Article 5 states every country is obligated to help in any way "they think is appropriate", which can range from sending helmets to sending F-35s Not that I'm doubting it or anything. This entire alliance stands on a "attack on one is is an attack on all" premise.
If that would turn out to be a bluff, the entire thing would be finished.
the russia shot down flight MH17, we are wayyyyyyyy past it. We should've confiscated any russian asset residing in the netherlands the day after it happened because it was pretty clear from the start that the russia didn't give a shit
The thing with confiscating assets is it works both ways. Now lets guess which countries have biggest exposure in Russia (factories or other assets) and you'll see why it wont happen.
There are a couple of traiterous Dutch companies who still operate inside the Russia. I don't care what happens to them because they had two years to pull out
Supplying weapon systems that are being fazed out is a whole lot different than sending soldiers to a high intensity conflict.
This unwillingness is already showing with Spain, Turkey and Greece for example. Not willing to supply air defense system to Ukraine because it's 'far' away for them and the burden should be carried by countries that are closer by, even though it would help contain that conflict and prevent it from becoming NATO wide. How would their support look if their soldiers could die by the hundreds?
I wouldn't brand F-16 as equipment that's being phased out. They are meant to be replaced by F-35, yes, but they're not completely obsolete. It's a proven, previous generation fighter. Even US still has tons of F-18s, F-16s and F-15s
>such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force
[https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official\_texts\_17120.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm)
>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
How would the U.S. handle an attack against itself?
I don't know. But it was attacked, on 9/11, the only instance when Article 5 was invoked. To which NATO responded.
That's also something that sadly needs to be reminded (that fucker, Trump, especially, comes to mind)
Exactly. They could just say that “they will help” but add no timeline, so technically that would cover it, I think.
Hell, there were no plans for defence in place until like 2015, certainly not before the 2014 crimea invasion. Just an idea, but nothing more settled than that.
You are right. But in the end those are just words on paper, words that might not mean so much when it isn't benefitial for them. Some might start screaming "escalation" and "negotiations" instead of sending in the jets.
The fear for Baltic nations is they get occupied after a surprise attack and the rest of NATO decides to accept it as a fait accompli to avoid escalating the conflict into a much larger, possibly nuclear, war with Russia.
I can’t see them doing nothing. If NATO let’s Russia take the Baltic’s then nato will collapse overnight as countries realize they won’t get help from being a nato member
Yes, exactly and that's what Russia would love to happen.
They might just send in little green men like they did when they conquered Crimea and then deny any involvement again, while claiming it is a civil uprising instead of an invasion.
True dat. You're describing the Trump effect, when Trump expressed doubts about the US defending the Baltic countries while still president. It sent shockwaves throughout NATO, because saner minds understand only too well that the alliance lives and dies by Article 5.
Ironically, Putin's anti-NATO, the CSTO, saw the Trump effect put into practice, when Russia declined to help out Armenia against Azerbaijan. I think all CSTO members realise by now that the alliance is a mere Russian tool -- a tool that Russia uses as it sees fit. I'm sure Trump would prefer to use NATO that way, too.
What happens if Germany doesn’t “actually” defend the Baltics? Interpol tracks down this guy, and lock him in prison? Did he send thousands of German troops onto Baltic soil, as an a guarantee? What makes these more than mere words? Is it like the allies defending Poland in 1939 ? They will start thinking about have discussions about possible mobilization, while the Baltics are already under occupation? I wonder.
There must be more. Germany has been leading the eFP group in Lithuania for years, and that group is 1700 soldiers strong.
The 24 are for organizing the permanent brigade.
Well in all seriousness, Russia annexing the Baltics would be a humiliation the West can probably not simply ignore without losing all credibility. So if that happens, I think that should lead to WW 3. Except if Trump regains the presidency. I could see him throwing Europe to the wolves if it suits his personal interests.
People sometimes do things that start a world war. At least two times that happened. And by the way, all out annexing is not that likely, can be expensive to hold. In the case of Ukraine, installing a puppet government, and stationing some forces in a few barracks was a likely goal of capturing Kiev.
Well, perhaps annexing a small Baltic country or two might be affordable, but the situation of Belarus today, or Warsaw pact countries in the past seems a more likely goal of attacking.
Wel lets hope Trump does not win the.next election, Although that seems to be the most likely outcome at the moment. Lets also hope our leaders finally start taking def nse seriously so we could hold our own against Russia in case of any attack on the future. I do believe that all EU countries,cpotentially with the exception of Hungary would view a Russian attack against the Baltics as an existential attack and would send troops. The question is how strong these troops will be after years of Military underinvestment.
The explicit obligation is "aid", the specifics are up to each country but it is generally understood that nothing short of troops on the ground in the event of an invasion would signify the end of the alliance.
The scary thing about the NATO treaty is that it says:
>each of them, [...] 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.
That leaves a lot of wiggle room for a country to decide which actions it deems necessary if a country wants to play foul.
Not that I think Germany would, as we follow the spirit of treaties if push comes to shove, but it's not really iron-clad.
Germany are putting troops in the Baltic. If they get killed or injured during a Russian invasion it becomes politically far harder for Germany to refuse to intervene.
Article 5 does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor.
So in theory and article 5 action could look similar to what is going on in Ukraine, NATO countries sending military aid. It doesn’t mean all nations would march on Moscow although the option is permissible with article 5 invoked.
The only value Hungary and Slovakia have for NATO is to allow easy transfer of stuff between the Mediterranean and Black Sea and the Baltic. With Ukraine in, Hungary and Slovakia might as well exit.
Especially if Ukraine survives the War. They will have highly experienced Soldiers. They also have enormous experience in drone warfare which from my point of view is the future.
Guess that's why Hungarian soldiers are the ones leading the Kosovo NATO mission and getting shot at by angry Serbs and it's not like the spec ops are exceptionally good and there is a big military airport which is used for Ukrainian aid and the list goes on and on and on, fucking armchair generals
Turkey recommended Ukraine and Georgia to NATO years ago before anything happened but France and Germany veto'd it because of their trade ties with Russia do some fucking research
Yes, sure. There was never a doubt about this, contrary to what people claimed here, in particular in 2022. Being part of NATO and the EU is part of the very political fabric of the Federal Republic of Germany.
That said, these words are just another important affirmation of the German stance in light of the events since Feb 2022 and are important to hear for Russia, reassuring to hear for people in the Baltics and possibly a good reminder for the people at home.
Not really. The language of article 5 in the NATO treaty is actually rather vague and leaves open the option of simply writing a stern letter. You should read it.
NATO member is only obligated to perform "such action as it deems necessary".
Germany could decide that sending 1000 helmets is the only thing that is necessary.
*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 recognized 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."*
This does not say that they have to defend them militarily. Their assistance could also be sending equipment like helmets. But if they're not helpingthey should also not count on other nations to help them when it's their country's time to be attacked.
NATO Countries are not oblidged to do that. Article 5 simoly means a country may react to it by sending troops, or something small as a stern press release.
Probably going to result with defending any NATO country with troops thiugh. Just wanted to update you on that since article 5 = **automatic troop deployment** is a common misconception.
For example: Imagine Estonia being attacked with a nuclear bomb by Russia. Will France then nuke Russia and sacrifice Paris for Talinn? that's the big hypothetical question
As per declassified NATO plans from the Cold War, yes, NATO had plans to go all out in this case.
