Mr Fixit Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 15 minutes ago, Celestial said: Saudi Arabia is one of those states which should have dumped a long time ago. I can understand joining hands with an obnoxious regime in face of an existential threat, but, since the end of the Cold War, America and Europe no longer face such a threat and the rationale for tolerating such abusive regimes is no longer valid. How is Saudi Arabia better than Iran or N.Korea? One word: petrodollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestial Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, Notone said: If you could push out members, then a NATO membership would look really meaningless. So NATO will be stuck with the Mad Bull from the Bosporus. I am somewhat glad, that Erdogan has little to no leverage over the US. While he has quite some leverage over the EU with the refugees. This won't go down as one of the proudest hours of the EU and their defense human rights. Why? What if a NATO member state has a coup, invades someone else or is caught red handed supporting terrorist groups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Neither is at the moment the case. Well, at least concerning the support of terrorist groups, let's say, there's not sufficient hard evidence to support it. And it's not like the US has never ever done that in the past (the Contras in Nicaragua). Anyway, NATO is a defense Union. So it basically means, the allies jump in for the defense of their ally. It does not cover Turkey getting slapped for military actions in other countries (though, NATO, the EU, basically everyone has turned a blind eye when it came to Turkey bombing Kurds in Iraq and Syria). But it would create a bad precedent. It would mean, that you would be willing to kick out a member, when you don't like the goverment, that gets elected. And I am quite sure, the Baltic states won't enjoy the idea, that they cannot rely on aid, if they get into trouble with Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestial Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 6 minutes ago, Notone said: Neither is at the moment the case. Well, at least concerning the support of terrorist groups, let's say, there's not sufficient hard evidence to support it. And it's not like the US has never ever done that in the past (the Contras in Nicaragua). Anyway, NATO is a defense Union. So it basically means, the allies jump in for the defense of their ally. It does not cover Turkey getting slapped for military actions in other countries (though, NATO, the EU, basically everyone has turned a blind eye when it came to Turkey bombing Kurds in Iraq and Syria). But it would create a bad precedent. It would mean, that you would be willing to kick out a member, when you don't like the goverment, that gets elected. And I am quite sure, the Baltic states won't enjoy the idea, that they cannot rely on aid, if they get into trouble with Russia. The Contras were not fighting other NATO states, nor were they a threat to NATO. ISIS is bombed by NATO countries and is a threat for NATO, especially its European members. If Turkey is caught red handed, I'd say these are legitimate grounds for expulsion. Second, if a NATO member is at risk of being attacked do to its own misbehavior, then there is a very real chance of the other members refusing to honor Article 5, which would be far worse. It's much better in such a case to have a procedure to punish an aggressive NATO member, because it would not mean the de jure dissolution of the alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 You did not include that terrorist needed to be a threat to NATO and as far Turkey goes, ISIS is strictly speaking not fighting a NATO member. They are fighting in Syria. And Turkey has not been caught red handed. Do I think they supported ISIS at some point, yes. Is there sufficient evidence, that their military supplies went to ISIS and not some other militant group? Probably not. You somewhat seem oblivious to the fact, that the most aggressive NATO member has always been the US... Anyway, aggressive politics needs clarification. Latvia has a very big Russian minority, who have basically very little rights. So if the Latvian goverment decides to bring the hammer down aggresively against their Russian minority, and Russia decides to put a stop to it. Would you also cast the Latvians out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Notone said: Anyway, NATO is a defense Union. That's news to Serbia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Two NATO members (Greece and Turkey) were in an actual shooting war with each other in the 70's. If that did not get either of them expelled, nothing will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarl the climber Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Reports state that their has been fighting on the Tunisian border with Libya, 70 or so dead. Question, would it be politically palatable for the Tunisians to allow the US or Nato insert a force along this border and would it be smart to do and whether or not American intervention is needed to remove the ISIS presence from Libya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Putin claims that the "main part" of Russian forces will be withdrawn from Syria. So... is this a lie, ala "There are no Russian forces in Crimea", an attempt to force Assad to table instead of making him permanently dependent on Russian support, a two-step where Putin will later come back to the foreground and try to catch people flat footed, an attempt to avoid an Afghanistan like quagmire, Russia not having the capability for a protracted engagement, or is Putin satisfied that he's done enough to show off the size of Russia's dick, and with that