this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025
24 points (92.9% liked)
news
263 readers
882 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Russia certainly could. Given what we've seen in Ukraine, launching a limited raid into a NATO country seems like an exercise in losing a lot of men and material. At the same time, it's not completely far fetched. If Russia feels that it won't be punished or stopped from engaging in conquest, it could make a go at closing the Suwalki Gap. This would cut off the Baltic States from direct, overland re-supply, then try to conquer those states. Provided Russia made a fast enough land grab, NATO might just sit back and waffle over fighting against a nuclear armed state directly.
I wouldn't call such a thing "plausible", but given the tepid response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and NATO nations' fatigue with that conflict, they might just pull a Neville Chamberlain and decide that appeasement is worth trying again. "But certainly NATO wouldn't want to risk Article 5 being seen as a paper tiger!" someone is bound to say. And maybe that's true, but such treaties are just pieces of paper and may not hold up to the reality of artillery shells flying. Hopefully, we never find out. But, the general has a point that NATO needs to look like it can and will spill blood over Article 5, or Russia might just call it a bluff.