That's rather hyperbolic. Article 4 has been invoked six times since 2003 (including in response to the Crimean invasion.) None of those cases triggered World War III.

I agree, Article 4 is nothing more than a consultation request. The real big thing is Article 5, which means if any ally is attacked, the others will help. Blinken confirmed US commitment to this is "ironclad".

I don't know a lot about these issues, but here's the way I see it.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and Estonia hasn't been attacked, so Article 5 can't be invoked. Therefore, this is roughly the maximally aggressive possible response from Estonia.

Of course the US Secretary of State says US commitment to Article 5 is "ironclad"; if he doesn't say that, NATO basically stops existing, and with it much of the US's influence in the world. Therefore the fact that he says this conveys almost zero information.

I'll believe the US "ironclad" commitment to Article 5 when they build an air base and a naval base in the Baltics.

Because if Putin was to attack the Baltics tomorrow, they would cease to exist before any NATO ally would manage to get their warships past the Kaliningrad Oblast in the Baltic Sea.

World wars start from something small. Not saying this is it, but there are all the reasons to be concerned about today’s events.

I don't think that any of the world wars started out of small things, can you clarify?

World War 1 started because a guy was assassinated, for one. The tension was there, but the assassination was what set everything into motion.

Many historical analysis of the start of WW1 highlight the slow communication and mobilization processes as the main cause of why European military leaders thought they had to move first, just in case the other side had already started and they hadn't heard... Another way to see it is that oligarchies of the time thought it expedient to have yet another 19th century war, and didn't factor in advances in technology: machine guns, artillery, chemical warfare... A bit like with drones and AI now: the outcome and shape of the Ukraine conflict wil inform us all of the specific bloody taste of 21st century resource wars. To anyone reading this in countries dependent on Ukrainian wheat imports (eg. North-Africa) Stock up on the pasta!

"a guy" to describe the future emperor of the Austria-Hungary is an understatement. It's like saying that the world was shocked because in 1963 a guy was shot. Yes, technically true, but...

Yes. Tough to believe, but Austria-Hungary had the biggest army in the world, at the time.

I deliberately phrased it this way. Yes, he was an important guy. But ultimately, just a normal guy, like the rest of us.

The assassination was a pretext.

Austria-Hungary had been thinking about invading Serbia for decades.

I dislike this historical view where the little guy is blamed.

You are agreeing with OP here.

OP's point is that an act can seem small on the surface ("a guy got assassinated") but triggered a larger war because there are greater tensions and forces at play ("Austria-Hungary had been thinking about invading Serbia for decades").

The original "world war", the Seven Years War, started over some useless land in North America and then became global over Silesia, both of which are rather small things.

WWI started over an assassination that barely happened, and WWII over a city ( Danzig, although it's fairly certain Hitler wouldn't have stopped there, like WWI would have happened anyways).

WW1 was a war everyone wanted (partially due to the dismantling of Bismarck's complex systems of alliances). Austria-Hungary wanted Serbia (and looked for an excuse), Prussia thought war against Russia was inevitable (no idea if that's true or not) and that such a war couldn't be won by Prussia once Russia started to modernize (kind of true, as Prussia utterly defeated Russia in WW1 and Germany was utterly defeated by Russia in WW2) and thus wanted a war against Russia now. Some French wanted revanche for the war 1870. Italy had some territorial interests against Austria-Hungary. And everyone came from a world were those wars were normal (as bad as the Napoleonic wars were, they were mostly fought between armies and less severe on civilians, and decided by decisive battles with treaties after those). Everyone thought they could easily win, and fast. The trope "it's over by Christmas" comes from that period.

WW2 so, was different. That was, from the beginning, Hitler's idea. He wanted it, he took what he could without a war, and then with a war. All with the goal of defeating Russia and exterminate the Jews (and all other undesirables). Everything else was just excuses, and thinly vailed ones at that.

I'm reminded of a dead archduke and burning Reichstag...

Surely you’re not insinuating that the fire at the Reichstag was the cause of WW2

Well, bad example, but it was a key event.

This is orders of magnitude different than those prior invocations.

Previous World Wars were not one-sided. Pretty much the majority of the developed world (probably all of the developed world?) is against Russia right now.

Not to mention the apparent lack of popular support. Russian regimes in the past have fallen in a revolution while waging an unpopular war.

Even China isn’t happy.

I don't think this is the case. China has refused to call this an "invasion" and said that it will buy Russian wheat to break sactions.

I don't know what China's plan is but it's clear they have one and that it involves backing the Russian invasion.

https://www.ft.com/content/55d86391-2d05-4eb4-869c-83a7878b8...

I'd say not for the fact, but rather they don't like the timing.

I think China is still pretty neutral about the whole thing. Putin payed respects to China (e.g. at the Olympiads), while (at least afaik) no western nation tried to get China onboard with sanctions -- or at the very least, they didn't send their presidents over to talk to Xi.

Of course they would be neutral, if not covertly supporting this action. This is testing the waters for China to invade Taiwan.

Gotta hand that small remark to Putin, he upheld the tradition of no war during Olympics. Olympics were actually created to act as a pressure release valve in ancient Greece, which constantly fought wars between the Greeks, Spartans and Persians.

> Gotta hand that small remark to Putin, he upheld the tradition of no war during Olympics

Putin hardly cares about that tradition.

"In 2008, Russia launched a military intervention into disputed regions of Georgia in eastern Europe. The conflict unfolded at the same time as the opening ceremonies at the summer Olympic games in Beijing—with Putin, then prime minister and Russia’s leader in all but name, in attendance alongside US president George W. Bush, who did not look pleased. Six years later, Putin had an opportunity to repeat the trick, during the 2014 Winter Olympics hosted by Russia. At the time, the pro-Russian government of Ukraine was collapsing, with protestors demonstrating against Ukraine’s withdrawal from ties with the European Union. The night before the games’ closing ceremony, Putin took part in a lengthy meeting with his security team to plan an intervention in Ukraine."

https://qz.com/1203504/2018-winter-olympics-russia-probably-...