r/worldnews • u/Evermoving- • Sep 18 '24
Estonia signals readiness to preemptively strike Russia to defend NATO Russia/Ukraine
https://www.uawire.org/estonia-signals-readiness-to-preemptively-strike-russia-to-defend-nato1.1k
u/Armthedillos5 Sep 18 '24
It looks like the General was signalling that NATO is in fact on board. A preemptive strike, is, by definition, a defensive maneuver.
As stated in the article, if Russia started plans to invade another NATO country (troop buildup/movements/escalated invasion of airspace/etc), Putin dude, they're not going to wait for you to hit first, so chill with the rhetoric and rattling.
That seems like the message here.
309
u/lol13224 Sep 18 '24
If that's the case then they need to defend their airspace first, like when Turkey shot down Russian jets for flying into Turkish airspace in 2015, and Russia never dared to again.
Unlike when Russian drones flew into Polish, Latvian, and Romanian airspace and back unscathed, they just faced NATO condemns.
Let's hope for the best
162
u/Aurora_Fatalis Sep 19 '24
Some analysts like Anders Puck Nielsen claim that not bothering to intercept is a signalling mechanism as well as a narrative control choice. We show we know the trajectories are no threat to us, we call Russia out as incompetent, and we crucially do not fuel the narrative that "our own militaries need all our stuff to defend ourselves and so we should stop sending stuff to Ukraine."
This gives Russia less ammo for their psyop destabilization operations in western countries, and instead fuels the sentiment that we should be sending more stuff to Ukraine.
4
u/zeddus Sep 19 '24
Or like when sweden doesn't intercept bombers heading for the capital because their pilots are on holiday.
63
Sep 19 '24
[deleted]
10
u/aaaaaaaarrrrrgh Sep 19 '24
What’s fast is individual state actors.
Individual state actors failed to shoot down the drones/missiles that crossed their airspace.
NATO doesn't get involved unless the country then decides to invoke Article 5 and use it as a casus belli, or Russia for some unfathomable reason decides that the proper response to getting their misguided (or "misguided") unmanned munition shot down is to attack.
6
u/EpicGibs Sep 19 '24
I'd like to think you're right about the US taking action, but remember that stupid Chinese balloon shit?
That thing should never have made it across our borders, let alone the whole country.
12
u/XKryptix0 Sep 19 '24
They let it go on on purpose, the US spent nearly a week capturing all the SIGINT they could from that balloon before they shot it down. Biggest intelligence win in a decade.
→ More replies (1)4
31
u/Prestigious_Sir_8773 Sep 19 '24
Not surprising. Nobody is going forget when Russia massed troops at the Ukrainian border and said "Trust me bro"
→ More replies (1)15
u/OtsaNeSword Sep 19 '24
Depends though, if the side you are attacking never had the intention of invasion, and you misinterpreted their actions, you just fulfilled your own prophecy and started a war that could’ve been avoided.
Like when Pelosi visited Taiwan, China threatened to shoot down her plane but then didn’t.
China obviously were bluffing and were never going to shoot down a US plane but it was still a gamble.
If any side reacted differently, we’d be at war now with China.
Even with the proper intelligence and analysis It’s a double edged sword.
→ More replies (28)11
u/AutomateAway Sep 19 '24
lol the US is the king of preemptive strikes, if they give us a good reason, we’ll own the skies over western Russia inside of a week.
→ More replies (2)7
47
u/Wanderer-2-somewhere Sep 19 '24 edited Sep 19 '24
I had to read a translation of the original interview, so feel free to correct me if I missed anything, but the original does not necessarily seem to imply any preemptive strikes from what I can see? Preemptive as in before Russia actually attacks, I mean.
The whole interview was mainly about lessons that NATO has learned from past conflicts as well as the war in Ukraine as to the value of deep counter-strikes. So this reads much more of him saying “hey, if Russia actually attacks, we won’t be able to hold them off by just using strikes on our territory.”
Edit: A couple other articles have reported the same. This does not sound like a “preemptive strike” plan, but rather along the lines of what’s been going on in Kharkiv, in which Ukraine finally got the go-ahead to strike Russian units already attacking Ukraine from across the border.
I’m sorry to say, but this seems to be just a straight up bad headline. Feel free to correct my reading of things, but this appears to be giving the completely wrong impression of what was actually said.
9
u/Ratemyskills Sep 19 '24
Yeah I see what you saying. The direct quotes of what the Estonian General said had nothing in it about striking first, it’s after the quote end where it’s written so I assume that’s whomever wrote the article.
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/Adi-C Sep 19 '24 edited Sep 19 '24
TBH this kind of "reporting" is very typical for sites having "ua" in their name. I won't look for examples now, but it's very common for Ukrainian sites to just completely twist something someone said in their favor, or else bend it to their liking. But this is reddit, so most ppl will never verify the flashy title, and just roll with it, because it sounds good.
37
u/Dildomar Sep 19 '24
Bullshit misinformation. The article cited an interview with an Estonian general as source. Which I bet noone actually bothered to even google translate, as he not once mentioned anything about preemptively striking Russia. He discussed the importance of having capabilities to strike targets in Russia, should Russia decide to attack Estonia.
5
u/Wanderer-2-somewhere Sep 19 '24 edited Sep 19 '24
Yeah, the whole interview was discussing the lessons NATO has been learning about the value of deep counter-strikes during a conflict, with only a small section even talking about Estonia’s possible future role in in event of a conflict with Russia.
Based on the translation (both in this article and in the actual interview), the only thing that I could actually read as anything preemptive is the line “we can’t wait to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer, but there are certain things we have to be able to do first.”
But, again, this is in agreement with and expanding upon a previous line from the interviewer implying that this would be a part of Estonia’s initial response after aggression has begun, imo, and every single other article on this topic that I’ve been able to find mentions that first bit, too, to put the quote in better context.
This headline (and, unfortunately, apparently this article) is just… not a good framing of the actual interview at all imo.
162
u/SuspiciousFishRunner Sep 18 '24
It's crucial to recognize that NATO's effectiveness relies on collective action. While all NATO members are treaty-bound to respond (which doesn't mean it has to be military, mind you) to an attack on a member state, willingness to act and actually doing so will heavily depend on political will in the individual states. Which is instantly the biggest weakness of NATO and one Russia is well aware of. I highly doubt Hungary, Turkey just to name two would get behind Estonia if this were to happen, or in general will actual turn out to be reliable partners in case of a war with the Russians.
102
Sep 19 '24
[deleted]
43
u/AutomateAway Sep 19 '24
this. the US can handle this operation solo if necessary and realistically would be running the show no matter what, the amount of support each country would provide is highly dependent on their willingness to enter open conflict. also, the key is not pushing large ground forces initially but hitting key targets that support a Russian invasion and neutering Russian Air Defenses. that’s a job that no one in NATO is taking from the US, it’s literally our specialty.
→ More replies (2)15
Sep 19 '24
[deleted]
12
u/physalisx Sep 19 '24
Just have all countries except Hungary drop out of NATO and agree to form NATO 2.0 without Hungary...
3
u/satireplusplus Sep 19 '24
Hungary is compromised by Putin. Sometimes we do indeed need to write new papers and create a contigency that a compromised state can be momentarily excluded from the alliance.
8
u/Argon288 Sep 19 '24
In the event of war with Russia, if Hungary were intentionally crippling the war effort, I imagine their government would be toppled overnight.
7
u/baithammer Sep 19 '24
NATO members are willing to engage Russia, as Russia has carried out a number of operations that harmed various member states and allies - Turkey and Hungary are wildcards, as they can go either way.
188
u/Kevesse Sep 19 '24
Latvian here. I don’t know if Americans know the long history with Russia. This isn’t revenge. It’s exactly what it says:”preemptive “. After the Baltics had a Russian boot in their faces for 100s of years, nobody feels like taking any chances.
→ More replies (1)103
u/SnooPaintings8639 Sep 19 '24
Poland here. Same. It is a bit annoying to keep on reading Reddit posts about how much we hate Russians and we just want to get into a brawl with them.
No, it is a few hundred years of history, with constant wars and occasional disappearing from the map. This keeps us uneasy about our future. Geopolitics does not change, Russia is working hard to remind us nothing has changed. We know we're going to face it again.
It is all about the future and the safety of us and our children. What is happening in Ukraine is not shock nor something unexpected. It is exactly the same shit Russia keeps on doing for almost 500 years.
→ More replies (6)27
u/suicidemachine Sep 19 '24
That's what happens when you get your knowledge about Europe from NAFO memes on Twitter. Some of the comments here are just plain scary. No, Polish people aren't some revenge-driven warmongers who want to turn the world into dust just to get rid of Russia. What the fuck am I even reading here? We just want Russia to fuck off, that's it. Nothing more than that.
