<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Russia needs just three days to conquer Estonia and Latvia</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2017/01/russia-needs-just-three-days-to-conquer-estonia-and-latvia/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2017/01/russia-needs-just-three-days-to-conquer-estonia-and-latvia/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 May 2026 02:04:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2017/01/russia-needs-just-three-days-to-conquer-estonia-and-latvia/comment-page-1/#comment-2533426</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:37:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=41300#comment-2533426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Article 5 has never required members to respond with armed force to defend a fellow NATO member.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-6 

Even the Economist is right twice a day.

Granted, with this much head of steam built up behind the assumption that article 5 DOES require that, failure to do so would probably be the end of the alliance. This might permit the reconstruction of a core alliance in which such a promise would again be believable, but it never has been credible for the Baltics. Just as it would not be for Ukraine.

But either way, Article 5 does not commit any allies to send troops to defend any others. Never did.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Article 5 has never required members to respond with armed force to defend a fellow NATO member.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-6" >http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-6</a> </p>
<p>Even the Economist is right twice a day.</p>
<p>Granted, with this much head of steam built up behind the assumption that article 5 DOES require that, failure to do so would probably be the end of the alliance. This might permit the reconstruction of a core alliance in which such a promise would again be believable, but it never has been credible for the Baltics. Just as it would not be for Ukraine.</p>
<p>But either way, Article 5 does not commit any allies to send troops to defend any others. Never did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Felix</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2017/01/russia-needs-just-three-days-to-conquer-estonia-and-latvia/comment-page-1/#comment-2533146</link>
		<dc:creator>Felix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 14:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=41300#comment-2533146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cue this:

http://www.c3iopscenter.com/currentops/2015/06/13/21-january-1978-what-if-napoleon-bonaparte-had-a-b-52-bomber-during-the-battle-of-waterloo-saturday-night-live/

The Rand guys must have so much fun re-fighting WWII.

Anyway, a sparsely populated petro-state may pause before announcing the availability of half of Asia to any rough takers ready for the main chance.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cue this:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.c3iopscenter.com/currentops/2015/06/13/21-january-1978-what-if-napoleon-bonaparte-had-a-b-52-bomber-during-the-battle-of-waterloo-saturday-night-live/" >http://www.c3iopscenter.com/currentops/2015/06/13/21-january-1978-what-if-napoleon-bonaparte-had-a-b-52-bomber-during-the-battle-of-waterloo-saturday-night-live/</a></p>
<p>The Rand guys must have so much fun re-fighting WWII.</p>
<p>Anyway, a sparsely populated petro-state may pause before announcing the availability of half of Asia to any rough takers ready for the main chance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Sykes</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2017/01/russia-needs-just-three-days-to-conquer-estonia-and-latvia/comment-page-1/#comment-2533131</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Sykes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 13:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=41300#comment-2533131</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Rand people have a long history of publishing stupid studies, and generally can be safely ignored.

The strategic front in Europe is not the Baltic. It is Ukraine/Belarus. If Russia were to do anything, it would be to annex Ukraine and install a puppet government. There are lots of aggrieved ethnic Russians in Ukraine who would happily for such an government. Complete occupation of Ukraine would probably take two or three weeks, and there would be no NATO response other than putting its forces on alert.

With Ukraine and Belarus, Russia would a deep buffer and a short, easily defended front running from the Baltic to the Black Sea.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Rand people have a long history of publishing stupid studies, and generally can be safely ignored.</p>
<p>The strategic front in Europe is not the Baltic. It is Ukraine/Belarus. If Russia were to do anything, it would be to annex Ukraine and install a puppet government. There are lots of aggrieved ethnic Russians in Ukraine who would happily for such an government. Complete occupation of Ukraine would probably take two or three weeks, and there would be no NATO response other than putting its forces on alert.</p>
<p>With Ukraine and Belarus, Russia would a deep buffer and a short, easily defended front running from the Baltic to the Black Sea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
