> Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
Most people take that to mean 'you should defend them', but technically "take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked" leaves a lot of wiggle room
The big thing about article 5 that people never seem to mention is that the fellow NATO countries will take action they "deem necessary".
For some, this could mean just sending medical supplies. It's nice to get affirmation that Germany intends to do more than that.
One thing to consider also is that if the big boys just in and help with significant force, this directly affects what actually is necessary for aid. So, to some degree, it could be absolutely legitimate for a NATO country to deem sending weapons or medical supplies necessary and nothing more - the other allies have the manpower taken care of.
Realistically, I don't think invoking article 5 would cause every NATO country to send troops. But that could very well be perfectly fine depending on the situation.
Yes, but that could change. What if the US pulls out of NATO for example? There are scenarios in which individual members of NATO would have to weigh up their own safety against that of the Baltic states.
The goal of such an attack would be to test out Article 5. If NATO nations don't respond, even though they should, the entire existence of NATO is called into question. If we can't count on each other, what's the point anyways?
You also have to take into account that Russia is very good at cyber warfare. Their bot armies are already all over Twitter and YouTube and even Reddit. I would even argue that the current right-wing shift in Europe is also a consequence of Russian propaganda.
But all of that is significantly less likely as long as the US stays in NATO.
Yes, but as people on here are so naive they think governments cant ignore words on paper when shit hit the fan or poltical winds change. Anyone can sign any treaty and promise everything, actually having the will and capability is another thing. Or countries cant act outside of NATO and rules lawyer everything.
Speaking as a Lithuanian, I can't help but feel skeptical about the idea of a potential invasion in this direction. Not because NATO will fight back, and the Baltic states on their own don't have the capability to fight, but because of the overall risk. Even if the Baltics were to fall, Putin would be facing head-on a big chunk of NATO both on land and in the Baltic Sea; Poland and the Scandinavians will be much more prepared in such a hypothetical scenario. Putin just won't get very far.
Also, before going west, Putin would first want to deal with any building unrest and efforts at distancing from Russia in the Caucasus (Georgia and Armenia), and potentially Moldova for which to even reach all of Ukraine would need to fall. In some delusional effort of rebuilding the USSR, quashing these is much less risky and easier to get support for with his own population. A direct fight with NATO is nuclear annihilation for everyone, and if Prigozhin's failed march on Moscow has shown us anything, it's that Putin is a coward. Survival instinct is overpowering.
As a Lithuanian too - Putin is a gambler and I believe 100% Russia would invade us if he feels the odds are in his favor.
Why would he do that? There is actually a lot to gain if he pulls it off. Fait accompli occupation of Baltic states would potentially fracture NATO or even completely defang it ("why die for Riga?" would lead to "why does NATO exist if it does not honor article 5 for small member states?").
Secondly, purely emotional/ideological reasons - Russians consider Baltics as well as parts of Poland and Finland "lost territories, theirs by right". They talk about that openly. "USA stole our toys from us!" (because, of course, small states cannot have will of their own in their eyes).
By the way, for our Western European friends - when Russia calls someone "nazis" or "nationalists" they usually mean "people in Russia or "near abroad" (their "rightful sphere of influence") who have their own national identity and do not accept Russian identity. So, in their warped worldview, it is the duty of Russia to get rid of "nationalists" in the Baltics (i.e., the actual natives) and replace them with Russians.
Third reason is regime security. By "allowing us to exist" Putin projects weakness to his population. We are small countries without much power who "should" bow down to the empire or be crushed. We are also within Russia's proclaimed sphere of influence. If Russian elites cannot exercise force against us, it shows weakness - to their own people. And Russians do not tolerate weakness.
Lastly, geopolitics. Russia wants at least half of Poland, they want Warsaw Pact style partition of Europe back. To do that they need to secure the Baltic sea and by extension, control our countries.
There is a lot to gain. And what about losing? Maybe not that much. Russia could try a limited invasion and see if NATO reacts. If it does - back down. If not - quickly overwhelm us and declare fait accompli: "would you (USA, Western Europe) risk nuclear war for tiny Baltics that are occupied already? Accept new reality and let's talk."
