It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Putin's Big Gamble. Will it pay off?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

+5 more 
posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 10:54 PM
Since the formation of Nato, every Russian leader has desired nothing more than the destruction of the alliance. And you can't really blame them. Its very formation was to counter (and contain) military options of the Motherland.

So, how do you defeat an alliance when you are weaker both militarily and economically?

By exposing the greater weakness of your enemy. The alliance itself.

Article V of the Nato treaty, commonly referred to as the "Collective Defense" article, is the heart of the organization. If you attack one member, it is viewed as an attack on all members. It is the heart of Nato.

Russia has been violating Nato airspace for months now in the Balkans, but US warplanes have only intercepted and not engaged. But now, Russia has violated the airspace of a country that doesn't need air protection from the US, but one that can defend itself. Turkey. And not just any part of Turkey, but the Hatay Province. A historically Arab area that Turkey only got in 1940 and spent considerable time and effort to make Turkish. Let's also not forget, the Turks take the idea of sovereign borders VERY seriously since the Ottoman Empire was torn apart.

Back to Putin's gamble. This is conjecture, but stay with me. What happens if a Russian jet "accidentally" violates Turkish airspace? Since just last week Turkey warned Russia that it will protect its borders against such intrusion, said jet would probably be shot down. Even if it is over a nondescript strip of land that nobody cares about other than Turkey. And if some Russians are killed? Not just the pilot, but even a Russian sent via helicopter to "rescue" the pilots? That just makes some sort of measured retaliation seem more justified.

What then? We have a tit for tat situation, not that different than what Putin orchestrated in Georgia but with one major difference.

Article V of the Nato treaty.

If attacked, every Nato member, including the US, France, UK, Germany, would be legally obligated to then declare war against Russia. Does Putin want that? Of course not. But here is the gamble. Would France, Germany, the UK and Canada, really declare war with Moscow over this "minor squabble"? I think Putin is betting that the answer is no.

But here is the rub. If a Nato member is attacked, and the terms of Article V are evoked, but the member states don't stand side by side with the attacked member, then it shows that Nato is a sham. Estonia, Romania, Latvia, etc. will start screaming bloody hell, because Article V is all standing between them and Russian tanks. The alliance itself will start to unravel because Article V will be shown to be toothless.

It is a big gamble, but one that could offer the biggest payday of them all.

The end of Nato.

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:13 PM
It could also play out like:

Turkey: That's it, we just got attacked! We must all declare war on Russia!

Rest of NATO: Um, yeah no. Thanks for being a part of our club, all of the dirt that NSA has on you will be released tomorrow and you are kicked out effective immediately.

Probably not that easy, but I could totally see a manufactured scandal ending the NATO / Turkish relationship if NATO truly faced an existential threat.

a reply to: LordOfArcadia

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:16 PM
a reply to: LordOfArcadia

Article V only applies if a member nation is attacked. An airspace violation isn't an attack. Shooting down the aircraft isn't an attack. Russia would have to physically attack Turkey for Article V to be applicable.

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:18 PM
I've always heard that the Russians are really, really good at chess. They wouldn't even need a mate in this scenario, just hesitation on check.

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:21 PM
a reply to: LordOfArcadia

The thing is.... Russia did not attack Turkey.

Turkey are getting way to cocky imho! they should calm down immediately!

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:23 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LordOfArcadia

Article V only applies if a member nation is attacked. An airspace violation isn't an attack. Shooting down the aircraft isn't an attack. Russia would have to physically attack Turkey for Article V to be applicable.

I probably should have made this sentence in my 6th paragraph more prominent.

That just makes some sort of measured retaliation seem more justified.

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:25 PM
They didn't yet, but I think the OP was hinting at this turning into a tit for tat, leading Russia to launch small or medium attacks on Turkish forces.

Either way, we've had smaller and more insignificant reasons for starting full scale wars in the past. There aren't and gulfs or Tonkin's in turkey are there???

a reply to: combatmaster

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:29 PM
a reply to: LordOfArcadia

Perhaps a good example, in relation to the question of "Nato's article V" if it holds any water is to question Why France turned to the EU for help, and not NATO, amidst the recent Paris attacks.

It is interesting that France triggered the EU’s mutual defense clause, and not article V in the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO), which states an attack against a NATO member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” Article V was first used by the US following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and has yet to be invoked again.
Howorth (Prof. Jolyon Howorth, an expert in European security and defense from Yale University) suggests it would be a “disaster” for France to invoke NATO’s article V, adding that if France is “serious in wanting to create an international coalition that goes beyond Europe and the United States,” it would have to work hard to involve partners outside of NATO.

With regard to the shooting down of the Russian jet, here is NATO views on that issue.

After holding an emergency meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, NATO's governing body, the North Atlantic Council, said Turkey informed the body about the plane's downing.

Turkey is a member of NATO, which considers an attack on one of its members to be an attack on them all.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged "calm and de-escalation" to resolve the Turkey-Russia situation, but he noted how Russian forces approach allies' borders.

"I have previously expressed my concern about the implications of the military actions of the Russian Federation close to NATO's borders," the Stoltenberg said. "This highlights the importance of having and respecting arrangements to avoid such incidents in the future.

"As we have repeatedly made clear, we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO ally, Turkey," he added.

NATO continues to follow the matter, Stoltenberg said.

