Estonia is pouring money and weapons into Ukraine’s war effort to try to push back the Russians.

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.

  • @[email protected]English
    0•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.

      • @[email protected]English
        0•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.

          • @[email protected]English
            0•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)

              • @[email protected]English
                0•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
                  • @[email protected]English
                    0•5 months ago

                    … and was Article 5 triggered any of those times?

                    No, which is my point. Allow myself to quote… myself:

                    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.

                    As for your other line of thought:

                    in the scope of the treaty (which, yes, must actually be triggered), a response from all member states is mandatory.

                    This is also demonstrably incorrect. If we look at the single time Article 5 was triggered, 9/11, the response was not all-in. The largest-scale combined effort I think was patrols in the Mediterranean.