I heard the first crack in the US obligation under Article V of the NATO treaty.

[TomSlick]

Lawrence O'Donnell and Eugene Robinson were discussing the return of the Cold War and how nuclear powers simply cannot get into a shooting war with each other lest it escalate to a nuclear exchange.

The discussion was about why NATO cannot impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine. However, this will be the argument for why the US must not honor its NATO obligations when Russian invades the Baltic States or Poland.

If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, he will attack a NATO member. The US must decide soon where the red line is drawn. Is an attack on Latvia crossing the line? How about attacking Poland or Germany?

[Hoyt]

1. I'm positive an attack on NATO member will be answered.

[PortTack]

21. Oh no doubt!

[dem4decades]

2. I heard that interview, there was no mention of Article 5, and our obligation.

The rest is just speculation on your part. That's not right you said you heard it.

[TomSlick]

11. You caused me to re-read my OP.

I did not say there was any discussion of our NATO obligations in the discussion between O'Donnell and Robinson. What I said was the argument would be the same if there was an attack on a NATO country. Notably, neither O'Donnell or Robinson said there would be any difference if Latvia or Poland was attacked.

The US has a history of isolationism. That history emboldened Hitler and may embolden Putin. The US is politically divided. The Trumpist GOP supports Russia. Pacifists will oppose any military involvement, at least unless the US is directly attacked.

Putin has to wonder if the US would really risk a nuclear exchange if he attacked a NATO nation, especially the newer ones.

[EndlessWire]

19. He can wonder all he wants.

We aren't giving Putin control of Europe. No way, no how. Risking a nuclear exchange in defense of Europe? Well, yeah. It's a two way street. Goodbye, Kremlin, pretty buildings in Moscow, and all that. How did that line go? "...a burned out cinder..."

Eff Putin. He can dream of an easy victory, but he'll be dead.

[PortTack]

22. President Biden made it very clear that we will honor our NATO commitment

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. That's the point: you didn't "hear the first crack" as your thread title claimed

All that happened was you yourself suggested what it might be.

If you changed your thread title, post #11 would make sense.

[kelly1mm]

3. Any attack on NATO countries territory and it will be on like Donkey Kong including all of the newer

members. If not we will all be under the control of Putin.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Who said this:

However, this will be the argument for why the US must not honor its NATO obligations when Russian invades the Baltic States or Poland.

Did O’Donnell or Robinson say this, or is that just your own inference from their conversation?

Note: based on post #2 above, it appears you were talking out your a$$.

[TomSlick]

12. Neither O'Donnell or Robinson said that their argument would apply if a NATO country was attacked.

Is it also true that neither said their argument would not apply if a NATO country was attacked. There is no logical distinction.

I may be wrong - I have been a couple time before. Because I recognize I can be wrong, I am careful to not suggest that others are talking out their a$$ simply because I believe them incorrect.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. +1

[NoRethugFriends]

5. Well, that's wild speculation on your part.

Unrelated to what you heard on TV

[enki23]

6. Of course we would meet our treaty obligations.

It's not playing chicken anymore when someone actually rams you. We would know it was existential at that point and act accordingly. If we escalated it by arbitrarily declaring a defensive alliance after the fact, the responsibility for directly starting a war between nuclear superpowers would actually be on *our* heads.

[Karadeniz]

7. Wesley Clark said if Putin attacked the Baltic states, they're so small it would be over for them

before NATO could do anything. China could decide it's okay to take Taiwan. He said Putin needs to be stopped here.

[left-of-center2012]

9. I think I've heard NATO troops are already in the Balkins

They are there as a preventive measure..

[PSPS]

16. Thank you ...

... for using the proper word 'preventive'

[EndlessWire]

18. Well

I also think those tiny nations would be overrun quickly. Doesn't mean we would say, shucks, I'm late. It would just be harder. We would not allow Russia to take the Balkans without a fight. Big fight.

Putin should take care. He wants to fight, he may get what he's asking for. History will show that we tried to remain peaceful and reasonable. History will show Putin to be a mad man.

[orwell]

20. Sorry that's bullshit...

...any attack would trigger Nato. You can count on it.

Fucker would be overwhelmed so fast it would make your head spin.

[stopdiggin]

25. thank you. the hand wringing, and hyperventilation is getting annoying.

