article 5 happens that the NATO allies pussyfoot around again and worry more about their own defense than the NATO alliance defense. In such a case, Putin can go pick off country by country and use them for cannon fodder against the next.
Russia couldn't go against fucking Ukraine, one of the poorest countries in Europe. Russia couldn't do much against NATO minus US. The only problem is the baltics have no depth.
I think everyone learnt plenty from Hitler that appeasement and country and country doesn't work. That's the whole point of NATO. Your view is antithetical to the entire doctrine of NATO.
Russia couldn't go against fucking Ukraine with the help of the entire NATO (including US) stockpile backing it up.
Imagine what those early days would have looked like without MANPADs and man portable anti tank weaponry. Imagine the rest of the war without tanks and artillery systems and air defense. It wouldn't have lasted long.
The narrative that Russia just sucks is prevalent and fun, but the reality is that it only sucks when the entire West works together to counter it. Fracture that support and it's a lot more formidable. And it's learning and becoming much more battle hardened.
Ukraine held off the initial invasion all on their own until the supply started. Then it's stalemate with slow, surplus weapons. Entire stockpile? Lol no. Ukraine is getting crumbs.
I'm not having fun with this. It's just fact that Russia couldn't do much against one of the poorestcountries in Europe. Apparently full of corruption. Hard to imagine they had any decent training over large parts of their military (a Canadian sniper went over and came back because he effectively thought they had no idea what they were doing). There's simply no comparison with any proper military.
I wonder why you're on this drumbeat of yours (doesn't take much to figure it out). Ciao.
Edit: Here is a 2019 article outlining the billions in lethal aid provided to Ukraine before the 2022 invasion. My guess is that more or less all the anti tank and anti aircraft systems you saw being used in 2022 were provided by the west.
I think you are uninformed, friend. This is the equipment that was supplied to Ukraine in the first 4 months of the war. It's nice to think that they are doing this all on their own, but it's no truer now than it is when Russia talks about winning WWII. In both cases, it's only true in the context of massive donations of arms from the west.
Ukraine had tiny amount of MANPADS and man portable anti tank weapons of it's own. They used orders of magnitude more from the west than they had on their own. Yes, the West's donations could have been more, but compared to what Ukraine had on their own, it dwarfed it in most areas where it mattered like air defense and anti tank weaponry, which is what turned the tides. Don't confuse the standard media talking points about the west not doing enough with the reality that it's still orders of magnitude more than Ukraine could do on their own, even if it is just the West's old leftovers.
Granted, Russia would have had to fight against a long guerrilla war, but without support from the west, Ukraine would have been ground down over time. I mean even without the US support for just 6 months you started to see the tides turn. Momentum has a way of increasing over time given the same situation. Even for 6 months, all of NATO without the US wasn't really able to achieve parity with Russia.
I hope this changes. In 3-4 years of grinding down Russia and building up production in Europe, it could. But it's is dangerously delusional to think that NATO without the US is at all ready for this fight on their own at the present time. No serious expert in the subject that I've heard from believes this is the case. NATO's abilities rest heavily on the US who accounts for 70% of the NATO defense spending. Without it, you are dealing with a bunch of small militaries, all subject to their individual political situations, many who are being taken over by far right parties sympathetic to Russia rather than Ukraine.
I understand that you want to delude yourself there. Ukraine managed to fight off the initial Russian push, that was run like they expected to be handed over the keys to Kiev by the third day and were suprised when their columns just endlessly running on the streets got attacked all of a sudden.
But Ukraine acknowlegdes that they would have been defeated without the western equipment over the past two years. We saw how just the US delaying their aid for a while thanks to the Republicans pushed Ukraine limits hard.
Then let's hope that Trump won't be president... For him, Article 5 seems to be kind of optional...
Article 5 is only a can-do, not a must-do. Which is also why NATO partner armies are stationed in those countries. If one of those partner soldiers gets hurt, it should make NATO's decision to intervene easier.
That’s not true, the language is pretty clear:
“Article 5
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.”
It’s not an option to respond to an attack on one, it’s mandatory according to the text of the treaty.
The "as it deems necessary" is the escape hatch for those who don't want to intervene. It isn't as wishy-washy as the EU's mutual defense clause, but it certainly isn't absolute.
I don't know why someone down voted you. Given the current political environment. Trump if he wins would absolutely use that as a loop hole if the US is even still in NATO at that point.
People here will downvote the most objectively factual statements... I've stopped wondering what goes through their head.
This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.
It’s not iron clad, but nor is it voluntary as the person I responded to made it seem to be.
"such action as it deems necessary" could be no action at all.
“will assist such Party or Parties” comes right before that, though. Supporting an attacked treaty member is not optional.
And the clause which follows your quotes takes as granted that action has occurred, since it specifically states an intended result is a return to stability in North America or Europe. The action it deems necessary is predicated on the fact that it’s responding.
The way you are interpreting this quote is taken out of its context, which is not how the law works.
In any case, both of these arguments are technically valid, and it comes down to a whole lot of other factors, including political will, to enforce a response among members.
However it’s not ambiguous that an attack on a member of NATO will have a joint response, and a member neglecting to undertake such action would not have a valid legal argument for its inaction.
Edit: made a sentence real English instead of gibberish.
Well, we can also look at precedent. Article 5 was applied only once in NATO's history, despite multiple other occasions where NATO could have done so. I do think that a deliberate Russian attack on a NATO member would trigger a response, but history shows it clearly isn't mandatory.
When has there been an attack on a member state that has not resulted in support of some kind from the alliance?
You tell me, you're the one who says Article 5 is a guarantee. It has been used only once (9/11)
No? The burden is on you here to assert your point, after your first point was incorrect and you moved the goalpost.
You’re the one that says we should turn to precedent, and said there have been multiple occasions NATO could have triggered Article 5 but wasn’t. When were these other times? You made the statement, now provide evidence.
My point is that when it’s triggered, it’s not optional. And so far, that’s been the case, since it’s been triggered exactly once, and there was a universal response to it.
It’s not an option to respond, according to the words of the treaty. Any other interpretation of it would be based on politics, not the interpretation of the treaty itself. Any idea that the treaty doesn’t mandate collective action is incorrect.
If Ukraine falls, the plan B is securing the land connection between Poland and the Baltics from a potential offensive coming from Belarus, and cutting Kaliningrad from Russia-Belarus. Conversely, Russia's plan is establishing a land connection to Kaliningrad and cutting the Baltics, although now that Finland has joined NATO, it isn't that much of an useful goal for them anymore.
All in all, a direct Russia-NATO war is extremely unlikely, unless there are extreme geopolitical realignments in the EU.
The Suwałki Corridor is even less important strategically after Sweden joined NATO and forces can move through there. Its main importance right now is for reinforcing Kaliningrad, which itself is not very supportive of Mother Russia actions. So in a hypothetical invasion scenario who even knows what would happen in Kaliningrad.
It’d be great if the rest of Europe and the US acted like it instead of pussyfooting around so much
You would think they would try to kill Putin more.
I don't think they would publicize this...
I am sure a lot of people would be interested
Living next to Russia is fun.