A NATO official told CNN that "when Russian jets violated Turkish airspace a few weeks ago, the Council did meet in an extraordinary session, which resulted in a condemnation of the incursion."

CNN News Source

Considering that NATO was formed to provide collective security against the Soviet Union in 1949 - Read History Here

So it becomes clear, that NATO is really a coalition against Russia (former Soviet Union) and I don't see NATO backing away from any attack by Russia on Turkey, if Turkey decides to invoke NATO's article V.
edit on 24-11-2015 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:30 PM
a reply to: LordOfArcadia

At this point even if Russia retaliates Article V wouldn't necessarily apply, since it would be in response to Turkey shooting down their aircraft. If Russia had attacked first then it would, but since Turkey fired the first shot it is no longer entirely defensive.

So this still wouldn't make it appear toothless or put a wedge into the Alliance.
edit on 11/24/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:32 PM

edit on 24-11-2015 by all2human because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:00 AM
a reply to: Zaphod58

But if the evidence shows the Russian plane did indeed enter Turkish airspace, it would remain Turkish strictly acted defensively, and any retaliation by Russia would be then considered the aggressor allowing an invocation then though right?
edit on 25-11-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:01 AM
a reply to: Vector99

An airspace violation is not an attack though. Unless there is actual physical damage resulting it's not an attack. They can call for Article IV in that case, but it's not an actual attack yet, so they're not acting defensively.

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 03:28 AM
The only thing that'll really happen it's more fighter escorts for bombing missions. Maybe deployment of S-300/400 anti-air systems too. Just sabre rattling.

And I believe Turkey has already invoked Article 5 back in 2012 over a border dispute and one of their aircraft being downed by Syrian forces. It didn't pass, and no rabble rousing came from the former Eastern Bloc nations as you suggested.

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 04:46 AM
a reply to: LordOfArcadia

I agree . Putin will use this diplomatically as much as possible .His re-acceptance back to the G-20 and acknowledgement of the good work they are doing in the fight against terrorism bought him a much better standing ,even among the countries that were so vocal against him for the Crimea . Minsk/ISIS/ etc and now Turkey's unnecessary over reaction to their border has bought him the sympathies needed to isolate Turkey and possibly alienate them and possibly cause NATO to re-consider artical 5 doctrine .

Artical 5 should never be a quick knee jerk response and despite having the agreement already made as a legal document a cool head and proper response can buy the world much needed peace . The war-mongers will always be having a great day if we are always fighting ........peace

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:33 AM
a reply to: LordOfArcadia

If russia attack Turkey a NATO response is not automatic. The country being attacked must invoke article V. If you read the charter you will also see specific criteria for what constitutes an attack, including geographic restrictions.

France could have invoked article V in response to the terror attacks and didnt.

I think Putin is jealous of NATO as it serves as a reminder to the failure of the warsaw pact, the collapse of the soviet union and the fact that almost all former ssr's / former east block members bolted to nato for protection from the former ussr / current day russia.

It serves as a reminder of how everything Putin held dear was a colossal failure. Thats evident every time he whines about not being respected.
edit on 25-11-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:53 AM
Really smart OP that got me thinking. This is exactly Putins mindset. He keeps testing the limits of the West and its allies. Its hard to believe that all their numerous airspace violations are accidental. Or maybe Putin knows something about Turkey that the public doesn't.

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 05:59 AM

originally posted by: Skyfloating
He keeps testing the limits of the West and its allies. I.

and just lost an aircraft...

not a smart move on putins part. Maybe putin is trying to destabilize the turkish government on assads behalf?

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 06:12 AM
a reply to: Skyfloating

I just finished listening to Lavrof and he brought up a few interesting facts . Using Turkey's claim that the intrusion was for 17 sec. and a call he got from his Greek counterpart of Turkey's 1000's of intrusions into their air space . Also is the fact of a agreement with the US on these hot lines and the rules of engagement the US coalition have to take . Turkey's may have not been following that agreement and it looks more like it was a set up as a provocation .

The interview was very enlightening with other agreements over the ISIS issue with oil/ancient artifice as well as the sale of human body parts going through Turkey and ISIS being the main supplier . If you get a chance to find a copy of the interview it was in Russian but was interpreted into English .....

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 06:15 AM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Russia is going for the propoganda offensive.

What does turkey and greece violations have to do with russias violation? Turkey and greece are nato members. Russia is not so yes there will be a different response.

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:02 AM
a reply to: LordOfArcadia

Since the formation of Nato, every Russian leader has desired nothing more than the destruction of the alliance.

Your statement it's more like a wish fulfilment .. And so far away from truth

The NATO-Russia relationship is undoubtedly one of the most important relationships that affects overall Euro-Atlantic security. Although, there are number of issues where NATO and Russia cooperate (ISAF mission – transit of NATO freight through the Russian territory, counter-terrorism, nuclear weapons issues, crisis management, counter-narcotics), they also face a number of challenges (missile defence in Europe, NATO enlargement), which are negatively influencing the practical cooperation and can be source of potential conflict. However, cooperation enables them to achieve important overlapping policy objectives. The goal of this paper is to analyse the challenges of NATO-Russia relations. By brief evaluation of current status of their relationship, this paper mainly specifies the future platforms of cooperation, concentrating on the post-ISAF period, as cooperation in Afghanistan is currently the most important area of NATO-Russia relations. Here, after 2014, cooperation in the present form will end which will undoubtedly bring about the search for other areas of cooperation.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in