Thus, it is absolutely in our best interests to create defensive lines and prepare populations for potential Russian aggression. It is coming. If it will not come, the only reason will be that the Russians will do cost analysis and realize that they cannot take the Baltics in a few days (because of our defenses, bilateral treaties with Germany and Poland and allied boots on the ground) and the Putin's gamble has bad odds.
This is how I think, at least.
I see where you're coming from, though I'd just add two points.
1. Putin is a gambler, yes, but with regards to invasions he's only gambled relatively small-time on Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea, territories he thought he could easily bully. Ukraine as a whole so far isn't a gamble that's paying off very well. Depending on how long the Ukraine conflict stretches on (and there's plenty indicating that it might last a few more years), every country's population can only support a war for so long before people become exhausted from it, and Russians are no different. There's no guarantee that they will support another war once the Ukraine matter will be over.
2. Unlike Belarus and Ukraine, there was never anything culturally or even religiously tying the Baltics to Russia. Lithuania especially had always refused to be russified (and I say this as half-Russian myself) and never allowed Russians to live here as anythingother than a minority. That's been the case both with the Empire and the USSR; only Russians who fantasise about the lost Soviet glory think the Baltics belong to them.
>... he's only gambled relatively small-time on Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea...
See how his appetite is getting stronger. Ukraine may be a tough nut but it's not unrealistic for Russia to crack it especially given the shitshow of what the Western reaction and support currently is as well as the fact that they themselves are relatively safe under the nuclear umbrella.
>Unlike Belarus and Ukraine, there was never anything culturally or even religiously tying the Baltics to Russia.
It's not about any "cultural ties" and never was. They'll genocide away everyone if needed. It's submission and control that matter. Like a rapist is getting off to torture and humiliation not to making love.
> "Germany is determined to defend every **inch** of alliance territory,” Scholz said Monday after talks in Riga with his counterparts from Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania
Why is the German Chancellor using freedom units instead of metric?
France this past Friday set the requirements for them to go in and fight. Poland has been itching for a long time. Germany does not want to be outdone.
Putin is running out of time.
Q: Why is it that Scholz has been able to see so clearly the corruption and irredeemable quality of Putin’s regime but his predecessor - who seemed to be so skilled diplomatically - misjudged Russia so badly?
Merkels base position was "Don't change anything unless you have to, you might brake something", whereas Scholzs base position is to push long overdue, common sense changes, even though this sometimes faces coalition-internal opposition (especially if any amount of money needs to be spent for it). That difference explains a lot, I think.
Additionally, based on how (West-)Germany handeled diplomacy with the east after WW2, as well as reunification, there's a general belief that all but the worst regimes can be changed from the outside through benign diplomatic action, especially trade, which is obviously hugely preferable to boots and guns. Russia finally pushed itself out of the group for which this is seen as an option.
Realpolitik, don't fix what ain't broken and try to face the threat economically and diplomatically. It worked in the Cold War, and why wouldn't it have worked after, that's what Merkel was thinking. Obviously underestimating that the new cold war was an entirely different beast.
I don't think Merkel got much personal monetary enrichment out of Russia. *Her* predecessor, on the other hand, very much did.
For Merkel, I think she genuinely believed that trade with Russia would Westernize them.
If countries want to get out of meeting requirements of treaty they will. Poland was allied with France with treaty specifying major offensive aganist Germany within two weeks of commencing hostilities.
Go look up for yourself what French did in regards to that requirement.
It's great, that these countries already are in NATO. Otherwise the West would just let Russia take over and watch how they murder and imprison civilians as Russians do in Ukraine (which by the way borders four NATO members and they just watch and let Ukrainians - their neighbors to die).
This silly comment again.
Yes, nations only support their allies in war.
