Russian invasion of Ukraine

[diller]

There is also another side on this. If Russia loses and breaks up into smaller countries, they'll inherit the nukes. If one of those countries ever join NATO, then China will have a hostile alliance on their 12. They will never allow such thing to happen.

No matter what happens I don't see Russia breaking up any further than they already did after the fall of the USSR.

[DarkTZeratul]

There is also another side on this. If Russia loses and breaks up into smaller countries, they'll inherit the nukes. If one of those countries ever join NATO, then China will have a hostile alliance on their 12. They will never allow such thing to happen.

Leaving aside whether those nukes are even still in working order to begin with (if the rest of their equipment is any indication, most probably aren't), I think the odds of Russia breaking up are incredibly slim to begin with. It's worth noting that huge swathes of their territory are largely uninhabited; the vast majority of their people live in approximately the western third of their nation. More to the point, there's just no reason for Russia to break apart as there aren't really the kind of divisions that would lead to such a thing. Losing the war with Ukraine, at worst, will mean sanctions and new government, not a break-up into suddenly-effective nuclear nations eager to join NATO.

[Gaidax]

In what way, though? Force or softer approach?

I do hear they have grassroots political movement for reunification there, I'm sure they'd rather prefer that angle. But they also aren't rushing building up and modernizing their army for nothing, eventually they will bite.

- - - Updated - - -

There is also another side on this. If Russia loses and breaks up into smaller countries, they'll inherit the nukes. If one of those countries ever join NATO, then China will have a hostile alliance on their 12. They will never allow such thing to happen.

I think this kind of scenario is not only highly improbable, but it's also a matter of decades even if such thing would ever happen.

- - - Updated - - -

Leaving aside whether those nukes are even still in working order to begin with (if the rest of their equipment is any indication, most probably aren't), I think the odds of Russia breaking up are incredibly slim to begin with. It's worth noting that huge swathes of their territory are largely uninhabited; the vast majority of their people live in approximately the western third of their nation. More to the point, there's just no reason for Russia to break apart as there aren't really the kind of divisions that would lead to such a thing. Losing the war with Ukraine, at worst, will mean sanctions and new government, not a break-up into suddenly-effective nuclear nations eager to join NATO.

Technically, we already had an example with Chechnya.

I wouldn't deny that breakaway republics in case Russia collapses are possible, but from that to a full NATO membership to threaten China? Yeah, not happening.

[DarkTZeratul]

Technically, we already had an example with Chechnya.

And even with Chechnya, it's had a long history of trying to repeatedly assert its independence and either failing or getting re-conquered. I'm not sure any other part of Russia is in even a remotely similar situation.

[Mayhem]

Technically, we already had an example with Chechnya.

I wouldn't deny that breakaway republics in case Russia collapses are possible, but from that to a full NATO membership to threaten China? Yeah, not happening.

Explain how NATO would be a threat to China.

[Xyonai]

Explain how NATO would be a threat to China.

Probably for the same reasons Russia feels that NATO is also a threat.

They wanna be the top regional dog and having a bigger beast on their doorstep makes them look shitty and weak.

[Ulmita]

Explain how NATO would be a threat to China.

US sends army to defend Twain, China attacks Twain and in the process US military personnel dies, US invokes article 5. Just a simple example.

[Sunseeker]

Explain how NATO would be a threat to China.

It is a large military-political-economic alliance that hinges on one of its biggest frenemies. "NATO" is already already right next to China, via the USA. It's party why there's been talk to add Japan to the mix, there's really no reason not to aside from the "North Atlantic" part. And I don't think the name should be a limiting factor on the spirit and use of an organization that ostensibly stands to organize allied nations for common defense.

[Ulmita]

Probably for the same reasons Russia feels that NATO is also a threat.

They wanna be the top regional dog and having a bigger beast on their doorstep makes them look shitty and weak.

Russia has always seen NATO as a threat, since you know, NATO was created to combat SU. Also, NATO hasn't helped really. For example, when they installed the anti ballistic shield in Romania, they used mark41 vls which is capable of firing tomahawk missiles too. Tomahawks can also carry nukes. When RU asked NATO to be part of the anti balistic shield, it got declined. When RU asked for legal reassurances that no tomahawks will be fielded, it also got declined. We are fueling their paranoia in other words.

[Gaidax]

US sends army to defend Twain, China attacks Twain and in the process US military personnel dies, US invokes article 5. Just a simple example.

It's not that simple, by default Article 5 assumes attack on NATO member soil, which Taiwan is not.

