Estonia considers itself a front-line state, a Nato member where its border guards stare across the Narva River at the Russian fortress of Ivangorod.

This tiny Baltic state, once a part of the Soviet Union, is convinced that once the fighting stops in Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin will turn his attention to the Baltics, looking to bring countries like Estonia back under Moscow’s control.

To help stave off that possibility, Estonia’s government has poured money and weapons into Ukraine’s war effort, donating more than 1% of its GDP to Kyiv.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The “as it deems necessary” is the escape hatch for those who don’t want to intervene. It isn’t as wishy-washy as the EU’s mutual defense clause, but it certainly isn’t absolute.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t know why someone down voted you. Given the current political environment. Trump if he wins would absolutely use that as a loop hole if the US is even still in NATO at that point.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        People here will downvote the most objectively factual statements… I’ve stopped wondering what goes through their head.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is true, but it still makes some kind of action necessary, even if it’s not necessarily direct military action.

        “such action as it deems necessary” could be no action at all.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well, we can also look at precedent. Article 5 was applied only once in NATO’s history, despite multiple other occasions where NATO could have done so. I do think that a deliberate Russian attack on a NATO member would trigger a response, but history shows it clearly isn’t mandatory.

              • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                You tell me, you’re the one who says Article 5 is a guarantee. It has been used only once (9/11)

                  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You’re the one that says we should turn to precedent, and said there have been multiple occasions NATO could have triggered Article 5 but wasn’t. When were these other times? You made the statement, now provide evidence.

                    I’m sure I’m missing some, but:

                    • Soviet blockade of Berlin
                    • Argentine attack on the Falklands
                    • Iraqi attacks on Turkey
                    • Syrian attacks on Turkey
                    • Russian missile landing in Poland last year