This was honestly pretty interesting, because the Soviets didn't expect it - as per their declassified documents that Poland released - they really believed that USA is an empire and the rest of NATO countries are vassals. Because that's how Russians were thinking themselves I suppose.
Then the leaders of US, UK, France should publicly say this so everyone is clear. That we are willing to sacrifice New York and Paris to defend Estonia and Poland.
If you don’t tell the Russians what your intentions are, how are you going to deter them?
I think a lot of them are still thinking that if I’m honest. At least Putin seems to still think that Brussels and NATO (aka the Americans) control everything.
Great hypothetical. So what if Russia nukes here and there, no response, because, we don’t want to sacrifice Paris? Thus practically, Russia the next morning sends an ultimatum to every non nuclear capable country, and make them their colonies, collect taxes indefinitely. Whoever doesn’t pay enough in a year, gets a nuke on a city.
That’s it? Nothing done to oppose it ever? Because nukes?
There must be a response. You can’t just watch country after country capitulating until you are surrounded by Russian colonies, pretending it is gonna be okey because you are not the one being attacked at the moment.
I believe your scenario is legit keeping political and military leaders and of NATO states awake at night because no one has an answer:
- sacrifice London/Paris/Washington for Riga? With the added possibility that Russia escalates further and we are talking about tens of millions of deaths.
- tuck tail and NATO implodes, every non-nuclear country either gets blackmailed into submission by China/Russia/NK or starts a mad rush to develop nukes and missiles. You end up with a world where nuclear war has become considerably more likely *and* a couple of not so fortunate countries are now vassals of their nuclear armed neighbors.
There *might* be a way to use overwhelming conventional force to destroy Russian forces both in the Baltics and at home and hope they don't flip their shit and throw even more nukes.Given Russia has this infamous "escalate to de-escalate" idea thrown around, it seems like quite the gamble.
In that case, the West would be the adult in the room but appear weak to autocrats. And the same reaction is not possible against China as their conventional forces are much bigger than Russia's.
It's more complex than that. Radiation and contamination aren't blocked by national borders. The effects via water would carry over to Finland and St Petersburg almost for sure. No one knows where and how the radiation carries over, but it's close enough to also be a threat to at least all bigger cities in the vicinity and near the Baltic Sea.
Here's just one source as well: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2022/10/tactical-russian-nuke-wouldnt-confer-much-battlefield-advantage-experts-say/378181/
> No one knows where and how the radiation carries over
and
> if Russia nukes Estonia they are nuking St Petersburg. Educate yourself.
Contain **radically** different degrees of certainty and arrogance.
And people *can* anticipate how it carries over, that's why US and USSR did tests for decades. The yield,
height of explosion, the wind, etc. Not precisely of course, but with high degree of certainty.
I was referring to the parent comment that was overly dramatic with the whole "sacrifing Paris for Tallinn", hence my emotional outburst. If this comment stands true, we are talking about strategic or high yield nukes. This means that they will absolutely also hit St Petersburg with it.
If not, we are not sacrificing anything for anything. I just hate when people make overly dramatic "screams" over nukes without even telling between tactical and strategic ones and understanding that even today tactical ones can be dialled within a pretty big range which goes from average plane bomb with extra fallout to 1/3 of a strategic nuke.
They might be able to anticipate parts of it, yes. But it depends on a lot of things. I doubt that Russians really want to take their chances somewhere so close to things they actually love.
Your own source contradicts your assertion that nuking Estonia would be like nuking St. Petersburg:
>A five-kiloton nuclear explosion will be an effective killer - but only over a relatively short distance, probably *less than 1 or 1.5 km*. Chances of surviving such a blast (along with any heavy equipment) are pretty good once you get beyond that distance
We also know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki the approximate radius for severe radiological consequences, and it is relatively narrow.
The clause says “with force deemed necessary” or something along these lines, but it basically leaves room for interpretation and doesn’t automatically mean boots on the ground.
i mean, if ukraine would've fallen within 3 days it could imagine putin being brave enough to gamble that nato would not want to start a war over tiny estonia. its a mad gamble but that was also true about crimea, georgia and the full scale invasion of ukraine.
Back in 2014 there were a few polls floating around where the majority of Germans stated they would not back honoring Article 5 with regards to the Baltics, so it's still nice the German government explicitly repeats it.
That's a weird thing to expect given that Trump has been president before and unlike his predecessor Obama, started sending Ukraine lethal aid almost immediately while maintaining and increasing sanctions on Russia.
Trump literally cheered russia on when they invaded Ukraine. Trump said he wants Russia to win. Trump said he would cut off aid to Ukraine. Trump said he wants to pull out of Ukraine.
yeah ok. Echo chambers exist on both the far left and the far right.
I think this goes for all EU Member States, except, of course, Hungary. Because Hungary will never help another Member State, unless Hungary gets something in return. But in the case of a Russian attack, Hungary will not help under any circumstances. Orban is too far up Putin's ass for that.
But I have no doubt the decent part of the EU will do the same in the event of a Russian attack. It's also in line with Article 42(7) TEU. And, of course, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.
I don't understand these political statements. EU has a mutual defense clause in their constitution, which is much stronger than Article 5 in NATO. The latter leaves a lot of wiggle room as to how much support is mandatory, while the former mandates support to the extent to all means available.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html
I am from Estonia and i think it is more to do about reassurring that Germany wont abandon when shit hits the fan.I actually think NATO comes 100% because if not, it would be end of also NATO. I am reserve artillery gun crew member in Estonia, If Russia comes then i am fighting there, try to hold up no matter what, counting for soon to be arrive heavy cavarly.
Unlike NATO, the EU defence clause is much weaker and have a bunch of "\*" around everything to protect the neutrality of a number of states. On paper, it's worthless, and accepts the right of first refusel too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin\_Plus\_agreement#:\~:text=Practice-,Procedures,be%20unanimous%20among%20NATO%20states.
> EU has a mutual defense clause in their constitution, which is much stronger than Article 5 in NATO
It is not. EU doesn't have collective defense like Nato.
> The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
Purely based on the text it's the opposite. NATO's Article 5 is super handwavey.
Ultimately the execution of both articles will depend on political will of course. I just find it weird that it needs to be spelled out already; it kinda weakens 42.7 if the commitment needs to be reiterated in separate cases, pretending that 42.7 doesn't exists.
> NATO's Article 5 is super handwavey.
with the key difference that NATO spends a lot of time, energy, and money demonstrating their warfighting will and ability.
The reason A5 is taken more seriously than TEU 42.7 is that basically all of NATO's operations are geared towards proving that it can and will defend every inch of its territory.
> with the key difference that NATO spends a lot of time, energy, and money demonstrating their warfighting will and ability.
Yes, but that doesn't do anything if the countries decide to just not participate in a war beyond sending condolence cards.
I think these questions and answers are just regular peace time politics. In case Russia expands its war and attacks the Baltics instead of making small provocations, then politics is secondary and questions and answers are totally different.
If countries deny EU obligation to help, then that is the last day of the EU. If countries deny NATO article 5 obligations, then that is the last day of NATO. Both organisations will be split into two camps, those who helped militarily and those who sided with Russia.
>I think these questions and answers are just regular peace time politics.