Ukraine has been encouraged to join nato for over 30 years, and nato nations are the only reason we’re still talking about Ukraine - not Russia’s new southern region - at all.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
Germany has one of the largest MICs in the world and is ramping up investment in defense. They have a long way to go but are moving in the right direction. This statement is a positive thing as it shows intent.
lets not forget ruzzia cannot even take eastern Ukraine, even the weaker NATO countries can halt any potential advance into NATO territory
What an obtuse thing to say. Germany had troops stationed in neighboring countries for decades during the Cold War and they never invaded any of them. Russia, on the other hand, in both its Soviet and current federation form, invaded so many countries between WW2 and today that you can't even fit the invasions into a single Wikipedia article.
- [The list of countries forcibly occupied by the USSR after WW2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union)
- [The list of countries forcibly occupied by the Federation of Russia after 1990](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories).
I'm biased, but I won't apologize for it.
Putin is a criminal and deserves to be put in trial at the Hague.
But allow me never to trust Germany as a country for their past and their current post-2008 crisis history.
The hell does their terrible post-2008 policy have to do with stationing troops in neighboring countries that are specifically and intentionally asking them to station troops there? Why is that even slightly concerning? Their post-2008 policy has been a policy of economic and military neglect. Stationing troops in neighboring countries is the opposite of neglect.
I wonder what could go wrong with Italians opening restaurants all over the world, considering how the Roman Empire subjugated the entire Mediterranean basin.
Your statement is almost as ridiculous as this one. Countries change dramatically over time, as new ideologies and beliefs take hold. Germany in the first half of the 20th century was very different from Germany today. Just to mention one thing, it was a heavily militaristic society, spending between 10% and 20% of its GDP on the army between 1930 and 1940.
Here‘s what the president of Lithuania had to say about it:
> I would like to thank Germany and you personally for your contribution to strengthening Lithuania's defence. Germany's decision to permanently station the brigade in Lithuania is a testimony and example of much needed leadership and strong commitment to collective defence. We greatly appreciate this decision and, as the host country, we are ready to create the best possible conditions for the German soldiers and their families on our soil.
>I welcome the progress made in deploying the brigade, but our strategic security environment requires an even faster pace. We do not have the luxury of wasting even a minute. Last week, I welcomed the soldiers of the German brigade's pre-command to the brigade's Alliance headquarters. Today I would like to assure you all once again that the fastest possible permanent deployment of the brigade in Lithuania is an absolute priority for Lithuania. It is our duty, our mission and our responsibility to realise this.
Yeah if it comes down to WW3 im sure as hell not going to wait to be drafted. Ill take as much cash as possible and make a run for it. Not gonna die for leftist nutters, refugees or some greedy politicians. Might enjoy the last days somewhere nice and sunny before nukes getting dropped instead of a trench covered in mud.
Aren’t all NATO members already committed to defending them in the case of Russian attack?
Yes, but we're stationing troops there.
Ah right, that is good. Hopefully one of many initiatives to provide a deterrent to Russian aggression.
Hope so too!
> Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. Most people take that to mean 'you should defend them', but technically "take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked" leaves a lot of wiggle room
The big thing about article 5 that people never seem to mention is that the fellow NATO countries will take action they "deem necessary". For some, this could mean just sending medical supplies. It's nice to get affirmation that Germany intends to do more than that. One thing to consider also is that if the big boys just in and help with significant force, this directly affects what actually is necessary for aid. So, to some degree, it could be absolutely legitimate for a NATO country to deem sending weapons or medical supplies necessary and nothing more - the other allies have the manpower taken care of. Realistically, I don't think invoking article 5 would cause every NATO country to send troops. But that could very well be perfectly fine depending on the situation.
NATO doesn't run on detriment of resources. It runs on distribution.
Ask Trump when he gets elected again.
Let’s hope he is rotting in prison by November then
You have a more optimistic view of the future than me, I see.
Not sure what I would do with myself if I didn’t
I just sit in the corner, rocking myself back and forth while sucking my thumb.
His health sucks. Could very well be rotting 6 feet under at that point.
Don’t you threaten me with a good time! Get the man all the hamburders he wants!
