• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does NATO have any obligation to defend Turkey in Syria?

A

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
48,287
Reaction score
25,553
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Turkish forces in Syria have come under direct attack by Syrian government forces under Assad, killing 33 Turkish soldiers in Idlib province. Until now, the two countries have tried to avoid direct conflict as each goes after its own enemies: the Syrian forces after rebels and Turkish forces after the Kurds. But this strike has brought Turkish forces into what Syria considers its territory. This has been the first direct exchange of fire between the two countries and dramatically escalates the complexity of the situation there.

After an emergency government meeting called by Turkish president Erdogan, Turkey has started striking back directly at Syrian forces. To add to the complexity, the strike struck very close to where Russian troops are situated as well.

Syria is acting in Idlib with the help of Russian forces. Although Turkey is accusing only Syria of the airstrike which killed its soldiers, the vast majority of the air strikes occurring there have been by Russian planes.

President Erdogan has called on NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over Idlib province. Turkey is a member of NATO, and a strike on one member is to be considered a strike on all. However, NATO has been very hesitant to get involved in this conflict- first, because it strongly discouraged Turkey from its incursions into Syria initially, and second, because this would would bring its forces into direct conflict with Russian forces operating there.

So what does everyone think? Should NATO uphold its obligation to one of its member states and get involved in this conflict, or just let Turkey deal with the mess it has created for itself there?
 
Turkey is openly involving itself in a civil war outside of its own borders. They should actually be condemned for it- maybe even kicked out of NATO.
 
ataraxia said:
Turkish forces in Syria have come under direct attack by Syrian government forces under Assad, killing 33 Turkish soldiers in Idlib province. Until now, the two countries have tried to avoid direct conflict as each goes after its own enemies: the Syrian forces after rebels and Turkish forces after the Kurds. But this strike has brought Turkish forces into what Syria considers its territory. This has been the first direct exchange of fire between the two countries and dramatically escalates the complexity of the situation there.

After an emergency government meeting called by Turkish president Erdogan, Turkey has started striking back directly at Syrian forces. To add to the complexity, the strike struck very close to where Russian troops are situated as well.

Syria is acting in Idlib with the help of Russian forces. Although Turkey is accusing only Syria of the airstrike which killed its soldiers, the vast majority of the air strikes occurring there have been by Russian planes.

President Erdogan has called on NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over Idlib province. Turkey is a member of NATO, and a strike on one member is to be considered a strike on all. However, NATO has been very hesitant to get involved in this conflict- first, because it strongly discouraged Turkey from its incursions into Syria initially, and second, because this would would bring its forces into direct conflict with Russian forces operating there.

So what does everyone think? Should NATO uphold its obligation to one of its member states and get involved in this conflict, or just let Turkey deal with the mess it has created for itself there?
Click to expand...

Has Turkey paid it's protection money this year?

If not, then I think that decision would be up in the air.
 
It just seems like we have no dog in this fight. It seems like such a small, regional, and maddeningly complex situation, And the stakes are getting involved would be potentially so very high, that it would be crazy to get involved.
 
ataraxia said:
Turkish forces in Syria have come under direct attack by Syrian government forces under Assad, killing 33 Turkish soldiers in Idlib province. Until now, the two countries have tried to avoid direct conflict as each goes after its own enemies: the Syrian forces after rebels and Turkish forces after the Kurds. But this strike has brought Turkish forces into what Syria considers its territory. This has been the first direct exchange of fire between the two countries and dramatically escalates the complexity of the situation there.

After an emergency government meeting called by Turkish president Erdogan, Turkey has started striking back directly at Syrian forces. To add to the complexity, the strike struck very close to where Russian troops are situated as well.

Syria is acting in Idlib with the help of Russian forces. Although Turkey is accusing only Syria of the airstrike which killed its soldiers, the vast majority of the air strikes occurring there have been by Russian planes.

President Erdogan has called on NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over Idlib province. Turkey is a member of NATO, and a strike on one member is to be considered a strike on all. However, NATO has been very hesitant to get involved in this conflict- first, because it strongly discouraged Turkey from its incursions into Syria initially, and second, because this would would bring its forces into direct conflict with Russian forces operating there.

