Mooney_Driver wrote:
The question would be how NATO would react to that.
That would mean WW3.
In theory, yes – Article 5.
In practice, nobody can be quite sure, and that’s why UK and France have their own nuclear deterrent.
Not sure if civvy application is part of the plan?
Airborne_Again wrote:
That would mean WW3.
If he attacks Finland before it can finalize it’s NATO membership? There would not be any treaty obligation just yet, as opposed to attacking the Baltics.
Peter wrote:
In practice, nobody can be quite sure, and that’s why UK and France have their own nuclear deterrent.
Yep. As opposed to Germany. One of their TV hosts ,Wladimir Solowjow, seems to thing that an invasion of Germany is called for: “What should we do now? Once again Soviet boots should shake the dust from German graves!” On Russia One no less. Yep, just a propaganda guy, but well, we can see what influence such TV and radio hosts can have… see the example of his US counterparts.
Which way we turn it, it is clear that Russia would invade in a blink of the eye if they the capability and if they could be reasonably sure that NATO would not retaliate. It really is the only thing which keeps them out.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If he attacks Finland before it can finalize it’s NATO membership? There would not be any treaty obligation just yet, as opposed to attacking the Baltics.
Finland is not the same as Ukraine. It is an established democracy and a member of the EU.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If he attacks Finland before it can finalize it’s NATO membership?
He would get his ass royally kicked by Finland alone.
Ukraine has been preparing for a Russian invasion since Russia took Crimea. Finland has been preparing for a Russian invasion since WW2.
Graham wrote:
Finland has been preparing for a Russian invasion since WW2.
You mean since before the WW2?
:)
It is an established democracy and a member of the EU.
In this guys eyes democracies are weak states which are ready for picking. And a lot of EU states still pay for his gas and keep his war chest filled. Why should he bother about the EU.
Graham wrote:
He would get his ass royally kicked by Finland alone.
He can not take on Finland with an invasion force. But he can try to “change the regime” by attacking their government. Something he has tried to do in Ukraine as well but failed.
By now he might well realize that instead of comitting his whole army to fight Ukraine, if he wanted their government gone, a well equipped Speznaz party could have done the job for him then. He tried during the invasion but by then the Ukrainians called that game. Or a tactical nuke out of the blue on their government district. Decapitate the country and install a puppet government. And he can try the same with other governments he wants replaced, as long as he does not mess with NATO members.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In this guys eyes democracies are weak states which are ready for picking.
That wasn’t my point. My point was about the reaction of the EU and NATO.
The EU is powerless, militarily, and was powerless even before Russia put a bunch of EU countries in its pocket.
NATO has a lot of power in theory but in reality there is always the question mark about solidarity w.r.t. Article 5 if it was ever invoked.
There are some interesting questions regarding why Ukraine is fighting so hard in the east (losing 100-200 men daily, on their own numbers) when the towns there are already rubble.
