NATO exercising restraint over Syria

[webfact]

NATO exercising restraint over Syria
By Adrian Lancashire



DAMASCUS: -- NATO forces on exercise. NATO exercising restraint. It seems improbable that the 28-nation alliance would deploy ground troops in Syria.

NATO has a collective defence pact. But even if Russian planes swerve over NATO member Turkey, the charter says: ‘…an armed attack against one or more of its member in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…’ But already in 2012, words were said and some steps taken.

Then NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: “Turkey has asked for alliance’s support and we stand in full solidarity with Turkey. Because this is what our alliance is all about. As we have already made clear, any deployment would be defensive only.”

Ankara welcomed NATO deployment of six Patriot missile batteries on Turkish soil against a perceived ballistic missile threat from Syria.

NATO Airborne Warning and Control System, or AWACS planes, have been backing Turkey up for years. High altitude, unarmed aircraft detect others in the air, ships and ground vehicles at long range. They can also direct defensive and offensive action.

At the last NATO summit, in September 2014, Ukraine concerns kept Syria in second place. The leaders’ decision was to take no decision. A few days earlier, though, nine NATO members had announced they would coordinate their actions against threats from the radical Islamic State movement (ISIL) in the wake of its offensive in northern Iraq. This meant the US, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Turkey and the UK. The NATO alliance would offer logistical and humanitarian help and intelligence-gathering.

Today, the anti-ISIL coalition counts all the NATO countries — but the alliance can say it is not active in Syria. NATO adheres to United Nations principles, therefore it would need a UN mandate to act there.

NATO did act in Libya in 2011, with a UN mandate, which Moscow feels was misused. The alliance’s ministers gathered in Turkey in May this year, ostensibly to concentrate on their southern flank. Libya is a dangerous wreck now. Syria, it is feared, may hold even greater potential for ruin.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-10-07

[Somtamnication]

NATO is terrified of the Soviet Russians. They won't intervene.

[craigt3365]

NATO is terrified of the Soviet Russians. They won't intervene.

I'm not sure I'd use terrified. The combined forces of NATO and the US dwarf what Russia has militarily, especially technologically. Perhaps NATO and the US are just smarter and don't want to escalate things?

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/02/25/russia_cant_beat_nato--but_putin_may_try.html

Can Russia defeat NATO? The answer is “no.” Vladimir Putin’s armies cannot prevail in a direct contest with the NATO alliance.

This, however, is the wrong question. The West’s more pressing concern should be whether Putin, for his own reasons, will force Russia’s military into a clash with NATO regardless of the consequences. The Russian president is a neo-Soviet nostalgist who not only craves revenge for the collapse of the USSR, but who still harbors old-school Kremlin fantasies about the weakness of the decadent West.

Let's just hope both sides back down before something serious happens.

[ggt]

NATO follows the lead of the US...which has apparently lost it's way...

[schlog]

Americans want to believe US is strong and powerful, but things have changed the last decade at home and abroad. Governments can change overnight and invasion can occur without any declaration.

Nato and US smarter...555

Edited October 7, 2015 by schlog

[Thaidream]

The US is foolish to get involved in any type of confrontation with Russia over Ukraine or Syria. Let the Russians drain their treasury in both conflicts. There is no American national interest in either place. Time for America to stay home and take care of Americans. America needs a President that says no and means it. Real strength comes from economic superiority not military.The US is neither superior nor economically stable and this will exist as long as almost $600 Billion per year is spent on the military.This does not include what is spent on the CIA or NSA.

american states it cannot afford to increase Seniors Social security; cannot afford to raise the minimum wage and cannot afford free health care. We all know why.

[Soutpeel]

Nato exercising restraint ? Is this diplomatic speak for not doing a fking thing and sitting on their hands ?

Edited October 7, 2015 by Soutpeel

[craigt3365]

The US is foolish to get involved in any type of confrontation with Russia over Ukraine or Syria. Let the Russians drain their treasury in both conflicts. There is no American national interest in either place. Time for America to stay home and take care of Americans. America needs a President that says no and means it. Real strength comes from economic superiority not military.The US is neither superior nor economically stable and this will exist as long as almost $600 Billion per year is spent on the military.This does not include what is spent on the CIA or NSA.

american states it cannot afford to increase Seniors Social security; cannot afford to raise the minimum wage and cannot afford free health care. We all know why.

The first part of you post is spot on. But America is still the #1 super power. And doing well economically. You might want to research your comment about minimum wage. It has increased in many places around the US.