----- -----

[Karadeniz]

27. I agree. Thinking about it, Clark must've meant that the damage would occur before we could

defend any of them. Like you said, it would surely provoke a NATO response.

[WarGamer]

23. Mmmmm... yes BUT

There's basically ONE way into Estonia, through Narva and a bridge. Most of the Estonia/Russian border is swamp and marsh land. It was impassable in WW2 and I can't see it any better now.

Having said that... if the Russians came North up through Latvia and Lithuania, yes not much to stop them.

Neat story about Narva. On one side of the river is Hermann Castle in Estonia. The other side of the river is Ivangorod fortress in Russia...

They've been eyeball to eyeball for 100's of years.

[NutmegYankee]

31. It takes weeks to stage for an invasion.

Unlike 1940s Europe, we can see the build up with satellites and stage troops to defend.

[AntiFascist]

8. Laurence O'Donnell is stuck in the 50s and 60s...

this is the 2020s after all, and we have much more sophisticated capabilities.

[Eko]

10. It is interesting how you know what putin will and wont do.

You should contact the Government and US military to share your insight and intelligence.

[TomSlick]

13. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Putin has made it clear he intends to move NATO from his western borders. He will not be satisfied with reducing Ukraine to rubble.

[EndlessWire]

17. I don't think there is anyone here

who believes that Russia will stop with Ukraine. I don't believe I have heard any world leader say that it will end with Ukraine. I believe that Biden expressed the will of NATO when he said repeatedly that we would not give up one inch of NATO ground.

I think that is the line that is drawn. And, even though it is sad, and frightful, and a horrible thought, WE ALSO HAVE NUKES. Updated nukes with good triggers (remember?) If Russia wants to go, they will die, too. They will not get to nuke anyone without getting wiped out themselves. They need to think about that. M.A.D. Good then, good now.

[wackadoo wabbit]

14. My first thought when I watched O'Donnell's screed was, Is Lawrence O'Donnell the reincarnation...

of Neville Chamberlain?

It's unfortunate that he didn't learn anything in his past life.

On a more serious note, thank you so much for your post! I thought I was alone.

[stopdiggin]

24. You heard no such thing. Neither one of these gentleman

made the argument that you advance. And that is that NATO would refuse to defend an attack against one of it's member nations. YOU are the one advancing this line of thinking (as pure speculation I might add), not O'Donnell or Robinson.

[lagomorph777]

28. This talk of cowering because Putin has nukes, has got to stop.

We have to attack him hard. Push him out of Europe entirely.

[inthewind21]

34. Agreed

It's amazing how many are just now realizing what a full on use of nukes would result in. We've been living with that looming for how long now?

[Happy Hoosier]

29. Why does everyone assume that imposing a no-fly zone means WWIII?

Especially if we begin such a region over a portion of Ukraine not under constant attack, like the western portion, it seems obvious to me that Russia would have to think twice about confrontation.

So long as we're wetting the bed about a confrontation and we assume Russia would eagerly engage, we are granting Putin exactly what he wants: free reign to do what he wants in Ukraine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Because a no-fly zone means attacking Russian ground-to-air missile launchers, and planes

Putin is OK with confrontation. He would use it to tell the Russian people that the USA has attacked Russians. He would be happy with some Russian losses, and then attacking NATO in general. He's already said "remember, I have nuclear weapons", and Russian tactics in their wargames have been to use them if Russia starts to lose the conventional battle.

We can see he's happy with destruction - he's bombarding the cities he claims are part of Russia (like he was happy to lay waste to Chechnya). He wouldn't hesitate to to that to other countries.

I'ts not free reign; the Ukrainians have already stopped the quick victory his initial plan was built around.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. I respect those two gentlemen but they aren't policy makers.

[Tommymac]

33. This OP - not factual opinion only.

[inthewind21]

35. I suggest you turn off the TV

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

36. NATO just rejected calls for a no-fly zone over Ukraine, US backs NATO, not war with Russia

All the talking heads can jibber jabber all they want, the war will go on

[Azathoth]

37. No, Putin will not attack a NATO country

Because that would be the end for Russia, and possibly the world. If NATO didn't respond, the entire organization would collapse overnight. They're treaty-bound to respond.

That was how the balance of power worked for 50 years. And Russia is in a far weaker position right now than it was then.

Putin attacked Ukraine specifically because he knew he had to do it before we ended up giving them an Article V guarantee.