Replies

The Russians are well aware of NATO Treaty obligations. The real question you should be asking is whether Russia would risk a nuclear war for a small city in Estonia?

I believe the essential issue to be that NATO was over-extended when Russia was weak and none of the Neo Cons involved ever stopped to ask the question: Would we really defend such a country at crunch time against a nuclear power?

Absolute nonsense. NATO is not over-extended. It can meet any Russian capability up to and including a nuclear one. We had plenty of small countries before NATO was expanded. And the test of any alliance is that the other side must believe in your intention to act if provoked. NATO needs to make it very clear to the Russians that any attack against a treaty member is an attack against all. There should be no room for any miscalculation. We must respond against any attack period in both word and deed. There should be no doubting our resolve. Otherwise, we will have a war.

"We must respond against any attack period in both word and deed. There should be no doubting our resolve. "

You don't think the Congress and the American People are going to get a vote in that?

It's one thing for the professionals to talk of the essential need to honor the treaty but it's a whole nuther ballgame when it comes to an actual fight.

I thing it unlikely Congress would quthorize military force to protect Estonia. Very unlikely.

"It can meet any Russian capability up to and including a nuclear one. "

While I have no doubt US Forces would prevail eventually, I also have no doubt that Russia's best...not the export stuff...will have more than a few surprises for us.

They also maintain the ability to strike and do tremendous damage to US/NATO forces and airfields, depots etc.

A dozen Blackjack bombers can wreak havoc all on their own, but when combined with the rest of the Russian Air Force they will definitely get some targets.

The American public is not used to taking losses and Congress is even worse.