Estonia, Poland and Lithuania prepare for possible Russian invasion

[Malamute]

Some folks feel that POTUS may be disinclined to send US forces to help a NATO country. I agree that POTUS maybe disinclined. However, it is neither the president's prerogative nor within their power to pull out of a long-standing alliance and treaty, that is Congress' authority and their's alone. And as stupid at Obama has been and Clinton/Trump are likely to be...there is pretty much a snowball's chance in hell that Congress approves a unilateral withdraw from NATO and our agreements. We just may not be the first to send troops in...

I agree the US wouldn't likely completely withdraw from Nato, but am not sure wed jump all in if there was a limited incursion into a small Nato country (and Russia likely all along saying they had nothing to do with it, it must be disgruntled locals*, just like they did in Ukraine). Your last part may be the important or operative part. If we don't rush in, the moment may be lost that it would be practical or possible to do so.

*Actually, besides claiming it was all a civil war, Russia apparently gave tons of its soldiers "leave" so they could take care of personal matters, which just happened to be taking all their work gear (weapons, armor, arty, etc) across a border to be honorary Ukranians and participate in their civil war, totally NOT representing Russia in any way, shape or form.

[Shoresy]

Until there is regime change, a repudiation of NATO by the government and a liberation by Russia...

Well said; I would expect this to be his primary (attempted) course of action.

[iakdrago]

Some folks feel that POTUS may be disinclined to send US forces to help a NATO country. I agree that POTUS maybe disinclined. However, it is neither the president's prerogative nor within their power to pull out of a long-standing alliance and treaty, that is Congress' authority and their's alone. And as stupid at Obama has been and Clinton/Trump are likely to be...there is pretty much a snowball's chance in hell that Congress approves a unilateral withdraw from NATO and our agreements. We just may not be the first to send troops in...

They day U.S. pulls out of NATO will be the day that U.S. foreign policy crumbles into ash.

[iakdrago]

On the verge might have been overselling it. However the key pieces were there. A new pro western government that was extremely Russsophobic. They immediately passed several laws that would make integration into EU and NATO easier. There were talks between NATO countries of the steps necessary to bring Ukraine into NATO.

I would argue that the reason that Russia is supporting the one side of the Ukrainian Civil war is to prevent it from joining NATO. Per NATO, a country can't join the alliance if it has an internal dispute such as a civil war.

[Malamute]

On the verge might have been overselling it. However the key pieces were there. A new pro western government that was extremely Russsophobic. They immediately passed several laws that would make integration into EU and NATO easier. There were talks between NATO countries of the steps necessary to bring Ukraine into NATO.

I would argue that the reason that Russia is supporting the one side of the Ukrainian Civil war is to prevent it from joining NATO. Per NATO, a country can't join the alliance if it has an internal dispute such as a civil war.

Certainly. It works for them, both in holding the part of Ukraine they want, and trying to have deniability. Its a civil war, after all.

So, whats Natos policy about getting involved in a member countries civil war? Do you not think that the same deniability by supporting/encouraging/allowing free willed Russian soldier to take leave and by the way take all their weapons/armor/arty etc along with them wouldn't work in the Nato member Baltic states in question? I don't believe Russia ever admitted they had anything to do with the Ukraine war, regardless of evidence turned up. If its not open aggression by one country to another, what can Nato actually do? The farce doesn't even have to hold up in the long term, just long enough to secure their goals, which doesn't have to be a complete takeover. They can mire the whole thing masquerading as a civil war, and it would be too late in the game for any outsiders to do much. And I serious doubt anyone is going to seriously consider nukes as a viable option or threat under those circumstances. Game over.

[Wobblie]

"So, what's NATOs policy about getting involved in a member country's civil war?

We gonna find out in Turkey, probably.

[Malamute]

"So, what's NATOs policy about getting involved in a member country's civil war?

We gonna find out in Turkey, probably.

Secure critical assets (nukes), secure personnel and vital locations, see what happens. (My guess)

[iakdrago]

That's one of the indications that NATO is waaaaay over extended. Membership in NATO should not have been tossed around for the sake of minor objectives--aka having missile bases closer to the Ex-Soviet Union. In the beginning NATO was a partnership. Not so much anymore. What's done is done, and at this point it should NOT be overextended further, and instead should be protected at all cost. An attack on one, is an attack on all.

[Malamute]

I agree that's how it should be, I have serious reservations the current or either possible future admin will see it that way, or have the decisiveness and fortitude to deal with it as it should, and any of the above will probably be manipulated by Putin because of that.

[modrecoil]

To understand who Putin is and what he's capable of you have to understand Chechnya. I'm always puzzled by how few remember.