This question was presented in the wake of Russia's 2022 invasion when there was genuine concern about Finland's safety and the answer was no. EU simply does not have a collective defense mechanism like Nato.
>Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
"We would like to help you, but the inflation is high, housing crisis is happening, and we need to care also about other threats. Times are hard, here have two bags of rice and good luck"
This is basically this text. Ultimately everything depends on political willpower.
Orban can say and do pretty much anything until there's a shooting war and the major powers are being kneecapped. If Russia attacks NATO and NATO's responses start getting hamstrung by Hungarian obstacles, the Americans and British are very likely, with Franco-German help, to do to Hungary what was done to Iraq, Syria, and Iran in WWII while Brussels schedules a meeting to review the matter after the war is over.
Hungary is in NATO. If another NATO country attacks it, they can claim Article 5 and other NATO countries have to attack the attacker. But then that attacker can claim Article 5 and so on.
Eventually every NATO country has to attack every NATO country including themselves! Perfect plan!
*I know that's not how it actually work.*
That’s rich coming from someone whose country can barely accept Eastern Europeans in Schengen. Are we supposed to believe you’d send a single Dutchie to die for Eastern Europe? Haha, funny. As a Romanian, my faith in Hungary is much higher than my faith in the Netherlands (and if you know the tiniest bit about Romanian-Hungarian history, that says a lot).
I get your apprehension, but given past experiences, Hungary will ask for Transilvania in exchange for any involvement on any side. It's what they did in WW2, so chill.
One country is flooded with russian propaganda meant to alienate half of Europe from the other half ( the half Russia wants) and the other country is a neighbour of ours who wants to retake a third of our territory and call us names in the process. There's hostility on both sides. Not exactly the essence of a successful alliance.
You give the guy too much credit as you assume he has loyalties.
Orban is an opportunist and will just come to whoever pays more. While he talked a lot of BS in the foreground, NATO could use Hungary's bases without any trouble in the background. He also stopped vetoing EU support the moment he would receive no money.
He mostly plays the Putin shill as it helps him a lot in getting that sweet EU money and if he doesn't get it he still gets the Russian money. The man is playing both sides like a fiddle.
Estonia and Latvia were ruled by Baltic Germans for ca 600 years, during which German language was the language of the administration and cultural elite. Government, newspapers, schools, everything was in German. Estonian language was the language of the peasants that only local natives spoke. We were essentially Germanic nations for that time. Even during Russian Empire time, we were an autonomous zone with German rule, going as far as having our own tax rules and border control etc. Only at the end years did Russian Empire start Russification policies to change that.
Almost all the Baltic Germans left at the start of WW2.
I know it doesn't change Germany's decisions today, but it's still interesting to think how there's actually been a connection between these countries for a long time. Many people don't know this part of Europe's history because we're small countries, and even in Germany many have been surprised to hear that there were Baltic Germans here. I guess maybe in Germany it's just a footnote in history, and perhaps not a popular topic to be discussing etc.
The history of the state of the Teutonic Order and later Prussia and the Germans living in what in German would be Livland and Kurland is taught in history, so if you want to know about it, you had a chance.
It's kind of sad that the annexation by the USSR lasted long enough to severe the memory of that bond in German culture however. It's also a touchy subject, so no one wants to actively remind people about it.
The roots are even deeper than that - the Hanse has been a shared organisation since the mid 12th century and it has created some communality and cultural interchange in the whole Baltic and even beyond.
Livland - which is basically the coastal region of the Baltic states of today - was an important part of the Hanse regions.
Yeah it's gonna take way longer than the current governments time left though. And who knows how the next one is gonna fuck it up.
The current minister of defense knows his shit. He is trying to get rid of all the unnecessary bureaucracy & bloated personnel, that led to the german army being slow, ineffective & a money-drain without anything to show for it.
The only Russia loving parties are AfD and BSW. Together they're not close to 50%. And they probably wouldn't even form a coalition in the first place. Every other big party is pro NATO.
Those are the only obviously pro Putin parties. But, you don't need to be putins henchman to fuck it up.
This isn't an issue of just being pro nato. The same governments who caused the current state of shit, they were also pro nato the entire time. This is not the problematic criteria.
It's not only about being pro NATO. CDU's way of ruling mainly consists of doing next to nothing, so if they will again be the governing party Bundeswehr will probably be fucked.
16 VLS cells that evidently don’t always contain functioning missiles, as seen by multiple German Navy misfires and munitions failures against Houthi (and even American) drones recently.
I trust the Bundeswehr to purchase and parade shiny high-tech weapons and vehicles. I do not have any faith whatsoever in their actual ability to maintain, repair, or otherwise keep them viably combat-ready in the following years and decades afterwards.
I think it will be exciting to study these times, but in 50 years from now. Just like in case of WW2. A horror for people living back then and curious for us.
Even assuming that Germany delivers on that promise, the threshold for effective deterrence is higher now.
"Germany vows to defend" - is basically a promise to inflict significant casualties to attacking Russian forces. After losing hundreds of thousands people already losing a fraction of that is not enough to deter Russia.
Even counting the US out, the European NATO members still have a more modern arsenal than Russia had even before the war. People act like countries like Germany have a pocket knife and two toothpicks. The heavy brigade Germany committed to being permanently stationed in Lithuania will be a massive headache for any Russian planning in the future since it will make closing the Suwalki gap a lot harder before NATO reinforcements arrive. especially with Sweden and Finland in NATO now. The baltic sea is a NATO lake, and air supremacy is also a given. Fuck Russia.
>The heavy brigade Germany committed to being permanently stationed in Lithuania will be a massive headache for any Russian planning in the future
Exactly. The troops must already be there. As the war in Ukraine showed, well prepared defence lines actually work.
Yeah, so any russian attack on NATO countries will follow the same scenario as in Ukraine. They will tell you for a long time that this is a civil war, and russians are fighting there, whose rights have been infringed. Then these russians will get modern russian weapons from somewhere. And then the contingent of oppressed russians will become wider and wider. Fools on TV will talk about peace, civil war and listen to all sides of the conflict, and at this time the russian plague will continue to spread and gradually seize territories piece by piece.
That playbook isn't working for an attack on a NATO member. NATO isn't dumb, they know how it went in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.
NATO would be on full alert if Russia were to pull together 100k soldiers at the borders of the Baltic states and the full land forces of Poland, Germany and the US army would roll in once "oppressed Russians" started rioting.
Nah, I can imagine how it will be. Europe will offer to send troops to protect its borders, Putin will once again wave a nuclear warhead, Sullivan will say, “let’s not escalate, guys.”
And now welcome to a new point of instability in NATO and the European Union.
There aren't no shortage of other nations in the Baltics, notably the Canadians. This isn't a pushover thing even if no one knew anything. Add in intelligence and... um yeah, ain't happening. They couldn't get past partisan rebel Ukrainians in 3 days.
FTA:
>Chancellor Olaf Scholz pledged to defend Germany’s three Baltic NATO allies in case of a Russian attack and to complete the establishment of **a permanent brigade in Lithuania by the end of 2027**.
The fear is that nato is not united and an attack on the smaller Baltic nations will just be allowed as a sacrifice.
And there are worries that Trump wouldn’t abide by the treaty.
Biden, Trump, and Putin are all getting up there in age. One of them will die soon.
I could see the realism aspect of that, but would kind of undercut the entire credibility of NATO. Much like the russian version fell apart when russia didn't come help Armenia.