accomplished, now is ready to declare victory and go home? Or, as Putin worshippers would no doubt say, has the sight of Putin's shirtless chest scared all his enemies in Syria into surrender/hiding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 The barechested Putin rode down ISIS like a medieval hussar tarzan mixture from hell. As long as it doesn't say how much of the Russian force remains I would not be so sure he is really done. But from the outside I would say, he probably felt the Russian interests in the region are safe enough for the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Statements of intent regarding troop deployment are almost always more indicative of what X wants a designated audience to hear at a given moment rather than what X actually will do at a given moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 Those are good questions Paladin I'm most curious to see what form the Russian pullback will take as well. I suspect there will still be a Russian presence in Syria for the forseeable future in some form and the current pullback may be due to the air campaign having saturated it's targets. The next round of reports will hopefully make the situation more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted March 15, 2016 Share Posted March 15, 2016 Well, let's consider it from Putin's perspective. He was never going to conquer all of Syria for Assad, nor was that his intention. At best, he wanted to carve out a sustainable state around the Russian base in the region. If I am correct, the Russians now have two bases there, which they are going to maintain going forward to "monitor" the situation. They are also apparently leaving their air defences in place. If that includes the S-400 system, then it effectively means they have command of all the airspace in Northern Syria and even in Southern Turkey, should they so choose. Russia has also forced themselves into the picture as a key roleplayer in the peace talks in Syria, which they weren't before. Furthermore, they were able to showcase some of their military hardware, to the extent that many commentators believe that at least a partial motive for this operation was for it to act as a marketing exercise for the Russian arms industry. Russia has showed that it is still a player in the world, and they have done so relatively cheaply, considering the use of largely cheap, dumb bombs in most of their sorties, rather than expensive smart bombs that are more precise. In the end we have to acknowledge that Putin is facing a stronger foe in Nato. He has some aces up his sleeve, and he likes to use them unpredictably. Sometimes it is merely to keep his opponents off balance. Russia has certainly gained more than they lost as a result of this venture. But Putin has a habit of cashing in on modest gains, while he can, rather than overextending himself if he can help it. In a few months or years he will do something else unpredictable. Everything is part of the larger geo-political contest to him, and because he faces a stronger foe, major strategic victories are elusive. Instead, tactical victories and modest strategic gains are the best he can hope for. Unless he can destabilize and break up Nato, which would level the playing field and improve his position signficantly. And I guess he will keep chipping away at that elusive goal. I watch with interest what his next move will be. For that, we may have to wait for oil prices to recover first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted March 28, 2016 Author Share Posted March 28, 2016 The Taliban are claiming responsibility for a deadly Easter attack in Pakistan- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-blast-idUSKCN0WT0HR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted March 28, 2016 Author Share Posted March 28, 2016 Also a significant achievement recently, that didnt get a lot of press. Syrian Government Forces, with Russian support, recapture Palmyra from the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/03/27/syrian-government-forces-recapture-palmyra-from-isis.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Semi related note. Small story how Turkey's President Erdogan embraces the freedom of speech, and anotehr chapter in the shameful EU foreign policy of not addressing those matters, because it might upset Erdogan. Funny, because here Erdogan had no real leverage and can't do anything about it, but rage. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/29/turkey-german-video-mocking-president-recep-tayyip-erdogan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted April 7, 2016 Author Share Posted April 7, 2016 Syrian refugees across the U.S. are condemning ISIS. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/syrian-refugees-across-the-us-are-condemning-isis_b_9625442.html From the article- After the Paris terrorist attack, 31 governors said that they wanted no more Syrians admitted to their states. In the months since, Syrian refugees across the country had the opportunity to respond. Their message is simple: get to know us. Another theme is the culture of the average Syrian. “The people of Syria are moderate and educated. They have no room for ISIS,” Hisham Naji who now lives in Virginia told the Washington Post. Ismael Alrifai agrees. “The Syrians are a peace-loving people. We are not terrorists,” Alrifai told the Chicago Tribune. “Syrians... fear terror... the same kind of terror that was behind the Paris attacks.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 It seems Russia is mulling over the idea of sending ground troops to Syria. I don't think that would be a wise decision on their part but I wouldn't put it past them to do it. Story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.