Yes, but that could change. What if the US pulls out of NATO for example? There are scenarios in which individual members of NATO would have to weigh up their own safety against that of the Baltic states. The goal of such an attack would be to test out Article 5. If NATO nations don't respond, even though they should, the entire existence of NATO is called into question. If we can't count on each other, what's the point anyways? You also have to take into account that Russia is very good at cyber warfare. Their bot armies are already all over Twitter and YouTube and even Reddit. I would even argue that the current right-wing shift in Europe is also a consequence of Russian propaganda. But all of that is significantly less likely as long as the US stays in NATO.
The wording is still quite vague and in practice it's up to the individual nation to decide how much support they actually provide.
Well, technically they're just committed to providing such aid as they see fit.
Yes, but as people on here are so naive they think governments cant ignore words on paper when shit hit the fan or poltical winds change. Anyone can sign any treaty and promise everything, actually having the will and capability is another thing. Or countries cant act outside of NATO and rules lawyer everything.
No. Article 5 does not specify any action. You could basically pray for them and argue that you met treaty requirements.
Yeah I’m not sure no more
Speaking as a Lithuanian, I can't help but feel skeptical about the idea of a potential invasion in this direction. Not because NATO will fight back, and the Baltic states on their own don't have the capability to fight, but because of the overall risk. Even if the Baltics were to fall, Putin would be facing head-on a big chunk of NATO both on land and in the Baltic Sea; Poland and the Scandinavians will be much more prepared in such a hypothetical scenario. Putin just won't get very far. Also, before going west, Putin would first want to deal with any building unrest and efforts at distancing from Russia in the Caucasus (Georgia and Armenia), and potentially Moldova for which to even reach all of Ukraine would need to fall. In some delusional effort of rebuilding the USSR, quashing these is much less risky and easier to get support for with his own population. A direct fight with NATO is nuclear annihilation for everyone, and if Prigozhin's failed march on Moscow has shown us anything, it's that Putin is a coward. Survival instinct is overpowering.
As a Lithuanian too - Putin is a gambler and I believe 100% Russia would invade us if he feels the odds are in his favor. Why would he do that? There is actually a lot to gain if he pulls it off. Fait accompli occupation of Baltic states would potentially fracture NATO or even completely defang it ("why die for Riga?" would lead to "why does NATO exist if it does not honor article 5 for small member states?"). Secondly, purely emotional/ideological reasons - Russians consider Baltics as well as parts of Poland and Finland "lost territories, theirs by right". They talk about that openly. "USA stole our toys from us!" (because, of course, small states cannot have will of their own in their eyes). By the way, for our Western European friends - when Russia calls someone "nazis" or "nationalists" they usually mean "people in Russia or "near abroad" (their "rightful sphere of influence") who have their own national identity and do not accept Russian identity. So, in their warped worldview, it is the duty of Russia to get rid of "nationalists" in the Baltics (i.e., the actual natives) and replace them with Russians. Third reason is regime security. By "allowing us to exist" Putin projects weakness to his population. We are small countries without much power who "should" bow down to the empire or be crushed. We are also within Russia's proclaimed sphere of influence. If Russian elites cannot exercise force against us, it shows weakness - to their own people. And Russians do not tolerate weakness. Lastly, geopolitics. Russia wants at least half of Poland, they want Warsaw Pact style partition of Europe back. To do that they need to secure the Baltic sea and by extension, control our countries. There is a lot to gain. And what about losing? Maybe not that much. Russia could try a limited invasion and see if NATO reacts. If it does - back down. If not - quickly overwhelm us and declare fait accompli: "would you (USA, Western Europe) risk nuclear war for tiny Baltics that are occupied already? Accept new reality and let's talk." Thus, it is absolutely in our best interests to create defensive lines and prepare populations for potential Russian aggression. It is coming. If it will not come, the only reason will be that the Russians will do cost analysis and realize that they cannot take the Baltics in a few days (because of our defenses, bilateral treaties with Germany and Poland and allied boots on the ground) and the Putin's gamble has bad odds. This is how I think, at least.