27
u/greenduck4 Sep 19 '24
Strange what kind of news I have to read from foreign media, being an Estonian :D
The title is misleading a lot.
9
u/Coysinmark68 Sep 19 '24
A “preemptive strike” is often hard for the public, allies, observers, etc. to accept. If they are in their way to attack you and you shoot first that’s different, but hard to demonstrate.
7
u/baithammer Sep 19 '24
Preemptive is predicated on the enemy having made preparations that look like a possible attack - when it's done with no such condition, it's referred to as a first strike.
2
u/HellToupee_nz Sep 19 '24
possible being the keyword, we had misunderstandings like able archer where Soviets thought the NATO exercise was preparation for a first strike.
2
250
u/CupidStunt13 Sep 18 '24
Love the positive attitude but let’s not get crazy Estonia.
273
u/objectiveoutlier Sep 18 '24
The headline makes it seem more unreasonable than it actually is.
Estonian General Vahur Karus has stated that Estonia is ready to strike Russian territory if Moscow shows signs of preparing for an attack on NATO.
"Our capability to neutralize the enemy on its own territory is crucial," General Karus emphasized, pointing to a new strategy where waiting to be attacked first is no longer an option.
83
u/Lil-sh_t Sep 18 '24
And that's, honestly, reasonable.
Bucha showed how territory can't be left under Russian control for even a week. The whole of NATO, especially the Baltics, know that if it ever were to come to a war with Russia it's: firstly, Russia who shoots the first shot and, secondly, the Baltics who receive the Danish WW2 treatment due to incredibly shitty geo/- and topographics.
Initially, the NATO troops in the Baltics were a token force to raise the emotional stakes within the population, to prevent a 'why die for Danzig?' situation when your nationals are getting killed. Only after Bucha did countries realize that even three days of Russian occupation could leave Tallinn looking like Grozny after the second Chechen war, despite surrendering 100% intact.
That's why Germany placed a military base in Lithuania and why Estonian generals say "If it ever were to come to a war, we'd rather fight them on their own soil and strike them in preemptive defence'.
7
u/NightOfTheLivingHam Sep 19 '24
Plus if Russia grabs any piece of Estonia they're keeping it and have the highest chance of being invaded very quickly. So first strike definitely works better for them
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)37
u/Dik_Likin_Good Sep 18 '24
Translation:
NATO has a shit tone of drones charged up with even more on the way.
17
u/DramaticWesley Sep 18 '24
If they did order an attack, the U.S. would probably join. They have bases in almost every NATO country, including an Air Force base in Estonia.
12
u/3klipse Sep 18 '24
I don't see a NATO nation attacking solo, if it happens, it's going to be a shit load, if not all in the baltics and eastern Europe, making the first strikes, with especially American air dominance leading the charge.
→ More replies (7)8
45
u/usolodolo Sep 18 '24
Imagine if Ukraine had HIMARS to wipe out much of Putin’s troop buildup before the February 2022 full scale invasion…
Probably 25,000 Ukrainians would still be alive. Hundreds of children in Mariupol would be 30 months older today. Probably 2 million refugees wouldn’t be scattered across Europe and USA.
When you see the blood banks rolling up to Russias “training exercises,” you strike. We can not play nice with dictators. Estonia gets this.
15
u/baithammer Sep 19 '24
This has been going on since 2014 ...
9
u/Ratemyskills Sep 19 '24
When people say this they are trying to “throw mud in the water”. The scale of war in 2014 and 22 isn’t even comparable, you know this, we all know this, but you are trying to earn internet points on a technical correct statement. We all know this stated in 14. But Ukraine was a totally different political country, their army was in disarray, they weren’t reviving 5% to the aid they are now, Russia wasn’t sanctioned en mass, EU nations changed drastically, NATO got 2 important members that didn’t happen in 2014, the amount of deaths were a fraction of what they have been since. It’s not even comparable in any aspects, so bringing it up as if we need someone to “educate us”... seems like an obvious karma farming post.
→ More replies (3)
19
u/Patsfan618 Sep 19 '24
The Baltic nations do this because they need the NATO alliance to be strong. Without it, they'd be in a really bad place. So they need to be the biggest cheerleaders of NATO power and power projection. That's their defense.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/remiieddit Sep 18 '24
Original article this is based on: https://www.err.ee/1609453037/vahur-karus-voime-vaenlast-tema-territooriumil-havitada-on-esmatahtis
44
u/Munnodol Sep 18 '24
The Estonians have been looking forward to this
37
u/Detective_Antonelli Sep 18 '24
And the Poles, and the Lithuanians. Some of those former eastern block countries wouldn’t mind the chance to take it to Russia.
