Does NATO have any obligation to defend Turkey in Syria?

[PoS]

Russia itself was being considered for NATO membership before they started acting aggressively. It was self-fulfilling paranoia on their part.

Russia has always been paranoid about the West for good reason: the last two wars that devastated the country was launched from the West.

 

[AmNat]

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?

Article 5 of the NATO Treaty applies in North America, the North Atlantic, Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Republic of Turkey. It does not apply in Syria, and Erdogan has not attempted to invoke it, as he is not a buffoon, illiterate, or third class pundit.

 

[ataraxia]

Russia has always been paranoid about the West for good reason: the last two wars that devastated the country was launched from the West.

Oh well, paranoia sometimes leads us to do some crazy things.

Gorbachev and Medvedev were well on their way to bringing Russia into the fold of the international community as a respected, responsible member. It was just Putin who, with his paranoia, had made them a pariah state.

 

[AmNat]

Russia itself was being considered for NATO membership before they started acting aggressively. It was self-fulfilling paranoia on their part.

"Cet animal est très méchant, Quand on l'attaque il se défend."

 

[ataraxia]

"Cet animal est très méchant, Quand on l'attaque il se défend."

Who attacked Gorbachev or Medvedev?

 

[AmNat]

Who attacked Gorbachev or Medvedev?

Who has Russia attacked? Or does "acting aggressively" only matter when the Russians (THE RUSSIANS!!!!) do it?

 

[ataraxia]

Who has Russia attacked? Or does "acting aggressively" only matter when the Russians (THE RUSSIANS!!!!) do it?

The attack on Georgia was a first shocking step. What was that all about? Sheer paranoia.

 

[AmNat]

The attack on Georgia was a first shocking step. What was that all about? Sheer paranoia.

Ah yes, Georgia, a country which is not part of NATO, has never been part of NATO, and was undisputed Russian territory from the time Lincoln was a little boy until about five minutes ago.

Remind me, did this "first shocking step" occur before or after NATO moved thousands of miles closer to Russia's borders?

 

[Peter King]

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.

Now if the Russians and Syrians start bombing Turkish cities, well then then the Turks can ask for our help and we will give it, but when they are in Syria with no approval of Nato, well then they are on their own.

 

[Glitch]

Russia itself was being considered for NATO membership before they started acting aggressively. It was self-fulfilling paranoia on their part.

You keep claiming Russia is acting aggressively, but so far only NATO has been gobbling up one nation after another. Where is this so-called Russian aggression you keep imagining? Which nations has Russia attacked or otherwise acted aggressively toward since the USSR fell in 1989? NATO was first to attack, beginning in Bosnia, then Kosovo, then Macedonia, etc., etc. Where is the similar aggression coming from Russia?

 

[ataraxia]

Ah yes, Georgia, a country which is not part of NATO, has never been part of NATO, and was undisputed Russian territory from the time Lincoln was a little boy until about five minutes ago.

Remind me, did this "first shocking step" occur before or after NATO moved thousands of miles closer to Russia's borders?

That was when Russia itself was being considered for an invitation to join NATO.

 

[AmNat]

That was when Russia itself was being considered for an invitation to join NATO.

Just as China was once "invited to join" the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, but refused due to their own "self-fulfilling paranoia".

 

[Tigerace117]

You keep claiming Russia is acting aggressively, but so far only NATO has been gobbling up one nation after another. Where is this so-called Russian aggression you keep imagining? Which nations has Russia attacked or otherwise acted aggressively toward since the USSR fell in 1989? NATO was first to attack, beginning in Bosnia, then Kosovo, then Macedonia, etc., etc. Where is the similar aggression coming from Russia?

If the Serbs didn’t want to get bombed they shouldn’t have committed ethnic cleansing and genocide.

 

[AmNat]

If the Serbs didn’t want to get bombed they shouldn’t have committed ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Just to be clear, you're not disputing the fact that NATO has been the aggressor, you're just arguing that they're justified in their aggression, because they're (supposedly) morally superior to their victims?

 

[Jean-s]

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.

The USA starts wars and entangles itself outside of its borders all the time, including in Syria.

 

[swing_voter]

Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies. The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.


No, Article 5 only kicks in when the attack occurs inside Turkish borders.

 

[Tigerace117]

Just to be clear, you're not disputing the fact that NATO has been the aggressor, you're just arguing that they're justified in their aggression, because they're (supposedly) morally superior to their victims?

No, NATO is not the “aggressor”. And yes, considering the Serbs were actively committing genocide bombing them to put a stop to it was, in fact, justified.

 

[Tigerace117]

The USA starts wars and entangles itself outside of its borders all the time, including in Syria.

Actually it was Bashir Al-Assad who started the war in Syria by barrel bombing unarmed civilians.

 

[Jean-s]

Actually it was Bashir Al-Assad who started the war in Syria by barrel bombing unarmed civilians.

That was Syrian government domestic policy which was turning into a civil war and not the business of Americans nor Russians for that matter.

 

[Tigerace117]

That was Syrian government domestic policy which was turning into a civil war and not the business of Americans nor Russians for that matter.

It stops being “domestic policy” when you start murdering huge numbers of innocent civilians. There is no “right to massacre”.

 

[AmNat]

No, NATO is not the “aggressor”.

You’ll need to explain how bombing a country which hasn’t attacked you or done anything untoward outside its borders is not aggression.

 

[Tigerace117]

You’ll need to explain how bombing a country which hasn’t attacked you or done anything untoward outside its borders is not aggression.

Putting a stop to genocide is not “aggression”. It is a moral imperative to do so. There is no “right to commit genocide”. The Serbs were warned repeatedly not to continue their extermination campaigns; every time they ignored the warnings in favor of trying to wipe out unarmed civilians.

 

[AmNat]

Putting a stop to genocide is not “aggression”. It is a moral imperative to do so. There is no “right to commit genocide”. The Serbs were warned repeatedly not to continue their extermination campaigns; every time they ignored the warnings in favor of trying to wipe out unarmed civilians.

So, just to be clear, you aren’t disputing the fact of NATO aggression, but justifying it?

Defending a stronger claim than you need is generally indicative of a weak position.

 

[Tigerace117]

So, just to be clear, you aren’t disputing the fact of NATO aggression, but justifying it?

Defending a stronger claim than you need is generally indicative of a weak position.

Again, putting an end to genocide is not “aggression”.

Crying about the folks responsible for Srebrencia being bombed is generally indicative of sympathy for those responsible for genocide.

 

[AmNat]

Again, putting an end to genocide is not “aggression”.

What is your definition of aggression?