[Goose]

As long as article 5 remains credible, Russia will not attack a NATO member.  However, as soon as there is doubt as to whether nato will aid, say, Estonia were it to be attacked by Russia, that dramatically increases the probability it will happen.

You and I are going to disagree quite a bit on this post. Article 5 remains credible if and only if NATO will aid any nation attacked and that NATO CAN effectively aid a nation so attacked. The main reason the US did not push hard to admit Ukraine and Georgia is the belief they are a bridge too far. There were other reasons back in 2008 (including political stability issues), but Merkel didn't get her arm twisted when she said no.

Russia's terrible tactical performance has obscured the fact that if they had performed even at an "average" level Ukraine would have been overrun before any effective NATO aid would have arrived. In 1990 the GDR had 12 "combat effective" Army divisions (you could argue that 4 of those divisions were at 80% strength until their reservists could report). Right now they have zero. Yes, zero. Belgium sold their entire armored force to Poland. The 6th fleet effectively no longer exists. The BAOR no longer exists. The list goes on. USAFE would have done what they could, but it wouldn't have been near enough. It is a very open question whether NATO can defend Romania and Bulgaria as it is.

It is very helpful to keep in mind that the great performance in Gulf War I by the US Army could not be repeated by the time 9/11 happened. We had downsized greatly to take advantage of the "peace dividend". One also must remember that all the "endless war's" we have fought since 1990 were either wars "of choice", where we could determine the time and place, or wars where the other side gave us MONTHS to stage our forces and "shape the battle space". As far as being "ready to fight tonight", we are not, and have not been for quite a while.

This is arguably to be expected, because "the cold war is over". However, committing NATO to defend everybody who wants it under those conditions just isn't credible. NATO balked at Ukraine and Georgia because the military basically said they brought greatly increased risk of a conflict we couldn't credibly deter or effectively prosecute. Finland is different, but some of the same issues apply. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are also effectively indefensible. They are in NATO because it is felt we have a moral obligation to extend an umbrella over them and commit to a long war to free them if necessary. Finland can be more easily defended, but is also a direct threat to Russia's Baltic Sea fleet and the Kalingrad enclave. It is a mixed bag.

Putin thought that the West would react as it had when he invaded Crimea.  The current Ukrainian war was a major wake-up moment for the alliance, and has majorly backfired on Putin, almost no matter what happens in Ukraine.  He has now gotten NATO allies to spend money on their millitaries, is likely leading Finland and Sweden to join NATO, and NATO to station more troops further East than you would have seen in the alternative universe where Putin doesn’t invade.



BC

Yes, but for how long? Once the Ukraine is not in the news, European politicians are going to look at how to get elected, and generally large military budgets are are not the way to do it. If Ukraine ceases to exist as a country, you can bet that many countries in Europe are going to re-think their position. Do they believe we will trade Los Angeles for Budapest? Probably not, at least that is a concern. Remember, Hungary is a NATO country and they are already supporting Russia in this conflict. Turkey bought the S400 system. There are lots of "shades of gray" in Eastern Europe.

It has been clear for years to "any thinking person" that a NATO based EU relying on Russian gas is very, very stupid. Using some, fine, but relying on it? Yet six months ago Nord Stream 2 was regarded as "just fine". IMHO right today if the EU was actually serious about this current situation, they would stop using Russian gas. The US should commit to reducing our consumption to allow us to supply what Europe needs. If necessary, we should adopt price controls during this effort (and I am a Republican). Yes, there are challenges. Yes, Germany may have a recession as their economics ministry fears. However, if the West can't do these relatively "little things", can anybody believe the West would "die for Estonia"? Didn't think so. Yes, Ukraine isn't in NATO, but it still is a test of NATO's resolve. If Ukraine is defeated, there is a message there, and to many that message will be "NATO isn't a reliable deterrent. Our country need a more flexible alternative. Call Vlad and make a deal".

[Goose]

As long as article 5 remains credible, Russia will not attack a NATO member.  However, as soon as there is doubt as to whether nato will aid, say, Estonia were it to be attacked by Russia, that dramatically increases the probability it will happen.

You and I are going to disagree quite a bit on this post. Article 5 remains credible if and only if NATO will aid any nation attacked and that NATO CAN effectively aid a nation so attacked. The main reason the US did not push hard to admit Ukraine and Georgia is the belief they are a bridge too far. There were other reasons back in 2008 (including political stability issues), but Merkel didn't get her arm twisted when she said no.

Russia's terrible tactical performance has obscured the fact that if they had performed even at an "average" level Ukraine would have been overrun before any effective NATO aid would have arrived. In 1990 the GDR had 12 "combat effective" Army divisions (you could argue that 4 of those divisions were at 80% strength until their reservists could report). Right now they have zero. Yes, zero. Belgium sold their entire armored force to Poland. The 6th fleet effectively no longer exists. The BAOR no longer exists. The list goes on. USAFE would have done what they could, but it wouldn't have been near enough. It is a very open question whether NATO can defend Romania and Bulgaria as it is.

It is very helpful to keep in mind that the great performance in Gulf War I by the US Army could not be repeated by the time 9/11 happened. We had downsized greatly to take advantage of the "peace dividend". One also must remember that all the "endless war's" we have fought since 1990 were either wars "of choice", where we could determine the time and place, or wars where the other side gave us MONTHS to stage our forces and "shape the battle space". As far as being "ready to fight tonight", we are not, and have not been for quite a while.

This is arguably to be expected, because "the cold war is over". However, committing NATO to defend everybody who wants it under those conditions just isn't credible. NATO balked at Ukraine and Georgia because the military basically said they brought greatly increased risk of a conflict we couldn't credibly deter or effectively prosecute. Finland is different, but some of the same issues apply. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are also effectively indefensible. They are in NATO because it is felt we have a moral obligation to extend an umbrella over them and commit to a long war to free them if necessary. Finland can be more easily defended, but is also a direct threat to Russia's Baltic Sea fleet and the Kalingrad enclave. It is a mixed bag.

Putin thought that the West would react as it had when he invaded Crimea.  The current Ukrainian war was a major wake-up moment for the alliance, and has majorly backfired on Putin, almost no matter what happens in Ukraine.  He has now gotten NATO allies to spend money on their millitaries, is likely leading Finland and Sweden to join NATO, and NATO to station more troops further East than you would have seen in the alternative universe where Putin doesn’t invade.



BC

Yes, but for how long? Once the Ukraine is not in the news, European politicians are going to look at how to get elected, and generally large military budgets are are not the way to do it. If Ukraine ceases to exist as a country, you can bet that many countries in Europe are going to re-think their position. Do they believe we will trade Los Angeles for Budapest? Probably not, at least that is a concern. Remember, Hungary is a NATO country and they are already supporting Russia in this conflict. Turkey bought the S400 system. There are lots of "shades of gray" in Eastern Europe.

It has been clear for years to "any thinking person" that a NATO based EU relying on Russian gas is very, very stupid. Using some, fine, but relying on it? Yet six months ago Nord Stream 2 was regarded as "just fine". IMHO right today if the EU was actually serious about this current situation, they would stop using Russian gas. The US should commit to reducing our consumption to allow us to supply what Europe needs. If necessary, we should adopt price controls during this effort (and I am a Republican). Yes, there are challenges. Yes, Germany may have a recession as their economics ministry fears. However, if the West can't do these relatively "little things", can anybody believe the West would "die for Estonia"? Didn't think so. Yes, Ukraine isn't in NATO, but it still is a test of NATO's resolve. If Ukraine is defeated, there is a message there, and to many that message will be "NATO isn't a reliable deterrent. Our country need a more flexible alternative. Call Vlad and make a deal".