So what happens if Putin decides he wants Latvia?

[kramerfan86]

That is a good point. But if Russia were to make a move on Latvia, it would be much more than just Latvia's freedom at stake. With Latvia being a full-fledged member of NATO, NATO's very credibility and legitimacy would be utterly destroyed if they did nothing. With that, NATO may be forced into military action even if they don't really want it, otherwise they may see the sudden withdrawal of all the Eastern European nations that joined after the collapse of the USSR; and that's if the entire alliance doesn't break up entirely from a lack of faith in the collective defense clause that is the central focus of the NATO treaty.

Yup that is the key rub here. Its isnt just Latvia, its the very legitimacy of NATO and the EU at stake. If the EU and NATO just let another country attack a member state, then their existence is rendered null and void.

 

[EgonSpengler]

That is a good point. But if Russia were to make a move on Latvia, it would be much more than just Latvia's freedom at stake. With Latvia being a full-fledged member of NATO, NATO's very credibility and legitimacy would be utterly destroyed if they did nothing. With that, NATO may be forced into military action even if they don't really want it, otherwise they may see the sudden withdrawal of all the Eastern European nations that joined after the collapse of the USSR; and that's if the entire alliance doesn't break up entirely from a lack of faith in the collective defense clause that is the central focus of the NATO treaty.

This was my point earlier, as well. If a NATO member were attacked and we did nothing, we would be telling everybody that we honor our agreements only when it's convenient for us, or when they can offer us something substantial.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It is not that one-dimensional.

 

[JollyRoger]

As some point, the U.S. is going to have to do something about Putin infringing on the United States' intellectual property rights to the concept of Manifest Destiny. Whether that something comes in the form of license fees or an injunction is really the only open question.

 

[luiz]

The basic reality is that no one has ever attacked a country that has an effective nuclear deterrent

There is at least one exception.

 

[Commodore]

Russia would invade Lativa in days.
What line is there to hold after that?
We not talking about an actual invasion of the entirety of Europe by Russia, are we? I mean that would be a drastically different scenario.

Tactical nukes would be quit bad enough I think . but I don't either believe Russia would use nukes. But that is not really the issue.
The issue is not so much what we think is likely but that we don't really know what would happen, we don't really know to what a war with Russia could possibly grow or amount to. So better avoid it if we possibly can. And if all we have to do is give up Lativa, then that sounds like an okay-trade to me. As bad as this tastes.
As said, the remaining NATO members could be then equipped with the means to immediately fight back any further attacks so that we could be IMO fairly sure Russia wouldn't make any more advances in the future - unless it really goes for all-out-war.
Well in that case, we have no choice. But if it just invades Lativa and leaves it at that - that is a different scenario.

edit: or what Timsup2nothin said.

And to repeat, I don't think it would destroy NATO's legitimacy. Rather, it would drastically reshape NATO into being fully prepared for any Russian moves. And that transformation + the now very real threat would give it all the legitimacy it ever needed.

I was using "hold the line" as a figure of speech meaning we could disrupt Russian operations and prevent them from consolidating their power and fortifying their hold on Latvia. The US has the ability to have boots on the ground anywhere in the world within 24 to 48 hours. Our special forces could also cause a lot of trouble for the Russian occupiers through direct action and by equipping and training a local insurgency. Couple that with the air raids from bases all over Europe and Turkey with European air forces assisting, and Russia wouldn't have the time to catch their breaths and prepare for the inevitable NATO counter-offensive.

I do agree with you though, that this is a war that must be avoided at all costs since we can assume a most likely scenario, but can never truly predict how bad such a war would truly get.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is at least one exception.

Okay, I give up...how does attacking Israel in 1973 make an exception to 'no one has ever attacked a country with an effective nuclear deterrent'?

This was my point earlier, as well. If a NATO member were attacked and we did nothing, we would be telling everybody that we honor our agreements only when it's convenient for us, or when they can offer us something substantial.

The cynic in me would say this wouldn't be telling anyone anything that they don't already know.

 

[luiz]

Okay, I give up...how does attacking Israel in 1973 make an exception to 'no one has ever attacked a country with an effective nuclear deterrent'?

