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.caEnglish
    62·
    4 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.worldEnglish
      31·
      4 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.caEnglish
        41·
        4 months ago

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

      • cygnus@lemmy.caEnglish
        11·
        4 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.caEnglish
            11·
            4 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.caEnglish
                11·
                4 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.caEnglish
                    11·
                    4 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