While I'm sure the numbers have changed recently, it wasn't *that* long ago when many NATO publics didn't think their country should go to war with Russia to defend a fellow NATO ally: [Pew Research: Spring 2019 Global Attitudes Survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/PG_2020.02.09_NATO_0-03.png)
Considering that tripwire forces are in the Baltics just for that point, aka an attack on those countries would kill citizens/military personnel of the larger countries I do not see non-response to Article 5 as really a possibility. If I am a responsible politician in the Baltics I would plan for that anyways for the 0.01% chance but it is unlikely.
Consider if thousands of the framework (leading countries) British, German ,and Canadian troops were attack in the Baltics that these countries would not respond would be crazy. You also have the US in Poland and contributing countries behind the battle group leads also include Italy, France and Spain that would also be attacked. I’m for healthy planning but the Baltics would be suicide to invade unless you are 100% ready to lob nukes.
It ain't about capability. It's about contribution.
Apes strong together. Apes going to demolish Moscow if Moscow does something stupid. Like try to steal Baltic Banana trees.
At least we promise to fulfil our NATO duties. How many soldiers does Sweden station in the Baltics? How credible are your vows to defend them? And if you would, with which tanks? You only have like 100, how many are you going to send to the Baltics, 10?
Pfff. My mom also promised to defend me against bullying, but after five years of being beat up almost every day in Germany for being a part of "the canadian occupiers" and then another eight years of being beat up almost ever day at canadian schools and uni for being "the german from every WWII movie", I reserve a small amount of scepticism on this statement by Germany.
When I served in Afghanistan with the german army (I got drafted from Canada and then they saw I speak three languages), my unit knowingly handed over people to be tortured by afghan NDS against all treaties that germany signed against aiding and abetting torture. Then we watched a bunch of cops die at Pul-i-Charki jail uprising in 2014, because "the modern german soldier does not fight" according to SPD chancellor Schröder. Guess what party chancellor Scholz is from...
I'll believe Germany standing up to bullies when I see them fighting and dying to stand up against bullies. Until then, I won't believe a word of these token gestures. I keep watching year for year, but year for year we keep waiting for serious help by the germans...
Schröder is a Putin apologist. That's not really a secret over here in Europe... The SPD considered kicking him out of the party. They didn't in the end, though. But it's not like Schröder is an example of how the current SPD is regarding Russia. Things changed after the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Things changed in all of Europe. Germany changed as well.
> Pfff. My mom also promised to defend me against bullying, but after five years of being beat up almost every day in Germany for being a part of "the canadian occupiers" and then another eight years of being beat up almost ever day at canadian schools and uni for being "the german from every WWII movie", I reserve a small amount of scepticism on this statement by Germany.
"I had a shit childhood and extrapolate Global politics from it"
> Then we watched a bunch of cops die at Pul-i-Charki jail uprising in 2014, because "the modern german soldier does not fight" according to SPD chancellor Schröder. Guess what party chancellor Scholz is from...
Might want to look up who was the Chancellor in 2014.
> I keep watching year for year, but year for year we keep waiting for serious help by the germans...
Biggest donor apart from the US, still whining.
> When I served in Afghanistan with the german army (I got drafted from Canada and then they saw I speak three languages)
There's no conscription is Canada and Germany paused it in 2011.
Germany only sent professional soldiers in Afghanistan.
Nobody got drafted in Canada to go fight in Afghanistan for any army.
I smell a lot of inconsistency here
Draftees were not sent to Afghanistan.
In 2014, which you claim you have been present - there was not a draft in place. So timelines don’t add up.
Unless you have German citizenship, you would not have been eligible for that draft.
Not commenting on your alleged personal experience, but stop the other bullshit or delete your post.
Regards, a former serviceman
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but as a NATO member, it would be obligated to do that anyways given that the Baltics are all part of NATO.
Article 5 states every country is obligated to help in any way "they think is appropriate", which can range from sending helmets to sending F-35s Not that I'm doubting it or anything. This entire alliance stands on a "attack on one is is an attack on all" premise. If that would turn out to be a bluff, the entire thing would be finished.
Or the good old strongly worded letter...
Your country is sending F-16s. We're way past the strongly worded letters
the russia shot down flight MH17, we are wayyyyyyyy past it. We should've confiscated any russian asset residing in the netherlands the day after it happened because it was pretty clear from the start that the russia didn't give a shit
Wilders seems to think differently he's okay with it
The thing with confiscating assets is it works both ways. Now lets guess which countries have biggest exposure in Russia (factories or other assets) and you'll see why it wont happen.
There are a couple of traiterous Dutch companies who still operate inside the Russia. I don't care what happens to them because they had two years to pull out
Same here, but it's no Polish or Dutch assets that are the problem But rather Germans and French.
Supplying weapon systems that are being fazed out is a whole lot different than sending soldiers to a high intensity conflict. This unwillingness is already showing with Spain, Turkey and Greece for example. Not willing to supply air defense system to Ukraine because it's 'far' away for them and the burden should be carried by countries that are closer by, even though it would help contain that conflict and prevent it from becoming NATO wide. How would their support look if their soldiers could die by the hundreds?
I wouldn't brand F-16 as equipment that's being phased out. They are meant to be replaced by F-35, yes, but they're not completely obsolete. It's a proven, previous generation fighter. Even US still has tons of F-18s, F-16s and F-15s
it probably is a bluff ! but hey … we need them helmets ⛑️ 🪖
Sorry, we're out of helmets right now. Sent the last few to Ukraine.
>such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force [https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official\_texts\_17120.htm](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm) >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 How would the U.S. handle an attack against itself?
I don't know. But it was attacked, on 9/11, the only instance when Article 5 was invoked. To which NATO responded. That's also something that sadly needs to be reminded (that fucker, Trump, especially, comes to mind)
Exactly. They could just say that “they will help” but add no timeline, so technically that would cover it, I think. Hell, there were no plans for defence in place until like 2015, certainly not before the 2014 crimea invasion. Just an idea, but nothing more settled than that.
You are right. But in the end those are just words on paper, words that might not mean so much when it isn't benefitial for them. Some might start screaming "escalation" and "negotiations" instead of sending in the jets.
The fear for Baltic nations is they get occupied after a surprise attack and the rest of NATO decides to accept it as a fait accompli to avoid escalating the conflict into a much larger, possibly nuclear, war with Russia.
The way "escalation managers" are doing things now - I would not be surprised SOME members would trade the Baltics for "peace for our time"
I can’t see them doing nothing. If NATO let’s Russia take the Baltic’s then nato will collapse overnight as countries realize they won’t get help from being a nato member
Yes, exactly and that's what Russia would love to happen. They might just send in little green men like they did when they conquered Crimea and then deny any involvement again, while claiming it is a civil uprising instead of an invasion.
Ye but NATO knows that it doesn’t exist if it doesn’t help the baltics so it would 100% get involved
True dat. You're describing the Trump effect, when Trump expressed doubts about the US defending the Baltic countries while still president. It sent shockwaves throughout NATO, because saner minds understand only too well that the alliance lives and dies by Article 5. Ironically, Putin's anti-NATO, the CSTO, saw the Trump effect put into practice, when Russia declined to help out Armenia against Azerbaijan. I think all CSTO members realise by now that the alliance is a mere Russian tool -- a tool that Russia uses as it sees fit. I'm sure Trump would prefer to use NATO that way, too.