So what does everyone think? Should NATO uphold its obligation to one of its member states and get involved in this conflict, or just let Turkey deal with the mess it has created for itself there?
Click to expand...

Funny how you would attack Trump if he said NATO was worthless. From the way I understand it, an attack on one NATO country would be met with a response from NATO if the attacked country asked NATO for help, which Turkey has.
 
ataraxia said:
It just seems like we have no dog in this fight. It seems like such a small, regional, and maddeningly complex situation, And the stakes are getting involved would be potentially so very high, that it would be crazy to get involved.
Click to expand...

But but but this is what NATO is all about. An attack on one country is an attack on NATO.
 
Moderate Right said:
But but but this is what NATO is all about. An attack on one country is an attack on NATO.
Click to expand...

Where was Turkey attacked?


Not in Turkey from what I’ve read.
 
This shows once again the problem with the UN's setup, where any issue that the US, China, or Russia has a preference in, can't get the UN to take action because of their veto. So if the US and Russia are on different sides in Syria, no UN resolution/action.

If China invaded somewhere tomorrow the world felt violated the UN charter - too bad. When the US has done so - too bad.
 
Moderate Right said:
Funny how you would attack Trump if he said NATO was worthless. From the way I understand it, an attack on one NATO country would be met with a response from NATO if the attacked country asked NATO for help, which Turkey has.
Click to expand...

Well, this was just Erdogan being stupid. And it is no direct existential threat to his country. So it’s hard to get too excited about it. But it’s a long way from that to saying all of NATO is worthless.
 
ataraxia said:
Turkish forces in Syria have come under direct attack by Syrian government forces under Assad, killing 33 Turkish soldiers in Idlib province. Until now, the two countries have tried to avoid direct conflict as each goes after its own enemies: the Syrian forces after rebels and Turkish forces after the Kurds. But this strike has brought Turkish forces into what Syria considers its territory. This has been the first direct exchange of fire between the two countries and dramatically escalates the complexity of the situation there.

After an emergency government meeting called by Turkish president Erdogan, Turkey has started striking back directly at Syrian forces. To add to the complexity, the strike struck very close to where Russian troops are situated as well.

Syria is acting in Idlib with the help of Russian forces. Although Turkey is accusing only Syria of the airstrike which killed its soldiers, the vast majority of the air strikes occurring there have been by Russian planes.

President Erdogan has called on NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over Idlib province. Turkey is a member of NATO, and a strike on one member is to be considered a strike on all. However, NATO has been very hesitant to get involved in this conflict- first, because it strongly discouraged Turkey from its incursions into Syria initially, and second, because this would would bring its forces into direct conflict with Russian forces operating there.

So what does everyone think? Should NATO uphold its obligation to one of its member states and get involved in this conflict, or just let Turkey deal with the mess it has created for itself there?
Click to expand...

No.

Turkey has not been attacked in Turkey.

It is the same as the Americans being attacked in Afganistan.
 
Turkey went into Syria alone, after requesting that US forces leave their planned military occupation zone, so they have no legitimate claim to have NATO back them up.
 
PoS said:
Turkey is openly involving itself in a civil war outside of its own borders. They should actually be condemned for it- maybe even kicked out of NATO.
Click to expand...

NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The last time I checked Turkey was nowhere near the north Atlantic. Turkey should never have been a member of NATO in the first place. It was an act of hegemony by the US. Just like NATO entertaining the membership of the Baltic States is another pathetic act of hegemony by the US and a direct threat to Russia. If there is ever a war between the US and Russia, it will most likely be started by the US and its continuing encroachment into formerly Russian controlled territories.

NATO should have been abolished when the Warsaw Pact was abolished. It no longer serves a useful purpose and only used to threaten former Warsaw Pact nations. NATO (more specifically, US arrogance) will be the cause for the next war in Europe.
 
Syrian Defense Forces attack Turkish troops IN SYRIA. Who would have thunk it.