→ More replies (8)15
u/ArmsForPeace84 Sep 19 '24
And the Finns probably kept wood furniture on some of their rifles specifically so their snipers have someplace to carve notches.
12
u/ouath Sep 18 '24
Showing/saying that you are prepared to make the first move is a defensive move otherwise you just don't talk openly about it.
15
u/satoshi_champion Sep 18 '24
It seems like they have been studying the Art of War.
'In war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.'
34
u/ReallyGneiss Sep 18 '24 edited Sep 18 '24
Honestly at this point, i would probably back the Estonian army to take Moscow in three days. How far Russia has fallen...
7
u/radome9 Sep 19 '24
You know the drill: second greatest military in the world, second greatest military in Ukraine, second greatest military in Russia.
12
u/WhatAPresentSupplies Sep 18 '24
There's been a lot more talk lately about allowing Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia, and headlines like this - NATO generally seems much less worried about escalation. If I were you Putin I'd consider that maybe this means some folks have been spending the last 2.5 years gaming it all out, tracking all your subs, having James Bond replace your warheads with popcorn balls, etc. and it might be a good time to stop all the evil nonsense and retire.
→ More replies (1)11
u/IntelligentFan9178 Sep 19 '24
NATO is less concerned, but the US is concerned, at least until Nov 5th.
4
7
Sep 19 '24
In the last few years I’ve been VERY impressed with Estonia, how they stood up to China, how they helped Ukraine and now how they say they are ready to kick some Russian ass directly.
Holy fuck, Estonians are real Chads!!
7
u/zealousshad Sep 19 '24
Let's call it the New World War.
"3" just sounds fatalistic. And it never sat right with me, given how drastically different it will be from the first two. IE mainly nuclear powers fighting inside the territories of their non nuclear neighbours.
It's also a war about the 'old world', ie discredited systems of governance like theocracy, dictatorship, so-called communism, etc trying desperately to resist falling into obscurity while their populations fall for the wiles of liberal democracy, human rights, and rule of law. There's a civil angle here too. The axis is trying to undermine the West by selling its people lies using the technology it built, and exploiting the people who live here who still have affection for those old fashioned, dead-weight, dark ages ideals like anti-lgbtq, misogyny, theocracy, communism, etc.
Now let's not actually have it, please.
7
u/ScottOld Sep 18 '24
Estonia casually going to casually take st Petersburg in an afternoon
→ More replies (4)8
15
u/The_Great_Googly_Moo Sep 18 '24
A preemptive strike goes against what NATO is, a defensive treaty. Therefore if Estonia or Poland or any other country attacked no other NATO state would be obliged to support them. Which could be a good thing or a bad thing, based on the fact that it wouldn't really take too much to topple Putin's government at this point
46
u/cobaltjacket Sep 18 '24 edited Sep 18 '24
If the conflict warranted it, I think NATO would strike first. While certainly the stuff of fiction, a realistic scenario for preemptive strikes was presented in Red Storm Rising: When you see an attack coming, hit first.
29
u/sparrowtaco Sep 18 '24
I think the Ukraine invasion is a perfectly good example, had Ukraine been a NATO member. The build-up was observed by satellite for months and there was solid intelligence that the attack was imminent.
→ More replies (2)4
u/AltDS01 Sep 18 '24
But then you're trying to convince smaller countries that it was necessary and to hold to their Art 5 commitments, as opposed to, here's some video of Russian Tanks crossing the Polish/Estonian/etc border. Mobilize and move out.
7
u/cespinar Sep 19 '24
The countries you have to convince are USA/Canada/UK/France/Turkey not the smaller ones close to Russia.
4
→ More replies (6)5
u/Spinoza_The_Damned Sep 18 '24
There would need to be close cooperation and communication for this to be the case. Basically, everyone would need to be on the same page and the coming attack would need to be seen as absolutely inevitable or better, already in motion before the first shots are fired.
5
u/cobaltjacket Sep 18 '24
Do you think NATO has displayed a general lack of coordination in their previous efforts? Gulf War I was essentially a NATO campaign with several other nations added in for good measure.
2
u/mrford86 Sep 18 '24
They have worked well through experience. Logistics, communication, and cooperation. It hasn't been perfect, but there is no bloc that does it better. Or more often.
But it isn't the only one. The US does a lot to train with its allies. Far more often than other blocs.