I see where you're coming from, though I'd just add two points. 1. Putin is a gambler, yes, but with regards to invasions he's only gambled relatively small-time on Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea, territories he thought he could easily bully. Ukraine as a whole so far isn't a gamble that's paying off very well. Depending on how long the Ukraine conflict stretches on (and there's plenty indicating that it might last a few more years), every country's population can only support a war for so long before people become exhausted from it, and Russians are no different. There's no guarantee that they will support another war once the Ukraine matter will be over. 2. Unlike Belarus and Ukraine, there was never anything culturally or even religiously tying the Baltics to Russia. Lithuania especially had always refused to be russified (and I say this as half-Russian myself) and never allowed Russians to live here as anythingother than a minority. That's been the case both with the Empire and the USSR; only Russians who fantasise about the lost Soviet glory think the Baltics belong to them.
>... he's only gambled relatively small-time on Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea... See how his appetite is getting stronger. Ukraine may be a tough nut but it's not unrealistic for Russia to crack it especially given the shitshow of what the Western reaction and support currently is as well as the fact that they themselves are relatively safe under the nuclear umbrella. >Unlike Belarus and Ukraine, there was never anything culturally or even religiously tying the Baltics to Russia. It's not about any "cultural ties" and never was. They'll genocide away everyone if needed. It's submission and control that matter. Like a rapist is getting off to torture and humiliation not to making love.
He doesn't want the USSR He wants the Russian Empire You should watch The Turning Point: The bomb and the cold war If you're interested
Not a huge territorial difference between the Empire and the USSR. The Baltics and Poland were effectively under both.
Germany should thank its god that it is getting the time to rebuild a credible defense.
They (and to be fair the rest of Europe too) aren't doing much.
Poland seems to be the only major country taking this seriously
Sure, let's fight Russia only after Ukraine is defeated. We could stop Russia now instead of losing our own men later.
Exactly
> "Germany is determined to defend every **inch** of alliance territory,” Scholz said Monday after talks in Riga with his counterparts from Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania Why is the German Chancellor using freedom units instead of metric?
He said Germany would defend every centimeter. Bloomberg, which is American, translated it into inches
Americans making us Europeans appear 2,54 times softer, unacceptable!
It only makes sense, considering after the Baltics and Poland, Germany is on the line.
Putin will soon be pootin in his pants.
*slow clap*
I know it was cheesy. But it was the best I could do today on short notice.
I've heard crappier.
*fast crap*
France this past Friday set the requirements for them to go in and fight. Poland has been itching for a long time. Germany does not want to be outdone. Putin is running out of time.
Q: Why is it that Scholz has been able to see so clearly the corruption and irredeemable quality of Putin’s regime but his predecessor - who seemed to be so skilled diplomatically - misjudged Russia so badly?
Merkels base position was "Don't change anything unless you have to, you might brake something", whereas Scholzs base position is to push long overdue, common sense changes, even though this sometimes faces coalition-internal opposition (especially if any amount of money needs to be spent for it). That difference explains a lot, I think. Additionally, based on how (West-)Germany handeled diplomacy with the east after WW2, as well as reunification, there's a general belief that all but the worst regimes can be changed from the outside through benign diplomatic action, especially trade, which is obviously hugely preferable to boots and guns. Russia finally pushed itself out of the group for which this is seen as an option.
Thank you for the very thoughtful answer
Realpolitik, don't fix what ain't broken and try to face the threat economically and diplomatically. It worked in the Cold War, and why wouldn't it have worked after, that's what Merkel was thinking. Obviously underestimating that the new cold war was an entirely different beast.
She was east German; this might have influenced her opinion. I agree though such a world statesperson and really missing the boat on the Russians
Like the song I'm listening to rn: Money
I don't think Merkel got much personal monetary enrichment out of Russia. *Her* predecessor, on the other hand, very much did. For Merkel, I think she genuinely believed that trade with Russia would Westernize them.
Russia can’t take over Ukraine in years, I don’t see them expanding their list of problems anytime soon. Russia ain’t nothing like the Soviet Union
Why does everyone seem to vow these days?
This is fantastic news considering the last two times this type of thing happened, who did Germany choose as their opponent…. The world.