Off the top of my head, I don't see any reason why NATO would be required to defend Turkish forces in Syria.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The last time I checked Turkey was nowhere near the north Atlantic. Turkey should never have been a member of NATO in the first place. It was an act of hegemony by the US. Just like NATO entertaining the membership of the Baltic States is another pathetic act of hegemony by the US and a direct threat to Russia. If there is ever a war between the US and Russia, it will most likely be started by the US and its continuing encroachment into formerly Russian controlled territories.

NATO should have been abolished when the Warsaw Pact was abolished. It no longer serves a useful purpose and only used to threaten former Warsaw Pact nations. NATO (more specifically, US arrogance) will be the cause for the next war in Europe.
Click to expand...
Spokesperson for Vladimir Putin.
 
Glitch said:
NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The last time I checked Turkey was nowhere near the north Atlantic. Turkey should never have been a member of NATO in the first place. It was an act of hegemony by the US. Just like NATO entertaining the membership of the Baltic States is another pathetic act of hegemony by the US and a direct threat to Russia. If there is ever a war between the US and Russia, it will most likely be started by the US and its continuing encroachment into formerly Russian controlled territories.

NATO should have been abolished when the Warsaw Pact was abolished. It no longer serves a useful purpose and only used to threaten former Warsaw Pact nations. NATO (more specifically, US arrogance) will be the cause for the next war in Europe.
Click to expand...

During the Cold War, Turkey was a strategically critical member of NATO. They even boasted that all they needed was 24 hours, and they could be occupying Moscow.

Fortunately, the Cold War is over. But unfortunately, Russia is becoming aggressive again, and interested in disrupting the international peace, order, and prosperity which was created so painstakingly by the US and its allies after WWII- because somehow it feels like it was not invited to the party (even though soon after the fall of the Berlin wall, interest was being expressed by both Europe and the US to have them join not just the EU but even NATO as well).

As long as Russia maintains this aggressive stance, which will probably be as least as long as Putin is in power, I am not sure The plug should be pulled so quickly on NATO.
 
ataraxia said:
During the Cold War, Turkey was a strategically critical member of NATO. They even boasted that all they needed was 24 hours, and they could be occupying Moscow.

Fortunately, the Cold War is over. But unfortunately, Russia is becoming aggressive again, and interested in disrupting the international peace, order, and prosperity which was created so painstakingly by the US and its allies after WWII- because somehow it feels like it was not invited to the party (even though soon after the fall of the Berlin wall, interest was being expressed by both Europe and the US to have them join not just the EU but even NATO as well).

As long as Russia maintains this aggressive stance, which will probably be as least as long as Putin is in power, I am not sure The plug should be pulled so quickly on NATO.
Click to expand...

It isn't Russia who is being aggressive. There are no former members of NATO joining Russia, but Poland, Hungry, Lithuania, Latvia, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia - all former Warsaw Pact members - are now NATO members. It would appear that Russia has cause for concern considering the encroachment of NATO into their former territory. Where is the similar Russian threat?
 
Glitch said:
It isn't Russia who is being aggressive. There are no former members of NATO joining Russia, but Poland, Hungry, Lithuania, Latvia, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia - all former Warsaw Pact members - are now NATO members. It would appear that Russia has cause for concern considering the encroachment of NATO into their former territory. Where is the similar Russian threat?
Click to expand...

.....Montenegro and Slovenia were not Warsaw Pact members, even if you stretch the definition and include constituents of other nations—- like Slovakia or Latvia— as being part of it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
.....Montenegro and Slovenia were not Warsaw Pact members, even if you stretch the definition and include constituents of other nations—- like Slovakia or Latvia— as being part of it.
Click to expand...

Montenegro and Slovenia were Warsaw Pact members because they were part of Yugoslavia. Do you not know which countries belonged to the Warsaw Pact? Slovakia and Latvia were part of the Warsaw Pact. Actual membership is not "stretching the definition" of anything, it is fact. Whether you can accept that fact as reality is apparently something else entirely. Every new member NATO has added in the last 30 years originated from the former Warsaw Pact, as it continues to drive towards dominating all of Russia's former alliances. The aggression is entirely on NATO's side, not Russia.
 