Israel in 1973 already had an effective nuclear deterrent (against Middle Eastern countries anyway) and in fact considered using it in the first 3 days when the Egyptians and Syrians were making big inroads inside their territory. It has been argued that the US decision to airlift military supplies to Israel was in large part to prevent them from going nuclear (that's what Kissinger is supposed to have told Sadat).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Israel in 1973 already had an effective nuclear deterrent (against Middle Eastern countries anyway) and in fact considered using it in the first 3 days when the Egyptians and Syrians were making big inroads inside their territory. It has been argued that the US decision to airlift military supplies to Israel was in large part to prevent them from going nuclear (that's what Kissinger is supposed to have told Sadat).

An effective nuclear deterrent isn't something that some intelligence services think that maybe you have. It also isn't the vague capability to maybe detonate an untested nuclear device inside your own territory in front of an advancing army. An effective nuclear deterrent is a deadman switch. If our launch facilities, which no one can disable, fail to hear from us they will in fact incinerate anyone and everyone who might be responsible for that loss of communication.

That puts the entire world in the position of making sure nothing happens to them. Israel doesn't even have that now, and they certainly didn't have it then. Russia, however, does have that, so no one is going to attack them in any way that might disrupt their control over their deadman switch...no matter how boorish their behavior may be.

 

[luiz]

An effective nuclear deterrent isn't something that some intelligence services think that maybe you have. It also isn't the vague capability to maybe detonate an untested nuclear device inside your own territory in front of an advancing army. An effective nuclear deterrent is a deadman switch. If our launch facilities, which no one can disable, fail to hear from us they will in fact incinerate anyone and everyone who might be responsible for that loss of communication.

That puts the entire world in the position of making sure nothing happens to them. Israel doesn't even have that now, and they certainly didn't have it then. Russia, however, does have that, so no one is going to attack them in any way that might disrupt their control over their deadman switch...no matter how boorish their behavior may be.

Israel didn't, and doesn't, have an effective nuclear deterrent against the likes of Russia or China. But they don't need one.

Israel has, as it already had back in 1973 (and was known by everybody even though it's not admitted), the capability to destroy Cairo, Damascus, or even Mecca and Medina. That's what I would call an effective nuclear deterrent against its neighbors.

But note that even though Sadat knew for a fact that Israel had nukes in 1973, and that they could nuke his country, he still invaded. He was confident that Israel wouldn't use them. Israel had around 20 nuclear missiles during the Yom Kippur War, and have anywhere from 80 to 400 today.

 

[Ironsided]

Russia is never going to attack a NATO-country unless provoked to the absolute breaking-point by our inept and glory-hunting politicians. The childish comments before and at G20 are however mind-boggling and a good start to fuel the flames. The absolute prostitution to ad-revenue and click-provoking “news” by the media is one thing. But when world “leaders” seem to stumble over each other to proclaim Russia the new evil (for doing far less than they themselves did just a few years ago) – it’s far from pretty – it’s outright distasteful double standards and deceit.

Remember a year ago? Iran. Assad. NK. Are you kidding me…
Now we hardly hear a peep about the “evil Iranians” building nuclear capabilities. They still do you know. Why did that frenzy grind to a halt? Were we never sufficiently groomed for that “inevitable invasion”? 50 NATO bases within 100 km of Iranian borders finally made us calm down? How perfectly deceitful – that’s why they want tactical nukes in the first place.
Assad. The NATO-bombs that drop do not hit his troops but his opposition. This dictator is now transformed to a “my enemy’s enemy is my ally”. Not one peep in the media about Assad’s continued atrocities. However, we know how fast that can change, don’t we by now?
North Korea? Are they all of a sudden less evil now? Can’t really tell because all I get is Russia this and Russia that…

You stumped me again NATO-bros. I don’t know what to believe any more? The only thing I do know for sure is to never ever believe men representing NATO - telling their version of the “truth”.

Also, does anyone for one second think NATO countries – with its aggressive past in mind – would want to invade Russia? Of course not! The illegal occupation of Iraq cost a trillion dollar and the “bloody nose” was as much NATO’s as Iraq’s – only paid more in reputation and dollars than in blood – even if blood was shed on both sides.
Then why on god’s green earth is it so hard to give the substantially smaller side in this fabricated conflict, the Russians, the same kind of consideration? Are they frothing at the mouth aggressive lunatics? Again, of course not! Their illegal annexation was almost non-violent.

What we obviously need is a real United Nations under the Dalai Lama.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Israel didn't, and doesn't, have an effective nuclear deterrent against the likes of Russia or China. But they don't need one.

Israel has, as it already had back in 1973 (and was known by everybody even though it's not admitted), is the capability to destroy Cairo, Damascus, or even Mecca and Medina. That's what I would call and effective nuclear deterrent against its neighbors.

But note that even though Sadat knew for a fact that Israel had nukes in 1973, and that they could nuke his country, he still invaded. He was confident that Israel wouldn't use them.

Limited effectiveness. Okay.

I define the key to effectiveness differently. If any country, even their closest ally, wanted to invade Russia the US can be counted on to take any action necessary to stop them. Because a successful invasion of Russia ends with the US incinerated. When even your enemies will rise to your defense, that's deterrence.

 

[red_elk]

Russia is never going to attack a NATO-country unless provoked to the absolute breaking-point by our inept and glory-hunting politicians. The childish comments before and at G20 are however mind-boggling and a good start to fuel the flames. The absolute prostitution to ad-revenue and click-provoking “news” by the media is one thing. But when world “leaders” seem to stumble over each other to proclaim Russia the new evil (for doing far less than they themselves did just a few years ago) – it’s far from pretty – it’s outright distasteful double standards and deceit.

Finally, a voice of reason.
On the other hand, G20 leaders proclamations seem to be vastly overblown by media too. According to Putin, all meetings went in a correct and polite atmosphere. Well, I also wouldn't try to shirtfront a judo master, meeting with him in person

 

[Commodore]

Finally, a voice of reason.
On the other hand, G20 leaders proclamations seem to be vastly overblown by media too. According to Putin, all meetings went in a correct and polite atmosphere. Well, I also wouldn't try to shirtfront a judo master, meeting with him in person

I think everyone here realizes this hypothetical war is just that, hypothetical. I was only pointing out that if this scenario did come to pass, Russia wouldn't be the big bad boogy-man army CoD painted them as.

 

[Yeekim]

It's a joke about Greek democracy; Athens chose many positions by lot, rather than through a vote. I am aware of how the Presidency of the Council works.

Oh, that expression was new to me. Thanks, didn't really expect to learn anything new in this thread...

Aside from that, I mostly just know that the Russian government still considers ethnic Rusians in all the former Soviet states to be Russian citizens, even if they were born and raised in their current homelands after the USSR split, which creates problems.

Not really. Russia considers its diaspora a strategic asset and complains incessantly about their treatment, but people who want Russian citizenship still need to apply for it. There is still considerable, although steadily declining, number of former Soviet citizens, who haven't wished to apply for any citizenship and thus remain "stateless".

 

[James Stuart]

I doubt that Russia would go to nukes unless they were being directly invaded also. But I also doubt that anyone would take the chance over Latvia. The basic reality is that no one has ever attacked a country that has an effective nuclear deterrent, and no one is likely to any time soon over minor boorish behavior. Nobody from either side attacked a nuclear power when they invaded Afghanistan. Nobody attacked the US when they invaded Iraq. Maybe if the Russians invaded Germany Germany's nuclear armed buddies would take the chance and attack them. But Latvia? Seriously?

In addition to luiz's mention of the Yo Kippur War, there is also the 1999 conflict between India and Pakistan to consider. While one may argue thatPakistan's nuclear deterrant can not be described as effective, India's certainly can.

About 15% of Latvia inhabitants don't have citizenship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_(Latvia)
Most of them are ethnic Russians.

Actually, the situation with Russian minorities in Ukraine was even better - they had similar language laws, but unlike in Baltic States, these laws were not strictly enforced. And Ukraine granted all its inhabitants citizenship and rights associated with it.

Interesting. Thank you for that. So, basically, Ukraine's laws were worse, but were not actually enforced?

That is a good point. But if Russia were to make a move on Latvia, it would be much more than just Latvia's freedom at stake. With Latvia being a full-fledged member of NATO, NATO's very credibility and legitimacy would be utterly destroyed if they did nothing. With that, NATO may be forced into military action even if they don't really want it, otherwise they may see the sudden withdrawal of all the Eastern European nations that joined after the collapse of the USSR; and that's if the entire alliance doesn't break up entirely from a lack of faith in the collective defense clause that is the central focus of the NATO treaty.

