@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 You're assuming that defending Latvia automatically means global nuclear war. It doesn't. NATO has conventional military options, and Russia cannot know how far a conflict would escalate. That's precisely what deterrence is about: making aggression too risky to attempt.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 China's economic and military strength doesn't mean it wants a nuclear confrontation with NATO. China has its own strategic interests, and sacrificing its economy and security to defend Russian aggression in the Baltics serves neither of them.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 Trump is angry because European allies refused to join his war with Iran. NATO is a defensive alliance, not an obligation to support US military adventures. Refusing to participate in that war says nothing about NATO's commitment to defend its own members.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 NATO refusing to join a US military operation against Iran has absolutely nothing to do with defending a NATO member under attack. That's precisely what Article 5 exists for. You're comparing two fundamentally different situations.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 Trade dependency goes both ways. China relies heavily on exports, including to Western markets. A global nuclear war would devastate Asian economies too. And you still haven't explained why China, India or Pakistan would risk their own survival over Latvia.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 Nuclear doctrines define conditions under which weapons might be used, not automatic obligations to launch them. Neither China nor Pakistan is obligated to start a nuclear war over a Russian attack on the Baltics. You're treating a possible escalation as an inevitable outcome.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 You're assuming European governments would simply accept the killing of their own soldiers without responding. That's an enormous gamble for Putin. NATO's deterrence rests precisely on making the consequences of an attack too costly to risk.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 NATO troops are already stationed in the Baltics, including forces from Germany and other European countries. An attack would directly involve those nations. You're assuming NATO would abandon its own soldiers and territory. That's a very dangerous assumption for Russia to make.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 The Baltics are NATO members, not expendable pawns. If NATO abandons them, Article 5 loses all credibility. Russia would have every reason to question whether the alliance would defend any other member. That's precisely why deterrence matters.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 NATO members are not obligated to support US military interventions. Refusing to participate in a war with Iran is not the same as refusing to defend a NATO ally. Article 5 is about collective defence, not supporting every US military operation.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 Your entire fantasy about Russia launching a nuclear apocalypse for Latvia makes no sense when they did not even intervene militarily to save Iran from US strikes. The Kremlin talks big but acts with extreme caution. Nobody is committing national suicide for an expansionist war.
@BobboVC@arcticFox5000@EthanLevins2 This has nothing to do with ethnicity. If Russia attacks Latvia, they are directly murdering the French, British, and German soldiers stationed there as a tripwire. Western nations will fight because their own citizens and sovereign forces were attacked. Deterrence is real.