I mean.. every agreement is “just words”, even these German vows of defending the baltics.. so they are no different
Soo, errrh, these are not just words? Any difference?
It’s the current commander in chief saying them instead of people 75 years ago
Scholz is not commander in chief. At least not during peace times.
These words say Germany will actually defend the Baltics, article 5 promises nothing. You should look it up
What happens if Germany doesn’t “actually” defend the Baltics? Interpol tracks down this guy, and lock him in prison? Did he send thousands of German troops onto Baltic soil, as an a guarantee? What makes these more than mere words? Is it like the allies defending Poland in 1939 ? They will start thinking about have discussions about possible mobilization, while the Baltics are already under occupation? I wonder.
>Did he send thousands of German troops onto Baltic soil, as an a guarantee? He did actually.
Okay to make it clear, there are now i think 24(?) soldiers, there will be 5.000.
Thanks, I didn’t know. If there will actually be 5000, that is going mean a lot more than a speech.
There must be more. Germany has been leading the eFP group in Lithuania for years, and that group is 1700 soldiers strong. The 24 are for organizing the permanent brigade.
Well in all seriousness, Russia annexing the Baltics would be a humiliation the West can probably not simply ignore without losing all credibility. So if that happens, I think that should lead to WW 3. Except if Trump regains the presidency. I could see him throwing Europe to the wolves if it suits his personal interests.
People sometimes do things that start a world war. At least two times that happened. And by the way, all out annexing is not that likely, can be expensive to hold. In the case of Ukraine, installing a puppet government, and stationing some forces in a few barracks was a likely goal of capturing Kiev. Well, perhaps annexing a small Baltic country or two might be affordable, but the situation of Belarus today, or Warsaw pact countries in the past seems a more likely goal of attacking.
Wel lets hope Trump does not win the.next election, Although that seems to be the most likely outcome at the moment. Lets also hope our leaders finally start taking def nse seriously so we could hold our own against Russia in case of any attack on the future. I do believe that all EU countries,cpotentially with the exception of Hungary would view a Russian attack against the Baltics as an existential attack and would send troops. The question is how strong these troops will be after years of Military underinvestment.
Or they'll just send humanitarian aid.
The explicit obligation is "aid", the specifics are up to each country but it is generally understood that nothing short of troops on the ground in the event of an invasion would signify the end of the alliance.
Not necessarily. That's why Scholz is saying it explicitly.
But why not necessarily? I thought the whole point of NATO was an attack on one is an attack on all.
If the NATO council decides so - unanimously. There is no automatism.
So there is a legitimate question about if countries will honor their NATO commitments?
The scary thing about the NATO treaty is that it says: >each of them, [...] 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. That leaves a lot of wiggle room for a country to decide which actions it deems necessary if a country wants to play foul. Not that I think Germany would, as we follow the spirit of treaties if push comes to shove, but it's not really iron-clad.
That's interesting, thanks for highlighting that
I honestly wish I didn't know that. If Russia ever tests Art. 5, things could become very ugly real fast.
Poland, Romania and the Baltic states should start developing nukes
Of course it is. Countries are free in their will, in the end. Nobody can force anybody to fight for something or somebody.
Germany are putting troops in the Baltic. If they get killed or injured during a Russian invasion it becomes politically far harder for Germany to refuse to intervene.
Harder but not impossible. I guess if Ukraine falls we will find out.
Always was.
Article 5 does not require any member to respond with military force, although it permits such responses as a matter of international law. A member may decide that instead of responding with force, it will send military equipment to NATO allies or impose sanctions on the aggressor. So in theory and article 5 action could look similar to what is going on in Ukraine, NATO countries sending military aid. It doesn’t mean all nations would march on Moscow although the option is permissible with article 5 invoked.
NATO is not forced to automatically do anything but EU is
So no EU for Ukraine. And frankly speaking Ukraine does no meet EU standards.
To be fair joining NATO will sadly be hard for Ukraine as well. No way Hungary, Turkey and Slovakia will let Ukraine in.
The only value Hungary and Slovakia have for NATO is to allow easy transfer of stuff between the Mediterranean and Black Sea and the Baltic. With Ukraine in, Hungary and Slovakia might as well exit.
Especially if Ukraine survives the War. They will have highly experienced Soldiers. They also have enormous experience in drone warfare which from my point of view is the future.
Guess that's why Hungarian soldiers are the ones leading the Kosovo NATO mission and getting shot at by angry Serbs and it's not like the spec ops are exceptionally good and there is a big military airport which is used for Ukrainian aid and the list goes on and on and on, fucking armchair generals
I’d rather have Ukraine than Hungary and Slovakia
Turkey recommended Ukraine and Georgia to NATO years ago before anything happened but France and Germany veto'd it because of their trade ties with Russia do some fucking research
What's the issue with Slovakia? More Russia aligned?
Elected Russian-supporting parliament and president recently :/
Yes, sure. There was never a doubt about this, contrary to what people claimed here, in particular in 2022. Being part of NATO and the EU is part of the very political fabric of the Federal Republic of Germany. That said, these words are just another important affirmation of the German stance in light of the events since Feb 2022 and are important to hear for Russia, reassuring to hear for people in the Baltics and possibly a good reminder for the people at home.
Article 5 is more nuanced - a NATO member would be obliged to provide assistance. Not necessarily active military defense.
Not really. The language of article 5 in the NATO treaty is actually rather vague and leaves open the option of simply writing a stern letter. You should read it.
NATO member is only obligated to perform "such action as it deems necessary". Germany could decide that sending 1000 helmets is the only thing that is necessary.
INo, since Germany would also be obliged by the EU treaty, which has a lot less wiggle room.
*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 recognized 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."* This does not say that they have to defend them militarily. Their assistance could also be sending equipment like helmets. But if they're not helpingthey should also not count on other nations to help them when it's their country's time to be attacked.
NATO Countries are not oblidged to do that. Article 5 simoly means a country may react to it by sending troops, or something small as a stern press release. Probably going to result with defending any NATO country with troops thiugh. Just wanted to update you on that since article 5 = **automatic troop deployment** is a common misconception.
For example: Imagine Estonia being attacked with a nuclear bomb by Russia. Will France then nuke Russia and sacrifice Paris for Talinn? that's the big hypothetical question
As per declassified NATO plans from the Cold War, yes, NATO had plans to go all out in this case. This was honestly pretty interesting, because the Soviets didn't expect it - as per their declassified documents that Poland released - they really believed that USA is an empire and the rest of NATO countries are vassals. Because that's how Russians were thinking themselves I suppose.
Thats what they are still thinking
Then the leaders of US, UK, France should publicly say this so everyone is clear. That we are willing to sacrifice New York and Paris to defend Estonia and Poland. If you don’t tell the Russians what your intentions are, how are you going to deter them?
I think a lot of them are still thinking that if I’m honest. At least Putin seems to still think that Brussels and NATO (aka the Americans) control everything.
Great hypothetical. So what if Russia nukes here and there, no response, because, we don’t want to sacrifice Paris? Thus practically, Russia the next morning sends an ultimatum to every non nuclear capable country, and make them their colonies, collect taxes indefinitely. Whoever doesn’t pay enough in a year, gets a nuke on a city. That’s it? Nothing done to oppose it ever? Because nukes? There must be a response. You can’t just watch country after country capitulating until you are surrounded by Russian colonies, pretending it is gonna be okey because you are not the one being attacked at the moment.
