And Nato is of course "expanding", "cornering" and "surrounding" Russia too. Just like a map makes obvious...?
Invading Georgia is aggression. Invading Ukraine is aggression. Sending "little green men" over is. Sending anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down civilian planes over the "Novorossiya" puppet regime's controlled area is.
As for Ukraine - yeah Russia occupied Crimea, but it was either that or risk a crack that could disintegrate it entirely. Israel struck first in the 7 day war as well, and good that they did, because otherwise they wouldnt exist. History is full of such examples.
Oh, so Russia _saved_ Ukraine, not invaded?
I'd yet to see most pretentious whitewashing of Russian war crimes.
Except for the ones they are engaging in full scale war (bombing hospitals and schools) to protect.
If there is any doubt that the US would go to war, that ironically increases the risk that they would.
So basically - one says one would definitely go to war. Simply because then you maximize the chance of avoiding it. Donald Trumps administration didn't get the memo I think, when they started being vague on who might be helped by Article 5.
I think there's been some question about some of the newer NATO members for some time though. http://www.interpretermag.com/americans-are-prepared-to-die-...
Perhaps. And surely any country would ponder whether it would be willing to send thousands of young people to their deaths for any cause, regardless of what agreements were signed.
But the point is these things aren't supposed to be discussed in public by the parties that need to demonstrate resolve.
If one thinks that "they understand what we think anyway" then the whole idea of foreign poilicy, military posture, diplomacy is moot - it's just various mind readers knowing what everyone thinks :)
Obviously the russians have a good idea what America think and vice versa. Deterrence is having that tiny doubt in the back of their minds that "maybe, just maybe, Article V is really invoked if we do X".
The only thing that is dangerous is removing that doubt - which really can only be done via a clumsy statement from one party bound by it. So long as it's guessing about the status of Article V in a Baltic crisis it's fine. All a US administration has to do is keep everyone guessing.
Trump says keeping everyone guessing is his core policy so maybe you guys see more eye-to-eye than you think.
I think there's no way that we could have gone on as long as we did (and continued to maintain some presence there even still) with a draft, though. People don't really care that much about a senseless war if they don't sense that they themselves are at risk.
President trump would be advised by the generals he knows more than that he has to go in front of the American people and let them know why he has to take the actions he is taking. Sending US troops into Europe.
Believe me, there is zero doubt, if NATO is hit its game over. Why does Putin cry about NATO so much?
Lets say that Russia invades Europe. If NATO doesn't respond, then the alliance is null and everybody fights for themselves. Which isn't a good situation to be in, given that countries in Europe don't have the capacity to take on Russia by themselves, I mean given our experience from WWII.
We learn from mistakes and history teaches us that an invader will not be conservative about where to draw the line. The world also thought Germany will stop at Czechoslovakia too and they were wrong.
And nowadays we also have nuclear weapons and during the Cold War the presence of NATO troops in an area was enough to deter the advancement of the soviets and vice versa.
Russia can't (and doesn't want to) really "invade Europe". What they can do is effectively bring small parts of the baltics, perhaps a whole baltic state as a maximum, under the russian umbrella, and e.g. replace the government with a russian friendly one, put a military base or two there etc.
They don't have the resources to hold "unfriendly territory" (their economy is bad enough as it is). So what would happen is things that would confuse the international community. Fraudulent elections. Violence in the streets. Politicians and journalists murdered. And then suddenly that state is Russian friendly i.e. "effectively part of Russia".
What happened? Was it war? Was someone invaded? When? Is Article V invokable? Is Article V even written to cope with such a scenario? What if there was a proper democratic turn towards Russia? It's Ukraine all over again.
We can't expect (even with Trump) to see massive use of force just because a few green men are shouting in a square somewhere. Or because an election seems dubious in Riga. But wait long enough, and it's fait accompli. The Russian friendly government installed will reject any offerings of military help, because now you are asking the russians whether they want the russians out of the Baltics!
This is why the only working deterrent is to simply have massive Nato ground forces permanently in the Baltics. When you get Maidan square like things going on, you need OECD and NATO people on the ground already. They won't be admitted after a while. Article V should be explicitly clarified to include e.g. holding elections without a long enough notice, and doing it without OECD and NATO oversight.
[0] http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8858909/russia-war-flowchart
Britain and France declared war on Germany two days after it invaded Poland.
How?
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-to-invad...
Also, do you know what the UdSSR "ax theory" was? Or the "ed-escalation" strategy of the 90ies?
Look at the map. The Baltic states can't be defended. At least not with the military that is there in the moment. Could they be taken back? Unlikely because Russia would immediately retaliate tactically (nuclear).
That's why deterrence is the only thing working. If the US even suggests it might not consider an attack on Latvia the same as an attack on Washington, then there is no deterrent.
As you say, the Baltics can't be defended (at least not longer than 1-2 days) and there is no good strategy with Sweden and Finland outside NATO (Sweden accepts US use of bases - but would they in a crisis if Russia makes clear it will make Sweden a target?).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
We are talking about a key component of the former Soviet Union, with a big chunk of their population being pro-Russia, as they share much of their history with Russia, so even before the soviets they were part of the Russian Empire and of the Kievan Rus' state. Don't get me wrong, I've very sympathetic towards Ukraine's citizens that are pro-EU, however if I'm seeing any country having problems in joining NATO, it's definitely them.
Now Ukraine is a mix of foreign interests, polish born oligarchs, nazi battalions ( the so-called volunteers ). What is there in for the people? Famine, high prices for gas and electricity, the Ministry of Truth ( yes there is such a thing in the new shiny "democratic" Ukraine ). Ok, keep in mind that you can go to jail there for speaking in russian tongue.
Do you even read anything besides Russian news?