Moscow signals concern for Russians in Estonia

[freshwest]

63. My first thought. Don't fuck with NATO, it won't go well. Like it or not, they're in this:

Last edited Thu Mar 20, 2014, 04:32 AM - Edit history (1)

The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world's defence spending...

Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks,[5] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations[6] and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked four times: by Turkey in 2003 over the Iraq War, twice in 2012 by Turkey over the Syrian Civil War after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria[7] and by Poland in 2014 following the Russian intervention in Crimea...[8][4]

The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so.

This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels, which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. It is nonetheless assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their "vessels, forces or aircraft" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France.[13]

In other words, the strong will protect the weak, like Estonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

An link to an interesting piece on NATO's current role in the world is below, and it explains a great many questions we see on DU. Such as why are Navy SEALS doing this or that overseas. It explains almost everything that Obama has done abroad, as well. And no, it's not because he:



Nice of EarlG to clear that up.

Here's that explanation, it's worth the read for those who ask those things and don't know why Obama does what he does, which is his constitutional duty:

http://www.un-arm.org/PoAISS/GlobalOrganization.aspx?GlobalOrganizationId=2

A dissenting view on NATO's usefulness from Forbes, one can decide if he's right or wrong. I read it and I then read his other writings...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2013/04/22/natos-lack-of-any-serious-purpose-means-it-should-retire/

Unfortunately, he sounds like a total ass in his other writings, and surely has an agenda:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/

So take your salt shaker. But consider the impact of Russia and China forging alliances for trade.

Don't you think that as China ascends, the power of NATO and other such organizations will logically decrease?