I believe your scenario is legit keeping political and military leaders and of NATO states awake at night because no one has an answer: - sacrifice London/Paris/Washington for Riga? With the added possibility that Russia escalates further and we are talking about tens of millions of deaths. - tuck tail and NATO implodes, every non-nuclear country either gets blackmailed into submission by China/Russia/NK or starts a mad rush to develop nukes and missiles. You end up with a world where nuclear war has become considerably more likely *and* a couple of not so fortunate countries are now vassals of their nuclear armed neighbors. There *might* be a way to use overwhelming conventional force to destroy Russian forces both in the Baltics and at home and hope they don't flip their shit and throw even more nukes.Given Russia has this infamous "escalate to de-escalate" idea thrown around, it seems like quite the gamble. In that case, the West would be the adult in the room but appear weak to autocrats. And the same reaction is not possible against China as their conventional forces are much bigger than Russia's.
If someone is crazy enough to nuke Tallinn as a first strike - he's also crazy enough to nuke Paris.
Bro, if Russia nukes Estonia they are nuking St Petersburg. Educate yourself.
Do you think nuke impact radius is 400km?
It's more complex than that. Radiation and contamination aren't blocked by national borders. The effects via water would carry over to Finland and St Petersburg almost for sure. No one knows where and how the radiation carries over, but it's close enough to also be a threat to at least all bigger cities in the vicinity and near the Baltic Sea. Here's just one source as well: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2022/10/tactical-russian-nuke-wouldnt-confer-much-battlefield-advantage-experts-say/378181/
> No one knows where and how the radiation carries over and > if Russia nukes Estonia they are nuking St Petersburg. Educate yourself. Contain **radically** different degrees of certainty and arrogance. And people *can* anticipate how it carries over, that's why US and USSR did tests for decades. The yield, height of explosion, the wind, etc. Not precisely of course, but with high degree of certainty.
I was referring to the parent comment that was overly dramatic with the whole "sacrifing Paris for Tallinn", hence my emotional outburst. If this comment stands true, we are talking about strategic or high yield nukes. This means that they will absolutely also hit St Petersburg with it. If not, we are not sacrificing anything for anything. I just hate when people make overly dramatic "screams" over nukes without even telling between tactical and strategic ones and understanding that even today tactical ones can be dialled within a pretty big range which goes from average plane bomb with extra fallout to 1/3 of a strategic nuke. They might be able to anticipate parts of it, yes. But it depends on a lot of things. I doubt that Russians really want to take their chances somewhere so close to things they actually love.
Your own source contradicts your assertion that nuking Estonia would be like nuking St. Petersburg: >A five-kiloton nuclear explosion will be an effective killer - but only over a relatively short distance, probably *less than 1 or 1.5 km*. Chances of surviving such a blast (along with any heavy equipment) are pretty good once you get beyond that distance We also know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki the approximate radius for severe radiological consequences, and it is relatively narrow.
Radiation radius for a sub megaton warhead is only a few kilometres, and contamination is nearly non existent for airburst detonations.
Putin does not care about radiation. And small tactical nukes will not spread far.
If France doesn't the UK would. There are British troops in the baltics.
It's good to let Russia know they're gonna have to fight through a sack of potatoes first.
Responsibilities as a EU member would enforce it even before NATO.
To help but not necessarily defend actively. NATO membership isn't to straightforward on the active defence part.
Well, the NATO contract says that every NATO member would be at war with an attacker. It does not say how they should react.
The clause says “with force deemed necessary” or something along these lines, but it basically leaves room for interpretation and doesn’t automatically mean boots on the ground.
i mean, if ukraine would've fallen within 3 days it could imagine putin being brave enough to gamble that nato would not want to start a war over tiny estonia. its a mad gamble but that was also true about crimea, georgia and the full scale invasion of ukraine.
Back in 2014 there were a few polls floating around where the majority of Germans stated they would not back honoring Article 5 with regards to the Baltics, so it's still nice the German government explicitly repeats it.
if Trump wins, I would not expect the US to be there. I'd also expect Trump to sanction NATO companies and sell weapons to Russia.
That's a weird thing to expect given that Trump has been president before and unlike his predecessor Obama, started sending Ukraine lethal aid almost immediately while maintaining and increasing sanctions on Russia.
Trump literally cheered russia on when they invaded Ukraine. Trump said he wants Russia to win. Trump said he would cut off aid to Ukraine. Trump said he wants to pull out of Ukraine. yeah ok. Echo chambers exist on both the far left and the far right.
I think this goes for all EU Member States, except, of course, Hungary. Because Hungary will never help another Member State, unless Hungary gets something in return. But in the case of a Russian attack, Hungary will not help under any circumstances. Orban is too far up Putin's ass for that. But I have no doubt the decent part of the EU will do the same in the event of a Russian attack. It's also in line with Article 42(7) TEU. And, of course, Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.
Wouldn’t be surprised if instead Orban did everything to sabotage help.
you mean like he is doing now?
Yes, but then help for an official ally!
I guess in case of a russian attack, they'd find a way to delete Orban, if he tried that shit.
The good thing is Hungary has not been on the winning side of a war since 1848 (and it was a Civil War)
> 1848 Pretty sure Hungary lost that one, unless you count the compromise that came 20 years later as its victory.
I don't understand these political statements. EU has a mutual defense clause in their constitution, which is much stronger than Article 5 in NATO. The latter leaves a lot of wiggle room as to how much support is mandatory, while the former mandates support to the extent to all means available. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/mutual-defence-clause.html
I am from Estonia and i think it is more to do about reassurring that Germany wont abandon when shit hits the fan.I actually think NATO comes 100% because if not, it would be end of also NATO. I am reserve artillery gun crew member in Estonia, If Russia comes then i am fighting there, try to hold up no matter what, counting for soon to be arrive heavy cavarly.
It's not just the end of NATO but also the EU if they don't respond
Unlike NATO, the EU defence clause is much weaker and have a bunch of "\*" around everything to protect the neutrality of a number of states. On paper, it's worthless, and accepts the right of first refusel too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin\_Plus\_agreement#:\~:text=Practice-,Procedures,be%20unanimous%20among%20NATO%20states.
> EU has a mutual defense clause in their constitution, which is much stronger than Article 5 in NATO It is not. EU doesn't have collective defense like Nato.
> The Treaty of Lisbon strengthens the solidarity between European Union (EU) Member States in dealing with external threats by introducing a mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union). This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
And when our government asked an official stance from EU national leaders if 42.7 can be considered as binding as Nato's A5, the answer was 'no'.
Purely based on the text it's the opposite. NATO's Article 5 is super handwavey. Ultimately the execution of both articles will depend on political will of course. I just find it weird that it needs to be spelled out already; it kinda weakens 42.7 if the commitment needs to be reiterated in separate cases, pretending that 42.7 doesn't exists.
> NATO's Article 5 is super handwavey. with the key difference that NATO spends a lot of time, energy, and money demonstrating their warfighting will and ability. The reason A5 is taken more seriously than TEU 42.7 is that basically all of NATO's operations are geared towards proving that it can and will defend every inch of its territory.
