NATO will 'protect and defend Turkey' if Syria launches an attack, says head of alliance

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeanF1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In 1999 I believe there was talk of a new alliance to militarily oppose NATO if necessary, that would initially consist of Russia, Belarus, and Serbia. Might be time to bring the idea back and put it into operation. Perhaps other countries could be sounded out as well, Armenia, Cyprus, Greece. Hate to see things head in this direction, but someone has to tell NATO there bullying of nations will no longer be tolerated.
 
Turkey is a member of NATO, so all NATO is saying is that if Syria attacks Turkey, it will support it’s member state.

It’s a warning to Syria. I don’t think NATO really wants to get involved, but it is implying that it will if it has to.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
Turkey is a member of NATO, so all NATO is saying is that if Syria attacks Turkey, it will support it’s member state.

It’s a warning to Syria. I don’t think NATO really wants to get involved, but it is implying that it will if it has to.
Click to expand...
It’s just a gesture. Turkey actually has a larger armed force than Russia does, and there is no reason to disbelieve that the legendary “terrible Turk” is any less terrible in a war than memory says he is. And Turkey is right on Syria’s border, which Russia, Serbia, et al, are not. A war between Turkey and Syria would be over before Russia could assemble anything remotely resembling a fighting force, let alone transport it to Syria. Remember that it took all of Russia’s elite forces to beat tiny Georgia, and even then it didn’t acquit itself all that well.

It will never come to a NATO-Russia confrontation. Turkey could easily allow Russia to save face by promising to leave the Russian naval base alone.

But there isn’t going to be a Turkey/Syria war either. A few shells here and there, and that’s all. Besides, Ergodan knows the Sunni Islamists will eventually win out over Assad, and I’m sure he’s fine with that. Turkey and the U.S. are not in the same game there.
 
Seamus_L said:
This article came out last month, but it should be an eye opener to anyone who hasn’t been following the situation in Syria telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9539244/Syria-Christians-take-up-arms-for-first-time.html It means if the US and NATO become involved in Syria they’ll be coming in on the side of the anti-Christians.
Click to expand...
Syria is probably a “no win” situation from the U.S. or even western or even Christian standpoint. The Christians, like the Alawites, are identified with the Assad regime among the Sunni insurgents, or at least a good number of them. Assad is allied with Iran.

It might have been possible, early on, to identify some faction or several factions that were really not Islamists or Al Quaeda or anti-Christian, and support it or them against the others and against Assad. We did nothing, which suggests either that we could not find out enough about the various factions to know, or that, as in Egypt and Libya, Obama thinks it’s best for the divided Arab populations to “work it out among themselves” even if it means our bitter enemies prevail over those who might be better people.

The latter does seem to be consistent with the philosophies of the liberals generally and Obama certainly seems to have adopted that approach.
 
I’ve been thinking lately that Turkey might be the right nation to intervene in Syria…presuming that’s necessary…the US could support them financially and materially.
 
Well I suppose that is good to know. Turkey does have the right to defend itself from aggression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top