This is exactly correct. It's a matter of legitimacy. The USSR and the US almost went to war over little Cuba, because if the Soviets had let the US simply take over the small country, the USSR would have lost the ability to keep the rest of its allies in check. If the US had stood by and allowed the PRC to invade Taiwan in the 1950s, Japan, South Korea, and the European allies would have been forced to come to arrangements with the communist powers, or find another protector (which didn't exist).

This is an argument that goes back to the early stages of recorded history; when Hannibal made war on Rome's ally Saguntum in Spain, the Romans, fearful of war with the powerful Carthage and desirous of a diplomatic solution, failed to intervene. Hannibal took the city, then used it as a staging point, and its wealth to pay, for his invasion of Italy. The Romans, fighitng a war on two fronts, requested assistance from their remaining Spanish allies, who told them that their failure to assist Saguntum had proven them unreliable, and it would be better for the Spanish city-states to remain neutral in the conflict, and therefore not suffer the same fate if Rome decided to sacrifice them for peace. It was very humiliating (not to mention dangerous) for Rome, and I don't recall them making a similar mistake ever again.

We see the same in modern times, where the failure to take a hard line with Hitler led directly to WWII, and the failure to confront Stalin directly led to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. NATO is unlikely to repeat that error.

Finally, a voice of reason.
On the other hand, G20 leaders proclamations seem to be vastly overblown by media too. According to Putin, all meetings went in a correct and polite atmosphere. Well, I also wouldn't try to shirtfront a judo master, meeting with him in person

As an Australian, I can tell you we were all wanting Abbott to shirtfront Putin. Then Abbott would die, and the marginally more competent Julie Bishop would be Prime Minister. If Russia decided to nuke Brisbane as a deterrant, that would also be good.

 

[red_elk]

Interesting. Thank you for that. So, basically, Ukraine's laws were worse, but were not actually enforced?

Basically, Russian language has de-jure status of foreign language in Baltic states, despite ethnic Russians are quite significant minority there (In Latvia, about 1/4 of entire population, more than share of francophones in Canada). And despite the fact that Russian language de-facto is widespread there. There exist so-called "language police" which enforces usage of official language in state departments, schools, etc. That in addition to the unique for Europe situation when significant part of country's population doesn't have status of citizens.

In Ukraine, after election of Yanukovich - relatively pro-Russian president, language laws became more liberal. He didn't give Russian official status, but granted "regional" status to languages of all minorities in regions where those minorities are significant (more than 10% IIRC). It was a compromise solution in attempt to reconciliate pro-Russian fraction and local nationalists. After he was deposed, the hopes for further liberalization of language laws were lost. But even before Yanukovich law, some Ukrainian regions in fact used Russian language only (such as Sevastopol, in Crimea). Central power didn't strictly enforce usage of Ukrainian in these regions, most likely due to fear of social unrest and growth of separatism. In other aspects though, Kiev was promoting Ukrainian, through usage it in TV, newspapers, etc.

As an Australian, I can tell you we were all wanting Abbott to shirtfront Putin. Then Abbott would die, and the marginally more competent Julie Bishop would be Prime Minister. If Russia decided to nuke Brisbane as a deterrant, that would also be good.

Meh, even if Putin decided to nuke Brisbane, our rusty Soviet-made SLBM would most likely stuck in submarine's shaft.
But don't tell anybody

 

[cav scout]

Welcome to Civfanatics Ironsided

I found this post of yours...

Russia is never going to attack a NATO-country unless provoked to the absolute breaking-point by our inept and glory-hunting politicians. The childish comments before and at G20 are however mind-boggling and a good start to fuel the flames. The absolute prostitution to ad-revenue and click-provoking “news” by the media is one thing. But when world “leaders” seem to stumble over each other to proclaim Russia the new evil (for doing far less than they themselves did just a few years ago) – it’s far from pretty – it’s outright distasteful double standards and deceit.