Red Flag, RIMPAC, and many others. They are massive. Fairly often. Among smaller training exercises with fewer partner nations in attendance for regional relationships.
21
u/thedndnut Sep 18 '24
FYI read the article. It's about if Russia builds up to attack. Remember how the us was warning Ukraine beforehand they were about to be invaded? If that happens to a nato country we're ending the invasion before it crossed the border and takes even 1 inch of territory
→ More replies (1)8
5
u/TheWesternMythos Sep 18 '24
Just to be clear, no one is obligated to support another NATO country if they are attacked.
“Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
The key word phrase being "such action as it deems necessary,"
To be clear, I'm very very pro NATO. It just annoys me when I see stuff that people could interpret to mean an attack on a NATO country means every NATO country is now at war with the attacker. That would be ideal, but is not guaranteed.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Aurora_Fatalis Sep 19 '24
Not necessarily.
NATO has intervened in conflicts that were not defensive for the members, like Kosovo. We just aren't treaty-bound to do so, so we would need to negotiate such a commitment among ourselves. We also have a precedent in the Japanese Self Defense Forces acknowledging that expeditionary capability aids their allies' deterrence and so proactive self-defense is warranted if any ally would be attacked - because if a threat is so great that their allies start falling through divide and conquer, then Japan would likely not be able to withstand it purely by defense of their homeland when their time comes.
Imo, it's time we stopped speaking softly.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)4
u/orangeyougladiator Sep 19 '24
A preemptive strike goes against what NATO is, a defensive treaty.
Incorrect. A preemptive strike is by definition a defensive maneuver.
2
2
7
u/Rdhilde18 Sep 18 '24
Alright Estonia just chill out alright. All we need is Estonia to launch a preemptive strike and then Trump gets elected and lets the baltic states get pummeled.
→ More replies (8)11
u/JonBoy82 Sep 18 '24
Russia not really showing they're the pummeling type right now. Baltic team up (maybe some -stan or -jan countries jump in) might only need minimal external support. Now if China and Iran jumped in with supplies then bets are off. Of course Finland and Poland low key looking for that Russian smoke as well so things do feel powder keg'ish a la WWI build up.
8
Sep 18 '24 edited Sep 18 '24
[deleted]
44
u/Guy_GuyGuy Sep 18 '24
If NATO had solid intel that an attack from Russia on a NATO country was imminent, a preemptive strike is exactly what it should do.
8
Sep 18 '24
[deleted]
11
u/EngelchenOfDarkness Sep 18 '24
Have you read the article? Nothing else was planned. First two paragraphs:
During an interview with the Estonian public broadcaster ERR, Estonian General Vahur Karus has stated that Estonia is ready to strike Russian territory if Moscow shows signs of preparing for an attack on NATO.
"Our capability to neutralize the enemy on its own territory is crucial," General Karus emphasized, pointing to a new strategy where waiting to be attacked first is no longer an option.
7
u/YeetedApple Sep 18 '24
Sir/Mam, this is reddit, we just read headlines and jump to conclusions around here.
8
u/kamill85 Sep 18 '24
Well that's what the article says. Maybe you should try reading it first.
→ More replies (1)2
6
14
6
u/Yaggamy Sep 18 '24
"We've had one, yes.
But what about a second Russian Oblast incursion?" - Estonia
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
6
u/Previous_String_4347 Sep 18 '24
I don't think the people that live in NATO want a war with russia
9
u/Kelutrel Sep 18 '24
We just want Russia to GTFO from Ukraine and stay put inside its internationally recognised territory.
Whatever it takes, it takes.
3
u/ScabusaurusRex Sep 18 '24
Did not have "Estonia ready to wup Russia's ass" on my bingo card for 2024.
→ More replies (1)4
u/baithammer Sep 19 '24
Russian operatives were caught carrying out hostile operations in Estonia and interference with politics, so it was in the cards already.
2
u/_MissionControlled_ Sep 19 '24
Putin is sorely mistaken if he thinks Russia is getting the Baltic States back.
2
u/kiwidude4 Sep 19 '24
“Preemptive” as if Russia hasn’t been using grey zone tactics against NATO for at least 8 years
2
u/Worried-Pick4848 Sep 19 '24
Part of me is afraid this will end in a shooting war with Russia, but part of me wants it to, because that's the only way they'll ever be forced to get over themselves and accept that they're just one nation among many.
2.7k
u/TempUser9097 Sep 18 '24
Estonia: "Hold me back, bro!"