Vadimir Putin's next legitimate military target is Latvia.

submitted by jerryk from (self.WorldPolitics)

As the Russians continue to make steady progress in their winter offensive, and as the prospects for continued aid to Ukraine from NATO wither on the vine, it's becoming clear what Russia's next legitimate military target will be -- Latvia. Latvia bars clear access to Kaliningrad, which is a part of Russia, and Russia would like that situation rectified. They don't need all of Latvia, but, they do need a viable rail link to their territory in Kaliningrad. If this can be arranged by peaceful negotiations, all the better. If not, then some type of military action by Russia, will, of course, be necessary. Now, of course, from the standpoint of NATO, this would be an attack on a clear NATO member, and would trigger Article 5. So, what exactly would NATO do about it? I think that is far from clear. I could certainly imagine them doing nothing whatsoever, as long as the territory demanded was fairly limited. I cannot imagine a massive call-up of troops in France, Germany, Italy and Britain on Latvia's account, let alone in the U.S. I could certainly imagine some arms being sent, but, the fighting in such a small country would probably be over rather quickly. Then what? I would imagine that Russia probably could get what if wanted from Latvia, and hold onto it, NATO membership or no. I can't really see a perpetual state of war existing between all NATO members and Russia merely over a corridor to Kaliningrad, if that's all Russia wants, and that's all Russia takes. Sure, NATO might formerly refuse to acknowledge the Russian acquisition of territory in Latvia, but, who really cares? I'm sure the Russians don't. So, sometime within the next three to five years, I would say the Russians will get their corridor to Kaliningrad through Latvia, by hook, or by crook. And, NATO won't really do a damn thing about it.

all 3 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]notafed 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If NATO did not stand by its member countries in that event, then NATO would effectively cease to exist the day after. It would be shown to be spineless and worthless. Any protection it provides its members simply by existing would evaporate in a moment.

[–]jerryk[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The point is, there are degrees of "standing by its members". You could argue that NATO should immediately launch a thermonuclear first strike on Russia in the event, but, you don't really expect that, do you? What I'm suggesting is that they would do something -- probably send arms, probably refuse to acknowledge Russian territorial gains, but, that's about it. What do you expect, full NATO mobilization and total war over Latvia? Probably not. Bear in mind, in WWII, the British and French did declare war on Nazi Germany when they invaded Poland, but, they didn't actually do much more than that, at all. Perhaps NATO would "declare war" on Russia -- and that's about it. I'm skeptical even of this, however, if Russia's territorial demands were fairly modest and reasonable -- the public wouldn't support it. Why would the general public of Europe and America agree to go to war over a rail corridor through Latvia to Kaliningrad? They wouldn't.

[–]MALTED-MILK-BALLS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Navigating the Uncertainties: Assessing NATO's Response to Russia's Territorial Ambitions The complexities of international relations and military alliances demand careful consideration when analyzing potential responses to geopolitical tensions. In the context of Russia's territorial ambitions and NATO's role in ensuring the security of its members, a nuanced understanding of the various degrees of 'standing by its members' is essential. While a thermonuclear first strike may seem like an extreme and unrealistic scenario, it is crucial to explore the range of actions that NATO might undertake in response to Russian aggression. Degrees of 'Standing by its Members': A Spectrum of Responses It is important to recognize that NATO's response to Russia's territorial demands would likely fall within a spectrum of possibilities, ranging from symbolic gestures to more substantial military actions. The specific course of action taken would depend on a multitude of factors, including the severity of Russia's actions, the level of support among NATO members, and the potential consequences of escalating the conflict. Diplomatic and Economic Measures: Signaling Disapproval and Imposing Pressure In response to Russian territorial gains, NATO might initially resort to diplomatic and economic measures as a means of expressing disapproval and applying pressure. This could involve issuing strong statements condemning Russia's actions, imposing economic sanctions to deter further aggression, and suspending or withdrawing diplomatic relations. Such measures, while not directly involving military force, would nonetheless convey a clear message of disapproval and could potentially influence Russia's calculations. Military Support and Defensive Reinforcements: Bolstering Regional Security If Russia's territorial ambitions escalate and pose a direct threat to NATO members, the alliance may consider providing military support to the affected countries. This could take the form of supplying arms and equipment, deploying troops to bolster defensive capabilities, and conducting joint military exercises to demonstrate NATO's commitment to collective defense. Such actions would signal NATO's resolve to protect its members and deter further Russian aggression. Collective Defense and Military Intervention: A Last Resort In the event of a full-scale invasion or an imminent threat to a NATO member's sovereignty, the alliance might invoke Article 5 of its founding treaty, which stipulates that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. This could trigger a collective military response, involving the deployment of NATO forces to defend the affected member state. However, it is important to note that such a scenario would represent a significant escalation of the conflict and carry the risk of a wider regional or even global war. Public Support and Political Will: Weighing the Costs and Benefits Any military response by NATO would hinge on the level of public support and political will within the alliance. Public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping government decisions, and leaders would need to carefully weigh the potential costs and benefits of military intervention. The extent to which the public perceives a direct threat to their security and values would influence their willingness to support military action. The Importance of Diplomacy and De-escalation Efforts While military force may be necessary in certain circumstances, diplomatic efforts and de-escalation strategies should always be prioritized. Maintaining open channels of communication, pursuing negotiations, and exploring diplomatic solutions can help reduce tensions and prevent conflicts from spiraling out of control. It is in the best interests of all parties involved to seek peaceful resolutions wherever possible. Conclusion: A Balancing Act of Resolve and Diplomacy In navigating the complexities of Russia's territorial ambitions and NATO's commitment to its members, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The appropriate response would depend on the specific circumstances and would require careful consideration of various factors, including the severity of the threat, the level of public support, and the potential consequences of military action. A balanced approach that combines diplomatic efforts, economic pressure, and military deterrence, when necessary, is likely to be the most effective in maintaining regional stability and preventing further escalation of tensions.