Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm worried this is optimistic but ultimately misguided thinking.

Russia is invading Ukraine because Putin knows that the consequences of invasion will be small relative to his perceived benefits. NATO/"The West" will not risk a larger confrontation over Ukraine.

Unfortunately, I think that same conclusion extends to the smaller NATO countries. Will the rest of NATO really risk a nuclear war if Russia decides to invade one of Latvia/Lithuania/Montenegro/Estonia? As recently as last year, the US had an anti-NATO President. This could happen again in the near future. If it does, Putin will be emboldened to continue expanding Russia's sphere of influence.



No, NATO is absolutely the redline and even the smallest nato baltic countries usually have allied troops stationed there. To think NATO wouldn't defend a member state is completely unrealistic and that's one of the reasons this entire conflict started. If ukraine joins NATO it becomes untouchable, even for putin, hence why they were willing to support the donbass rebels and escalate to a war now. If putin was just going for the easiest target and didn't mind NATO, ukraine is hardly the weakest target in the area.

Once you attack a NATO member you are almost automatically at war with all the members of the alliance and you'll probably have to face already present nato troops as soon as the war starts.


> To think NATO wouldn't defend a member state is completely unrealistic and that's one of the reasons this entire conflict started.

Depends how defending looks. I can see some drone strikes, some bombing runs, but the danger of it escalating to a nuclear war is would be high.

I just don’t believe Americans would accept turning their cities to glass to save Lithuania.

Now I understand, pretending they would, makes the deterrent work. But I hope nobody tries to call the bluff on that one.


I understand the theory of what you are saying, NATO as an alliance is focused around the "red line". However, in practise, will the US/UK/etc risk a nuclear war over Montenegro? Even today, with Biden and Boris in command, the answer in not clear. With a potential future anti-NATO Commander in Chief there is even more doubt.


This is the theory, but let's be honest: will Western politicians really risk a direct armed confrontation with Russia - when the latter almost openly threatens to escalate (hinting at WMD) if anyone intervenes - over, say, Latvia?

Actually, that's not the right question, because Europe by itself doesn't have the military strength to escalate. So it'll be down to American politicians and American voters.


Would you say this if Trump was still POTUS? I seriously wonder if the US didn't support NATO actions whether NATO would remain whole.


Yes, because he was still very actively supporting the countries bordering russia. He didn't like the structure of NATO but that's mostly because he wanted more involvememt from European countries, not less. I don't think any president would actually back off a nato member getting attacked.


The question shouldn't be "will NATO risk war over Latvia," but rather "will NATO risk war over NATO." Because if the mutual defense pact is not upheld, NATO is shown to be utterly worthless.


Only if you assume that all members are actually equal. If there's de facto first-class and second-class membership (e.g. those who joined before USSR collapsed, and those who joined after), then countries in the first group might be willing to give up as many of the second group as needed to avoid an all-out confrontation.


Regardless , then that will prove NATO has outlived its use and is no longer a organization worth having.


That, again, depends on which group you're in...


> Will the rest of NATO really risk a nuclear war if Russia decides to invade one of Latvia/Lithuania/Montenegro/Estonia?

American here. Yes. Fuck with us. Please.

Biden is our president right now and his temperament does seem to be less than what is required.

> As recently as last year, the US had an anti-NATO President.

There's a lot fucked up about NATO and its post Soviet history, including our recent president. However, it was largely neglected and America was bearing the brunt of its cost and few of its benefits. Seeking to make it more equitable and discouraging Russian energy dependence is not the same as being "antiNATO".


i agree, will NATO think Montenegro is worth global nuclear war? i'm not sure.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: