NATO Warns Turkey - Will Not help in a war with Russia

a reply to: Nikola014

If Russia ends up in direct conflict with Turkey, Turkey will have started it.

We have the example of the fighter jet they shot down for starters. Russia was provoked, but sensibly chose economic sanctions instead of armed escalation.

I just really wish that some of the smaller western nations would see reason in this and open up a dialogue with Russia instead of hiding behind America and Britain's skirt. Maybe then the big powers would stop and think about what they are doing for once.

Putin is doing the right thing over in Syria and yet he is being increasingly isolated by the West for it.

At least the EU has drawn a line in the sand by showing their unwillingness to end up in a war with Russia.

originally posted by: markosity1973
I just really wish that some of the smaller western nations would see reason in this and open up a dialogue with Russia instead of hiding behind America and Britain's skirt. Maybe then the big powers would stop and think about what they are doing for once.

The main players who called for, and got, sanctions against Russia following their meddling in Ukraine and outrageous annexation of Crimea were Germany and France. You may think everyone hides behind America's skirts, but Russia's belligerence has alarmed the developed West.

If Russia wants sanctions lifted then they need to rethink their foreign policy.

On war with Russia. There are no beating drums, except people on ATS.

a reply to: paraphi

Yes, Crimea was naughty. But Putin has his reasons - mainly stopping NATO in its tracks.

I don't agree with his actions but I do see his logic.

originally posted by: markosity1973
Yes, Crimea was naughty. But Putin has his reasons - mainly stopping NATO in its tracks.

Has he stopped NATO in its tracks? Putin's main tantrum were about Ukraine wanting to forge closer ties with the EU. The fact is that Putin's belligerence has pushed Ukraine into the Western sphere and burned all bridges, so it will become a self fulfilling prophecy and Crimea will be a millstone around Russian's neck for years to come.

a reply to: Nikola014

Who honestly believes NATO would interfere in the possible conflict between Russia and Turkey?

NATO doesn't have an obligation to help protect Turkey if they start the conflict, but if Russia were to attack Turkey in any way they would be obligated to help Turkey.

a reply to: markosity1973

mainly stopping NATO in its tracks.

NATO stopped themselves when they denied membership to Ukraine.

If Article 5 gets invoked in the next 10 years, NATO ceases to exist.

It hasn't been invoked and there is already almost a decade of infighting between those that are pulling their weight and those that are not.

An actual conflict, with most of NATO only able to offer well below what the Treaty calls for = end of NATO.

Really doesn't help that two of the players, both of which are pulling their weight, are currently at odds with one another.

a reply to: paraphi

Putin's main tantrum were about Ukraine wanting to forge closer ties with the EU.

Here you should see this...From Sunday 22 September 2013 09.23

A few things the RUssians had to say.

"Ukrainian authorities make a huge mistake if they think that the Russian reaction will become neutral in a few years from now. This will not happen."

The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void.

"Signing this treaty will lead to political and social unrest," said the Kremlin aide. "The living standard will decline dramatically … there will be chaos."

Yes you are right it was a Putin tantrum that set off Ukraine.

Erdogan is the Bush of Turkey.

An unmitigated fool of immense proportions.

He stood by for 2 years and let ISIS do all of the damage it did and his proxy crazy jihadis in Syria wrecked that country and all he’s worried about is his age old war against the oppressed Kurds.

He is an evil man only interested in his own skin and ego.


He seems to not even realize he put himself into this mess and now can’t get out of it to save face.


He created the monsters that are now going to be responsible for his own destruction

NATO may realize they lost the gamble to destroy Assad. The knuckle head Erdogan doesn’t want to accept reality.


The US and NATO should have never involved themselves in this quagmire of ME insanity with age old sectarian strife and stupid old ME maniacal leaders destroying their own children for the sake of their ego’s.

War, make your entrance!

a reply to: maddy21

The reason is real simple. NATO is a defensive treaty. Turkey - a NATO member - is taking unilateral action in Syria, a Russian ally, that may result in conflict with Russia. Russia has warned Turkey to knock it off and back off from its pans, but Turkey seems set on continuing to be Daesh's best buddy in the region. So NATO is saying that if Turkey keeps trying to pick a fight, then NATO's going to let Turkey fight all by itself.

Which is exactly what SHOULD happen.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: markosity1973

mainly stopping NATO in its tracks.

NATO stopped themselves when they denied membership to Ukraine.

Because among other things, a country cannot be at war to join NATO.

Putin was jumping up and down around the time of Crimea about NATO 'fencing in' Russia.

He was paranoid that a base would go into Crimea, giving them naval access to Russia's back doorstep on the Black sea so acted in a pre-emptive manner.

I'm not condoning this, just explaining the motivation behind the Crimea / Ukraine debacle from Russia's point of view.

a reply to: Willtell

NATO may realize they lost the gamble to destroy Assad. The knuckle head Erdogan doesn’t want to accept reality.

The reality is that nothing has been settled yet. Daesh still controls more territory than Assad. Now Assad has to turn from the rebels to the terrorists. Result? Increased terror activities against civilians in the territory he does control.

The US and NATO should have never involved themselves in this quagmire of ME insanity with age old sectarian strife and stupid old ME maniacal leaders destroying their own children for the sake of their ego’s.

Don't forget Russia. Russia was supposed to crush Daesh in two weeks, remember? Now it's on the verge of an unwinnable war with Turkey.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Nikola014

Who honestly believes NATO would interfere in the possible conflict between Russia and Turkey?

NATO doesn't have an obligation to help protect Turkey if they start the conflict, but if Russia were to attack Turkey in any way they would be obligated to help Turkey.

This is how i see it too, only logical way.

a reply to: markosity1973

Because among other things, a country cannot be at war to join NATO.

Exactly what war was Ukraine involved in when they were denied?

During NATO's 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, the issue was discussed and, after opposition from France and Germany, a decision was made to offer neither Ukraine nor Georgia a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) — essentially a path for Ukraine to receive membership — at that moment.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Putin was jumping up and down around the time of Crimea about NATO 'fencing in' Russia.

And yet they had their own man at NATO headquarters up until Ukraine...and yet he didn't have a problem with what NATO was doing, or we would have heard about it long before now.

He was paranoid that a base would go into Crimea,

SO that's a reason to annex part of a sovereign country...and remember it was also done on a lie.

giving them naval access to Russia's back doorstep on the Black sea so acted in a pre-emptive manner.

NATO has two members on the Black Sea so they already have access to Russia's back doorstep, and have had it since 2004.

It wasn't done as a preemptive anything. It was done because he didn't want to pay the lease for their base, so when you own it you don't have to pay for it.

I'm not condoning this, just explaining the motivation behind the Crimea / Ukraine debacle from Russia's point of view.

Except Putin has already shown he lied about the reason for Crimea. It wasn't because of the referendum.

The military operation was initially kept secret with the Kremlin insisting that only locals were involved in the uprising against Kyiv. Putin later conceded Russian troops were involved, particularly in the build-up to the cessation vote. Russian officials had previously said the annexation decision, to which Kyiv has strongly objected, was taken only after the referendum.

www.dw.com...

It is also known that he took Crimea because he felt it was wrong that it was given to Ukraine in 1954, and he wanted it back because he feels it is Russia's.

Crimea had nothing to do with NATO.

originally posted by: Willtell
Erdogan is the Bush of Turkey.

To be honest, I think he's more a shrub than a bush.

We know a thread has died when the only thing left is to insult a head of state, like a stuck record.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
NATO has two members on the Black Sea so they already have access to Russia's back doorstep, and have had it since 2004.

Actually, as Turkey's been in NATO sine 1952, NATO has had access to Russia's back passage for dome time before 2004.