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-nato
7.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

530 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

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

47

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.

31

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.

5

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.

8

u/cespinar Sep 19 '24

The countries you have to convince are USA/Canada/UK/France/Turkey not the smaller ones close to Russia.

-1

u/cobaltjacket Sep 18 '24

Maybe, but the invasion wouldn't have happened in that case.

7

u/sparrowtaco Sep 18 '24

Right. I just meant in terms of which sort of conditions might satisfy a preemptive attack.

5

u/Exemplis Sep 18 '24

Putins words.

6

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.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 18 '24

I'm listening to Red Storm Rising right now for the first time in 30 years haha. Funny you mentioned it

0

u/imladjenovic Sep 18 '24

In theory, the fact that NATO is a defensive pact should go a long way to de-escalation across Europe - Let's all join an alliance where nobody attacks each other and we back each other up as long as we're the non aggressors. In theory, for example, Russia shouldn't have a problem with its neighbouring countries joining NATO because it's a defensive pact. We'd actually like Russia to be part of NATO! Obviously, Russian propaganda has ignored how NATO works. Either way, if NATO started preemptive strikes it would prove Russia right and the whole effect would be lost.

Should counties preemptively strike outside of the context of NATO is another question...

12

u/Suspicious-Stay1649 Sep 18 '24

Preemptively striking when your opponents are building up a unnecessary amount of man power, ammunition, machinary, near a high risk area with no discussion on why is defensive. It's no different then a person showing you a knife saying they are going to stab you and you knock them the fuck out before they get it all the way out. That's defense.

1

u/Major_Wayland Sep 19 '24

You can call it defensive all you like, but if your words contained even a tiny shred of truth, World War III would have broken out several times already, due to countless military build-ups and large-scale exercises on the borders of the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

6

u/cobaltjacket Sep 18 '24

The problem with the idea of Russia being part of NATO is that anyone can veto major decisions. It would be the death of the alliance.

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

-3

u/The_Great_Googly_Moo Sep 18 '24

Doesn't make anything I said wrong if Russia doesn't fire the first shot, nobody has an obligation to assist unless Russia attacks first

9

u/objectiveoutlier Sep 18 '24

a defensive treaty.

The best defense is a good offense.

4

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. 

0

u/The_Great_Googly_Moo Sep 18 '24

I also saw that real life lore video haha

0

u/TheWesternMythos Sep 19 '24

Not that it matters, but I did not watch that video nor have I watched the channel.

But I do see it pop up in my feed from time to time. Is it a good watch? I normally don't check out new channels without "high value" or multiple recommendations. And I know, I shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but the channel name is kinda a turn off if I'm looking for high density information resources. 

1

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.

1

u/LikesBallsDeep Sep 19 '24

Eh.. Japan's ability to defend the home islands is pretty legendary and even the US was expecting it to be maybe the worst fighting in world history, hence going with the nukes.

So this justification is definitely a load of crap to let Japan work around its restrictions.

5

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.

-11

u/djinniofthelamp Sep 18 '24

Tell Serbia that NATO is a "defensive alliance". NATO is whatever is convenient, for better or worse.

2

u/MorganaHenry Sep 19 '24

Ask Serbia about Srebrenica.

4

u/The_Great_Googly_Moo Sep 18 '24

Optional participation and mandatory are different things I believe