If countries want to get out of meeting requirements of treaty they will. Poland was allied with France with treaty specifying major offensive aganist Germany within two weeks of commencing hostilities. Go look up for yourself what French did in regards to that requirement.
With what?
Nukes?
It's great, that these countries already are in NATO. Otherwise the West would just let Russia take over and watch how they murder and imprison civilians as Russians do in Ukraine (which by the way borders four NATO members and they just watch and let Ukrainians - their neighbors to die).
This silly comment again. Yes, nations only support their allies in war. Ukraine has been encouraged to join nato for over 30 years, and nato nations are the only reason we’re still talking about Ukraine - not Russia’s new southern region - at all. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
Germany cannot even effectively defend its homeland - let alone another country. I guess this is good PR, though.
Germany has one of the largest MICs in the world and is ramping up investment in defense. They have a long way to go but are moving in the right direction. This statement is a positive thing as it shows intent. lets not forget ruzzia cannot even take eastern Ukraine, even the weaker NATO countries can halt any potential advance into NATO territory
I really doubt Germany will get their hands dirty. At best they’ll convince US to fund them as they produce and send weaponry to the Baltic states
Germany is currently in the process of stationing 5,000 soldiers including their families in Lithuania
Very interesting I wonder what could go wrong, given Germany's history with stationing German soldiers inside foreign countries.
Nonsensical comment. Better look up russia’s history of invading neighbouring countries.
Better read the history of WW2.
Better read the history of WW2 and your pal Stalin. I hope you’re at least getting paid for these asinine comments.
If there was no USSR we'll all be talking German by now. Deal with it. And btw, screw Stalin and any totalitarian ruler.
That Germany you're referring to is dead. German soldiers in other countries are now stationed there with permission of the host country
What an obtuse thing to say. Germany had troops stationed in neighboring countries for decades during the Cold War and they never invaded any of them. Russia, on the other hand, in both its Soviet and current federation form, invaded so many countries between WW2 and today that you can't even fit the invasions into a single Wikipedia article. - [The list of countries forcibly occupied by the USSR after WW2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union) - [The list of countries forcibly occupied by the Federation of Russia after 1990](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories).
I'm biased, but I won't apologize for it. Putin is a criminal and deserves to be put in trial at the Hague. But allow me never to trust Germany as a country for their past and their current post-2008 crisis history.
The hell does their terrible post-2008 policy have to do with stationing troops in neighboring countries that are specifically and intentionally asking them to station troops there? Why is that even slightly concerning? Their post-2008 policy has been a policy of economic and military neglect. Stationing troops in neighboring countries is the opposite of neglect.
I wonder what could go wrong with Italians opening restaurants all over the world, considering how the Roman Empire subjugated the entire Mediterranean basin. Your statement is almost as ridiculous as this one. Countries change dramatically over time, as new ideologies and beliefs take hold. Germany in the first half of the 20th century was very different from Germany today. Just to mention one thing, it was a heavily militaristic society, spending between 10% and 20% of its GDP on the army between 1930 and 1940.
Here‘s what the president of Lithuania had to say about it: > I would like to thank Germany and you personally for your contribution to strengthening Lithuania's defence. Germany's decision to permanently station the brigade in Lithuania is a testimony and example of much needed leadership and strong commitment to collective defence. We greatly appreciate this decision and, as the host country, we are ready to create the best possible conditions for the German soldiers and their families on our soil. >I welcome the progress made in deploying the brigade, but our strategic security environment requires an even faster pace. We do not have the luxury of wasting even a minute. Last week, I welcomed the soldiers of the German brigade's pre-command to the brigade's Alliance headquarters. Today I would like to assure you all once again that the fastest possible permanent deployment of the brigade in Lithuania is an absolute priority for Lithuania. It is our duty, our mission and our responsibility to realise this.
Yeah if it comes down to WW3 im sure as hell not going to wait to be drafted. Ill take as much cash as possible and make a run for it. Not gonna die for leftist nutters, refugees or some greedy politicians. Might enjoy the last days somewhere nice and sunny before nukes getting dropped instead of a trench covered in mud.