[kitrose]

I don’t get the direct connection between response from a non-NATO country being attacked and a NATO member.

If Putin tries to invade Latvia, the default assumption in this analysis is that NATO will just crumble rather than respond?

[geoka9]

> I don’t get the direct connection between response from a non-NATO country being attacked and a NATO member.

The idea is that the lack of NATO membership is just a formality. In any other aspect, Ukraine is a much more important geopolitical asset than said Latvia (with all due respect to the Latvians - I'm just imagining the way it plays out in Putin's head. Or at least the way I understand Piontkovsy here).

> If Putin tries to invade Latvia, the default assumption in this analysis is that NATO will just crumble rather than respond?

Yep. Piontkovsky even describes a potential limited nuclear strike scenario as part of the raising of stakes by Putin. AKA "are you willing to die for Narva[0]?"

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva

[bryanrasmussen]

I mean I find these analysis absurd, they seem based on the ideas not just that Putin is irrational but also that he knows nothing about the very things we would assume he knows about, stuff like how treaties and military alliances work.

I could totally understand some guy on the street thinking hey Latvia is nothing, if they won't defend the Ukraine then they won't defend Latvia but why would a guy with supposed knowledge of military history and how alliances can often cause nations who are allied to come in to wars they would otherwise rather keep out of think such a thing.

In fact I would assume his kneejerk opinion would be to believe that the only way to get all these weak nations to actually go to war would be if an attack happened on a NATO nation.

[geoka9]

> why would a guy with supposed knowledge of military history and how alliances can often cause nations who are allied to come in to wars

There's no military history of nuclear wars. This could be the difference in Putin's head.