To apply Article 5 to case like Taiwan, you'd need unanimous approval of all NATO members to do so, and I have big doubts about a few of such members giving a go for that given it's China we're talking about and not some random Nowhereistan nobody really cares about. Even one member country is enough to sink the whole thing.

So, I have BIG doubts NATO will be able to do anything in this case.

[Ulmita]

It's not that simple, by default Article 5 assumes attack on NATO member soil, which Taiwan is not.

To apply Article 5 to case like Taiwan, you'd need unanimous approval of all NATO members to do so, and I have big doubts about a few of such members giving a go for that given it's China we're talking about and not some random Nowhereistan nobody really cares about. Even one member country is enough to sink the whole thing.

So, I have BIG doubts NATO will be able to do anything in this case.

You're correct. Article 5 would be invoked if China wanted to cut of US supply by hitting bases in Hawaii or anywhere else (which in such a war would be mandatory). Still you get my point.

Also this isn't scifi: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/06...ilitary-biden/

[Xyonai]

It's not that simple, by default Article 5 assumes attack on NATO member soil, which Taiwan is not.

To apply Article 5 to case like Taiwan, you'd need unanimous approval of all NATO members to do so, and I have big doubts about a few of such members giving a go for that given it's China we're talking about and not some random Nowhereistan nobody really cares about. Even one member country is enough to sink the whole thing.

So, I have BIG doubts NATO will be able to do anything in this case.

More likely, the US is going to tap its allies in East Asia / the Pacific for any military aid than simply rely on NATO, in the case of Taiwan being attacked. NATO will only be involved insomuch as some of its member states might help out more directly, though not in any NATO capacity, and/or the US will throw its weight around to try and convince NATO member states to start putting Economic Pressure on China in whatever capacity they can.

[Mayhem]

US sends army to defend Twain, China attacks Twain and in the process US military personnel dies, US invokes article 5. Just a simple example.

So NATO is a threat to China if China attacked a NATO member?

Yeah, I fail to see how that makes NATO a threat.

[Corvus]

You're correct. Article 5 would be invoked if China wanted to cut of US supply by hitting bases in Hawaii or anywhere else (which in such a war would be mandatory). Still you get my point.

Also this isn't scifi: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/06...ilitary-biden/

Guam and Hawaii also don't count to article 5. It has to be mainland USA, and if China launches a first strike there then they deserve article 5

[Jessicka]

More likely, the US is going to tap its allies in East Asia / the Pacific for any military aid than simply rely on NATO, in the case of Taiwan being attacked. NATO will only be involved insomuch as some of its member states might help out more directly, though not in any NATO capacity, and/or the US will throw its weight around to try and convince NATO member states to start putting Economic Pressure on China in whatever capacity they can.

Enough NATO members have defence agreements with the likes of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, that it would probably be difficult to start anything without getting a substantial enough chunk of NATO involved that it's functionally everything NATO can project anyway, and NATO doesn't need article 5 to decide to act.

[Kallisto]

US sends army to defend Twain, China attacks Twain and in the process US military personnel dies, US invokes article 5. Just a simple example.

I doubt the US army would be involved at all. It would be Navy and Airforce (Including Naval air force) with the Taiwanese doing the ground work. Not just that but any attack on Taiwan is far outside article 5 territory.

[DarkTZeratul]

Guam and Hawaii also don't count to article 5. It has to be mainland USA, and if China launches a first strike there then they deserve article 5

That doesn't feel right, especially since Hawaii is an actual state not a territory and is considered US soil in every respect.

- - - Updated - - -

When RU asked for legal reassurances that no tomahawks will be fielded, it also got declined. We are fueling their paranoia in other words.

No, Russia is fueling their own paranoia. NATO is a defensive alliance. If they don't fuck around, they won't find out. They're also hardly in a position to demand assurances against invasion and attack, given how many such agreements they've made with their neighbors and then flagrantly violated.

[Iphie]

That doesn't feel right, especially since Hawaii is an actual state not a territory and is considered US soil in every respect.

Yes, but Hawaii is outside of the area defined in art. 6, which governs WHERE art. 5 is applicable:

Article 5

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

This article is complemented by Article 6, which stipulates:

Article 6

“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/t...lly%20attacked.

[DarkTZeratul]

Yes, but Hawaii is outside of the area defined in art. 6, which governs WHERE art. 5 is applicable:

Huh. Interesting. I didn't realize there was a geographical restriction to where Article 5 applies.

[Nilinor]

Art 5 wont activate "if" hawaii is attacked, but US can bring up council due to art 4, which then can get agreement to do something about it anyways.