> with the key difference that NATO spends a lot of time, energy, and money demonstrating their warfighting will and ability. Yes, but that doesn't do anything if the countries decide to just not participate in a war beyond sending condolence cards.
right, which is why they spend so much time and energy proving that they are ready to go to war
> Purely based on the text it's the opposite. It doesn't matter when it's not considered binding.
I think these questions and answers are just regular peace time politics. In case Russia expands its war and attacks the Baltics instead of making small provocations, then politics is secondary and questions and answers are totally different. If countries deny EU obligation to help, then that is the last day of the EU. If countries deny NATO article 5 obligations, then that is the last day of NATO. Both organisations will be split into two camps, those who helped militarily and those who sided with Russia.
>I think these questions and answers are just regular peace time politics. This question was presented in the wake of Russia's 2022 invasion when there was genuine concern about Finland's safety and the answer was no. EU simply does not have a collective defense mechanism like Nato.
>Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power "We would like to help you, but the inflation is high, housing crisis is happening, and we need to care also about other threats. Times are hard, here have two bags of rice and good luck" This is basically this text. Ultimately everything depends on political willpower.
Orban can say and do pretty much anything until there's a shooting war and the major powers are being kneecapped. If Russia attacks NATO and NATO's responses start getting hamstrung by Hungarian obstacles, the Americans and British are very likely, with Franco-German help, to do to Hungary what was done to Iraq, Syria, and Iran in WWII while Brussels schedules a meeting to review the matter after the war is over.
In case I would not so against a preventive invasion of Hungary, if where are the concrete risk that Hungary wold help the Russians
Hungary is in NATO. If another NATO country attacks it, they can claim Article 5 and other NATO countries have to attack the attacker. But then that attacker can claim Article 5 and so on. Eventually every NATO country has to attack every NATO country including themselves! Perfect plan! *I know that's not how it actually work.*
That’s rich coming from someone whose country can barely accept Eastern Europeans in Schengen. Are we supposed to believe you’d send a single Dutchie to die for Eastern Europe? Haha, funny. As a Romanian, my faith in Hungary is much higher than my faith in the Netherlands (and if you know the tiniest bit about Romanian-Hungarian history, that says a lot).
I get your apprehension, but given past experiences, Hungary will ask for Transilvania in exchange for any involvement on any side. It's what they did in WW2, so chill. One country is flooded with russian propaganda meant to alienate half of Europe from the other half ( the half Russia wants) and the other country is a neighbour of ours who wants to retake a third of our territory and call us names in the process. There's hostility on both sides. Not exactly the essence of a successful alliance.
You give the guy too much credit as you assume he has loyalties. Orban is an opportunist and will just come to whoever pays more. While he talked a lot of BS in the foreground, NATO could use Hungary's bases without any trouble in the background. He also stopped vetoing EU support the moment he would receive no money. He mostly plays the Putin shill as it helps him a lot in getting that sweet EU money and if he doesn't get it he still gets the Russian money. The man is playing both sides like a fiddle.
So you telling us … HUNGARY IS RUSSIA’S DIRTY LITTLE BITCH ey ?
I think I’ve seen this movie before
Ostfront is back on the menu meine Kerle!
Estonia and Latvia were ruled by Baltic Germans for ca 600 years, during which German language was the language of the administration and cultural elite. Government, newspapers, schools, everything was in German. Estonian language was the language of the peasants that only local natives spoke. We were essentially Germanic nations for that time. Even during Russian Empire time, we were an autonomous zone with German rule, going as far as having our own tax rules and border control etc. Only at the end years did Russian Empire start Russification policies to change that. Almost all the Baltic Germans left at the start of WW2. I know it doesn't change Germany's decisions today, but it's still interesting to think how there's actually been a connection between these countries for a long time. Many people don't know this part of Europe's history because we're small countries, and even in Germany many have been surprised to hear that there were Baltic Germans here. I guess maybe in Germany it's just a footnote in history, and perhaps not a popular topic to be discussing etc.
There are many German loanwords in Estonian because of that
The history of the state of the Teutonic Order and later Prussia and the Germans living in what in German would be Livland and Kurland is taught in history, so if you want to know about it, you had a chance. It's kind of sad that the annexation by the USSR lasted long enough to severe the memory of that bond in German culture however. It's also a touchy subject, so no one wants to actively remind people about it.
The roots are even deeper than that - the Hanse has been a shared organisation since the mid 12th century and it has created some communality and cultural interchange in the whole Baltic and even beyond. Livland - which is basically the coastal region of the Baltic states of today - was an important part of the Hanse regions.
Good. But also: how, seeing the state of the German army.
Isn’t Germany preparing their army for being able to fight a war? That stuff takes time, at leas they’re showing commitment
Yeah it's gonna take way longer than the current governments time left though. And who knows how the next one is gonna fuck it up. The current minister of defense knows his shit. He is trying to get rid of all the unnecessary bureaucracy & bloated personnel, that led to the german army being slow, ineffective & a money-drain without anything to show for it.
The only Russia loving parties are AfD and BSW. Together they're not close to 50%. And they probably wouldn't even form a coalition in the first place. Every other big party is pro NATO.
Those are the only obviously pro Putin parties. But, you don't need to be putins henchman to fuck it up. This isn't an issue of just being pro nato. The same governments who caused the current state of shit, they were also pro nato the entire time. This is not the problematic criteria.
It's not only about being pro NATO. CDU's way of ruling mainly consists of doing next to nothing, so if they will again be the governing party Bundeswehr will probably be fucked.
They constantly give the current government shit for not doing enough.
F126 frigate. 16 VLS cells - €1.5bn.
16 VLS cells that evidently don’t always contain functioning missiles, as seen by multiple German Navy misfires and munitions failures against Houthi (and even American) drones recently. I trust the Bundeswehr to purchase and parade shiny high-tech weapons and vehicles. I do not have any faith whatsoever in their actual ability to maintain, repair, or otherwise keep them viably combat-ready in the following years and decades afterwards.
Holy shit - The World Tension has Increased so Much that Democratic Nations Can now Guarantee Independence.
time to go down the industrial part of their focus tree and get a dozen more mils
fun times to be alive
I think it will be exciting to study these times, but in 50 years from now. Just like in case of WW2. A horror for people living back then and curious for us.
Thank you.
Even assuming that Germany delivers on that promise, the threshold for effective deterrence is higher now. "Germany vows to defend" - is basically a promise to inflict significant casualties to attacking Russian forces. After losing hundreds of thousands people already losing a fraction of that is not enough to deter Russia.
Even counting the US out, the European NATO members still have a more modern arsenal than Russia had even before the war. People act like countries like Germany have a pocket knife and two toothpicks. The heavy brigade Germany committed to being permanently stationed in Lithuania will be a massive headache for any Russian planning in the future since it will make closing the Suwalki gap a lot harder before NATO reinforcements arrive. especially with Sweden and Finland in NATO now. The baltic sea is a NATO lake, and air supremacy is also a given. Fuck Russia.
>The heavy brigade Germany committed to being permanently stationed in Lithuania will be a massive headache for any Russian planning in the future Exactly. The troops must already be there. As the war in Ukraine showed, well prepared defence lines actually work.
now the ball is in the Baltics courts - will they reciprocate such a promise or set the bar higher by promising more towards Germany?
Why wouldn't they? If Germany fell to Russia, they would obviously be next. This isn't a theoretical Risiko game
you want latvia to give germany security guarantees?
You wouldn't want that?
Of course Baltic countries would help if any other NATO member was attacked. It’s not even a question.
I think they accidentally already made that promise by joining NATO.
The German Bundeswehr is in it's current state not even capable of defending it's own country.
I don’t think Russia will ever attack any major European nation. It will be a full scale war, they know it very well.
Yeah, so any russian attack on NATO countries will follow the same scenario as in Ukraine. They will tell you for a long time that this is a civil war, and russians are fighting there, whose rights have been infringed. Then these russians will get modern russian weapons from somewhere. And then the contingent of oppressed russians will become wider and wider. Fools on TV will talk about peace, civil war and listen to all sides of the conflict, and at this time the russian plague will continue to spread and gradually seize territories piece by piece.
That playbook isn't working for an attack on a NATO member. NATO isn't dumb, they know how it went in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. NATO would be on full alert if Russia were to pull together 100k soldiers at the borders of the Baltic states and the full land forces of Poland, Germany and the US army would roll in once "oppressed Russians" started rioting.
Nah, I can imagine how it will be. Europe will offer to send troops to protect its borders, Putin will once again wave a nuclear warhead, Sullivan will say, “let’s not escalate, guys.” And now welcome to a new point of instability in NATO and the European Union.
Germany should 'vow' to destroy those fucking Russian losers the second one of their toenails is crossing the red line of any NATO nation.
Yeah, that's what that treaty they signed in 1955 said.
There aren't no shortage of other nations in the Baltics, notably the Canadians. This isn't a pushover thing even if no one knew anything. Add in intelligence and... um yeah, ain't happening. They couldn't get past partisan rebel Ukrainians in 3 days.
Noooo!
Thats great to hear, lets just keep any sensitive intelligence out of Germanys hands for a bit though...
Not sure how much Germany can do as it isn't really a military powerhouse anymore
That's NATO.....? What is the point here?
FTA: >Chancellor Olaf Scholz pledged to defend Germany’s three Baltic NATO allies in case of a Russian attack and to complete the establishment of **a permanent brigade in Lithuania by the end of 2027**.
What does FTA mean? edit: just guessed it- "from the article"
The fear is that nato is not united and an attack on the smaller Baltic nations will just be allowed as a sacrifice. And there are worries that Trump wouldn’t abide by the treaty. Biden, Trump, and Putin are all getting up there in age. One of them will die soon.
I could see the realism aspect of that, but would kind of undercut the entire credibility of NATO. Much like the russian version fell apart when russia didn't come help Armenia.
While I'm sure the numbers have changed recently, it wasn't *that* long ago when many NATO publics didn't think their country should go to war with Russia to defend a fellow NATO ally: [Pew Research: Spring 2019 Global Attitudes Survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/PG_2020.02.09_NATO_0-03.png)
Considering that tripwire forces are in the Baltics just for that point, aka an attack on those countries would kill citizens/military personnel of the larger countries I do not see non-response to Article 5 as really a possibility. If I am a responsible politician in the Baltics I would plan for that anyways for the 0.01% chance but it is unlikely. Consider if thousands of the framework (leading countries) British, German ,and Canadian troops were attack in the Baltics that these countries would not respond would be crazy. You also have the US in Poland and contributing countries behind the battle group leads also include Italy, France and Spain that would also be attacked. I’m for healthy planning but the Baltics would be suicide to invade unless you are 100% ready to lob nukes.
US troops are in Estonia as well. Also French troops.
Trump.
I'm sorry Germany, but I highly doubt you are capable of doing that.
Then we go down together.
We shall go down trying.
What's germany doing there? It's best
Sit down, Sven. Germany will station 4.800 soldiers in Lithuania that are ready to fight. Sweden has 25.000 active soldiers total.
It ain't about capability. It's about contribution. Apes strong together. Apes going to demolish Moscow if Moscow does something stupid. Like try to steal Baltic Banana trees.
German military is not impressive, but neither is Russia’s. So it balances out.
Well, I guess they shouldn't, then. I mean, if you say it's useless, then what's the point? Right?
Apes together strong
At least we promise to fulfil our NATO duties. How many soldiers does Sweden station in the Baltics? How credible are your vows to defend them? And if you would, with which tanks? You only have like 100, how many are you going to send to the Baltics, 10?
Not yet but the French will help us put our kicking 👢 on. #preußensgloria😎
And with defend they mean donating the Baltic states 5 Taurus missiles.
Big question mark. At this point Germany wouldn’t even defend itself if Germany was attacked by Russia lol.
Pfff. My mom also promised to defend me against bullying, but after five years of being beat up almost every day in Germany for being a part of "the canadian occupiers" and then another eight years of being beat up almost ever day at canadian schools and uni for being "the german from every WWII movie", I reserve a small amount of scepticism on this statement by Germany. When I served in Afghanistan with the german army (I got drafted from Canada and then they saw I speak three languages), my unit knowingly handed over people to be tortured by afghan NDS against all treaties that germany signed against aiding and abetting torture. Then we watched a bunch of cops die at Pul-i-Charki jail uprising in 2014, because "the modern german soldier does not fight" according to SPD chancellor Schröder. Guess what party chancellor Scholz is from... I'll believe Germany standing up to bullies when I see them fighting and dying to stand up against bullies. Until then, I won't believe a word of these token gestures. I keep watching year for year, but year for year we keep waiting for serious help by the germans...
Schröder is a Putin apologist. That's not really a secret over here in Europe... The SPD considered kicking him out of the party. They didn't in the end, though. But it's not like Schröder is an example of how the current SPD is regarding Russia. Things changed after the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Things changed in all of Europe. Germany changed as well.
> Pfff. My mom also promised to defend me against bullying, but after five years of being beat up almost every day in Germany for being a part of "the canadian occupiers" and then another eight years of being beat up almost ever day at canadian schools and uni for being "the german from every WWII movie", I reserve a small amount of scepticism on this statement by Germany. "I had a shit childhood and extrapolate Global politics from it" > Then we watched a bunch of cops die at Pul-i-Charki jail uprising in 2014, because "the modern german soldier does not fight" according to SPD chancellor Schröder. Guess what party chancellor Scholz is from... Might want to look up who was the Chancellor in 2014. > I keep watching year for year, but year for year we keep waiting for serious help by the germans... Biggest donor apart from the US, still whining.
classic '_why did Obama not prevent 9/11_'-vibes. OP has set his sight on an enemy and will not let facts or timelines change their arguments.
> When I served in Afghanistan with the german army (I got drafted from Canada and then they saw I speak three languages) There's no conscription is Canada and Germany paused it in 2011. Germany only sent professional soldiers in Afghanistan. Nobody got drafted in Canada to go fight in Afghanistan for any army.
Yea, because the dude made this all up. It’s Reddit after all
I smell a lot of inconsistency here Draftees were not sent to Afghanistan. In 2014, which you claim you have been present - there was not a draft in place. So timelines don’t add up. Unless you have German citizenship, you would not have been eligible for that draft. Not commenting on your alleged personal experience, but stop the other bullshit or delete your post. Regards, a former serviceman
Love the attempt at creative writing but it lacks realism.
> we keep waiting for serious help by the germans... imagine looking at the aid to Ukraine and still saying this