Remember a year ago? Iran. Assad. NK. Are you kidding me…
Now we hardly hear a peep about the “evil Iranians” building nuclear capabilities. They still do you know. Why did that frenzy grind to a halt? Were we never sufficiently groomed for that “inevitable invasion”? 50 NATO bases within 100 km of Iranian borders finally made us calm down? How perfectly deceitful – that’s why they want tactical nukes in the first place.
Assad. The NATO-bombs that drop do not hit his troops but his opposition. This dictator is now transformed to a “my enemy’s enemy is my ally”. Not one peep in the media about Assad’s continued atrocities. However, we know how fast that can change, don’t we by now?
North Korea? Are they all of a sudden less evil now? Can’t really tell because all I get is Russia this and Russia that…

You stumped me again NATO-bros. I don’t know what to believe any more? The only thing I do know for sure is to never ever believe men representing NATO - telling their version of the “truth”.

Also, does anyone for one second think NATO countries – with its aggressive past in mind – would want to invade Russia? Of course not! The illegal occupation of Iraq cost a trillion dollar and the “bloody nose” was as much NATO’s as Iraq’s – only paid more in reputation and dollars than in blood – even if blood was shed on both sides.
Then why on god’s green earth is it so hard to give the substantially smaller side in this fabricated conflict, the Russians, the same kind of consideration? Are they frothing at the mouth aggressive lunatics? Again, of course not! Their illegal annexation was almost non-violent.

What we obviously need is a real United Nations under the Dalai Lama.

...to be astonishingly similar to this one from just over 75 years ago which I located in the forum archives:

Germany is never going to attack a Allied-country unless provoked to the absolute breaking-point by our inept and glory-hunting politicians. The childish comments before and at Munich are however mind-boggling and a good start to fuel the flames. The absolute prostitution to ad-revenue and provoking “news” by the media is one thing. But when world “leaders” seem to stumble over each other to proclaim Germany the new evil (for doing far less than they themselves did just a few years ago) – it’s far from pretty – it’s outright distasteful double standards and deceit.

Remember a year ago? Italy. Spain. Japan. Are you kidding me…
Now we hardly hear a peep about the “evil Italians” building colonial capabilities. They still do you know. Why did that frenzy grind to a halt? Were we never sufficiently groomed for that “Abyssinian invasion”? 50 Allied bases within 100 km of Italian borders finally made us calm down? How perfectly deceitful – that’s why they want colonies in the first place.
Franco. The Soviet-bombs that drop do not hit his troops but his opposition. This dictator is now transformed to a “my enemy’s enemy is my ally”. Not one peep in the media about Franco’s continued atrocities. However, we know how fast that can change, don’t we by now?
Japan? Are they all of a sudden less evil now? Can’t really tell because all I get is Germany this and Germany that…

You stumped me again Allied-bros. I don’t know what to believe any more? The only thing I do know for sure is to never ever believe men representing the Allies - telling their version of the “truth”.

Also, does anyone for one second think Allied countries – with its aggressive past in mind – would want to invade Germany? Of course not! The illegal occupation of Afghanistan cost a million dollar and the “bloody nose” was as much Britain’s as Afghanistan’s – only paid more in reputation and dollars than in blood – even if blood was shed on both sides.
Then why on god’s green earth is it so hard to give the substantially smaller side in this fabricated conflict, the Germans, the same kind of consideration? Are they frothing at the mouth aggressive lunatics? Again, of course not! Their illegal annexation of the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia was almost non-violent.

What we obviously need is a real League of Nations under the Dalai Lama.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Well... Russia is now nazi Germany then, in your view?

[thatescalatedquickly]

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In addition to luiz's mention of the Yo Kippur War, there is also the 1999 conflict between India and Pakistan to consider. While one may argue thatPakistan's nuclear deterrant can not be described as effective, India's certainly can.

As far as I can tell India's delivery systems are all land based missiles, and only a handful of those (if any) are mobile. That may serve as a deterrent against Pakistan, but an opponent with good intel and descent strike capability would have a very good chance of disabling their nuclear capacity before they even consider using it.

I'm certainly biased, but I rate the US, Russia, China, the UK and France as the only countries with truly effective nuclear deterrent capabilities. They are immune to attack, because no one can afford for anyone to successfully break them, so anyone who tried would meet immediate resistance from pretty much the entire world.

The rumored Israeli systems targeting southern Europe probably qualify, if they exist, but could backfire. If they exist they are land based and not mobile. That could lead to otherwise friendly nations (NATO) eliminating them if an invading force seems likely to incite a launch.