Glitch said:
Montenegro and Slovenia were Warsaw Pact members because they were part of Yugoslavia. Do you not know which countries belonged to the Warsaw Pact? Slovakia and Latvia were part of the Warsaw Pact. Actual membership is not "stretching the definition" of anything, it is fact. Whether you can accept that fact as reality is apparently something else entirely. Every new member NATO has added in the last 30 years originated from the former Warsaw Pact, as it continues to drive towards dominating all of Russia's former alliances. The aggression is entirely on NATO's side, not Russia.
Click to expand...

Yugoslavia was not part of the Warsaw Pact. Apparently you don’t know which nations were part of it.

Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia; Latvia was part of the USSR. Neither one of them had a choice as to foreign policy.

Your claim is clearly false, as I already showed.
 
ataraxia said:
Turkish forces in Syria have come under direct attack by Syrian government forces under Assad, killing 33 Turkish soldiers in Idlib province. Until now, the two countries have tried to avoid direct conflict as each goes after its own enemies: the Syrian forces after rebels and Turkish forces after the Kurds. But this strike has brought Turkish forces into what Syria considers its territory. This has been the first direct exchange of fire between the two countries and dramatically escalates the complexity of the situation there.

After an emergency government meeting called by Turkish president Erdogan, Turkey has started striking back directly at Syrian forces. To add to the complexity, the strike struck very close to where Russian troops are situated as well.

Syria is acting in Idlib with the help of Russian forces. Although Turkey is accusing only Syria of the airstrike which killed its soldiers, the vast majority of the air strikes occurring there have been by Russian planes.

President Erdogan has called on NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over Idlib province. Turkey is a member of NATO, and a strike on one member is to be considered a strike on all. However, NATO has been very hesitant to get involved in this conflict- first, because it strongly discouraged Turkey from its incursions into Syria initially, and second, because this would would bring its forces into direct conflict with Russian forces operating there.

So what does everyone think? Should NATO uphold its obligation to one of its member states and get involved in this conflict, or just let Turkey deal with the mess it has created for itself there?
Click to expand...

NATO isn't obligated to protect an aggressor. They are obligated to protect members that are on the defense. Also, **** Turkey right in the face. We shouldn't be in/have NATO to begin with but, if we are, then Turkey should be removed.

They were contemplating doing a false flag attack on themselves in the past, just to draw us into a war.
 
Turkey shouldn't even be in NATO or the E.U. at this point. During the cold war they were somewhat useful as a stop gap to soviet expansion, but Turkey is an Islamic nation with a long history of human rights abuses and tyranny.

Today Turkey is better just being the enemy they always have been anyway. Screw them.
 
PoS said:
Turkey is openly involving itself in a civil war outside of its own borders. They should actually be condemned for it- maybe even kicked out of NATO.
Click to expand...

There would have been zero Turkish dead soldiers if they had not illegally been inside the border of Syria. Only that caused their deaths and Nato should not involve itself in Turkey's stupid illegal invasions of neighboring countries.
 
Glitch said:
It isn't Russia who is being aggressive. There are no former members of NATO joining Russia, but Poland, Hungry, Lithuania, Latvia, Montenegro, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia - all former Warsaw Pact members - are now NATO members. It would appear that Russia has cause for concern considering the encroachment of NATO into their former territory. Where is the similar Russian threat?
Click to expand...

Russia itself was being considered for NATO membership before they started acting aggressively. It was self-fulfilling paranoia on their part.
 
Peter King said:
There would have been zero Turkish dead soldiers if they had not illegally been inside the border of Syria. Only that caused their deaths and Nato should not involve itself in Turkey's stupid illegal invasions of neighboring countries.
Click to expand...

Yes, Erdogan was told repeatedly by everybody this was a dumb idea. His obsession with the Kurds got him into this mess. He has made his bed, he has to sleep in it. This is nobody’s problem except his own now.
Except his own.
 
PoS said:
Turkey is openly involving itself in a civil war outside of its own borders. They should actually be condemned for it- maybe even kicked out of NATO.
Click to expand...

They've certainly waded in rather than been randomly attacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom