Correct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get how that link is relevant to the discussion here?
Is it an example of a treaty that failed?
Correct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get how that link is relevant to the discussion here?
Is it an example of a treaty that failed?
If a NATO country is attacked, NATO has to respond.
Article 5 says that an armed attack on one NATO country is an armed attack on all NATO countries, and is kindof a cornerstone of the whole alliance.
I'm pretty sure they'd have to "care", If they don't, they can just as well dismantle NATO since it serves no purpose anymore.
Yes and no.
Yes, because when the agreement is invoked that is exactly correct. When invoked, the text of the treaty says that they agree an armed attack against any of the nations is considered an armed attack against them all, and each nation will take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
No, for multiple reasons.
First, the treaty must be invoked. There have been plenty of armed conflict in and around NATO countries over the last 60 years that did not invoke the treaty. It is not part of the text of the treaty, but it is part of global politics, nations generally must specifically invoke treaties, saying "Hey allies, we need assistance."
Second, note that even if they did invoke the treaty each nation gets to do what it deems necessary to restore security. In this case it was a single jet fighter that (allegedly) crossed the border. That immediate threat has been dealt with.
Third, if there is a longer-term threat that will need to be addressed as a longer-term action. As others have written, Russia has a long established pattern of posturing and pushing up against other nations. They fly directly to Sweden and other nations with transponders off in an aggressive posture. They test other nation's response times and probe how long it takes for them to respond. They fly right against the borders of other nation's air space. That is stupid and risky, because exactly this situation can happen. If you keep threatening and posturing and stop at the last instant with "just kidding!", sooner or later somebody is going to respond to your threats and posturing but because of your history of threats nobody will come to your aid.
So even though yes, NATO has a treaty that covers this, no, the treaty has not yet been invoked, no, other nations are not obligated to respond because the immediate threat is dealt with, and no, other nations are not bound to take pro-active long term actions if they choose not to.
Russia has been setting themselves up with a lose-lose situation globally by the posturing. Friends don't constantly make jabs at their friends; friends respect borders and treat others with respect. When one (a person or a nation) is constantly probing and threatening and posturing they get known as a bully. If the bully beats someone up the bully is at fault. If someone attacks and provokes the bully the bully is STILL considered at fault, because of their history. So even if Russia is correct that the jet didn't cross the border, globally they have weakened themselves because of how frequently they have threatened and postured. When you act the bully and someone punches you in the face, people cheer rather than come to your aid.
Russia's leaders seem to forget this frequently. When you are on good terms you don't need to make threats, you can be polite and kind. When you are confident you don't need to challenge your neighbors and test their response times. Even though they believe the acts are big and tough, they are a sign of insecurity and (possibly feigned) weakness. Russia shows a strong case of "little man" syndrome: someone who acts tough and aggressive because they are really small and weak unwittingly are disrespecting others and acting in ways drawing disrespect; big and tough men don't need to be aggressive, they don't need to lash out, they tend to act in a way that deserves respect and consequently be respected.
So even though yes, NATO has a treaty that covers this, no, the treaty has not yet been invoked, no, other nations are not obligated to respond because the immediate threat is dealt with, and no, other nations are not bound to take pro-active long term actions if they choose not to.
I never meant to imply this incident was grounds to invoke article 5.
I don't think the article even could be invoked, since just violating airspace is not an armed attack.
It would be different if Russia decided to respond to what they view as a violation when their aircraft was attacked. (luckily it seems the Russians are wiser then that)
Article 5 is more then just a treaty, its one of the cornerstones of NATO, without it, it's not much of an alliance anymore.
I'm not so worried about this particular incident as I'm worried about the trend it seems to be part of, and what incidents it could be a catalyst for in the future.
Well yes, but the point is, they were not attacked. They shot down that airplane, not the other way around. If you provoke a war by shooting at airplanes, you cannot rely that everybody else is letting you drag them into the conflict (though admittedly such things have happened in history).If a NATO country is attacked, NATO has to respond.
You really have to ask? Socialists, most notably Schröder, who else. Even Merkel cannot do as much evil as Schröder has done during his rule. She tries hard to lead us to doom, but it's just impossible to compete in malicious incompetence with a Red-Green government.Just wondered if you didn't notice that occupation when letting Cypriots into EU? (Maybe you also didn't notice that before accession, Cypriot Turks approved a plan reuniting island while Greek Cypriots rejected.) Who told EU to let them in?
Well, from an objective point of view, you have to agree that "no progress" is the right thing, though. Turkey is not ready to even think about joining the EU. Not in any way. Yes, similar can be said about most other present candidates, and it is also true for several ones (not just Greece and Cyprus) who did join. But that doesn't change the fact that Turkey (Erdogan in particular) is totally not ready and no-go for the EU as it stands.And for that more agreeable pace, seems you mean better than "no progress at last 5 years" so "literally better than nothing"
I congratulate you on being the probably most tolerant Turk whom I have met in my life. If everybody was like that, the world would be a better place. Unluckily, I have the feeling that Erdogan will not quite agree with that opinion.I couldn't care less about Kurds on my own but that doesn't mean I want them dead, I want them gone ( I am not buying integrationist policies ), let them have their Kurdistan (which is de facto already present at Iraq) and live happily ever after there. Unlike majority in Turkey, I am even ok with getting rid of some of southeastern Turkey where they vote around 70%-90% for Kurdish party.
It is almost always problematic throwing the "T" word (terrorist) at someone too easily. Who is a terrorist? This depends not only on whom you ask, but also on who wins the conflict.I don't recall a Jewish terrorist organization killing over 30K people
Which of the superpowers, or nations involved in the Syria conflict *aren't* known as bastardous bullies?When you act the bully and someone punches you in the face, people cheer rather than come to your aid.
. 22 Racing Series .
Everybody knew that neither Greece nor Cyprus should have entered the EU
Actually I disagree about Greece , Greece and Turkey had applied same year (1959 if I am not mistaken) when it is still EEC and both countries were quite eligible imo (Turkey didn't progress due to internal and coup reasons) The main problem of EU is pointless expansion (partly in order to break Russian influence on ex-Iron Curtain states) which ended its nature of "rich club". The current problem of Greece is more about using Euro, otherwise Drahmi would devaluate ages ago, I am still not sure about the point of using common currency controlled by ECB when member states are not economically homogenius.
Well, from an objective point of view, you have to agree that "no progress" is the right thing, though. ... But I understand that you cannot agree with this point of view since that would mean putting your freedom and your life at risk.
Well , I agree that Erdogan government isn't meant to or interested in joining EU. But it is also EU itself coming to bribe (like they "sold" weapons to Greece right before credit talks). Btw, it wouldn't risk my life or freedom to say that Erdogan only gets 49% of votes, I am of 51% rest and we are somehow a democratic country for years
If everybody was like that, the world would be a better place.
If wasn't sarcastic , it is not about tolerance (because we no longer can tolerate) but realizing that our differences doesn't allow a sustainable social contract imo. Best course would be end this like Czechoslovakia did in peace. When you look at world, even the rich one (Catalans, Scots, Northern Italians, Flamans) wants to get separated no matter how much right and autonomy you grant; so I see no point in insisting to live together.
It is almost always problematic throwing the "T" word (terrorist) at someone too easily. Who is a terrorist?
Whole text is too long to quote
Unfortunately, "one's terrorist is other's freedom fighter". But it is hard to call an organization like PKK as freedom fighters , the very organization responsible of thousands of kills (ironically many of them are Kurds) , drug trafficking to Europe, smuggling and extortion. PKK is too common criminal to make a "freedom fighters fighting for their own land" story out of them. They invented something called PYD for this PR issue which is currently sympathized by Western countries as they fight with ISIS.
Now let's turn to present-day Muslim Terror. I will tell you a tale from someone whom I call a "good Muslim"
The problem with Europe is them letting these extremists in and allowing them to foster in the name of "respect to culture, religion, whatever, democracy etc". You simply don't oppose these extremists ( Wahabis, Selefis ) enough and then surprise when they hit you. Apart from southeastern of Turkey (where extremist party got around 3% vote) , you can't find that much extremists , they simply can't foster in Turkish Islam. ( I saw a Wahabi first time in Europe, couldn't manage to in a 99% Muslim country )
And just FYI : Islam considers itself as successor of first Jewish then Christian faith, as the final and eternal form from same god and considers Moses and Jesus as prophet. So it is not about super tolerance but part of faith.
Edit : Sorry just saw this
considering Turkey a safe country (effectively making it impossible for Kurds to flee, even when they are being hunted and killed)
Really surprised to see that " I was expressing my ethnicity and freedom by grenades and AK-47 but Turkish Army didn't let me, so I seek asylum " still works :)
mostates by moson?e | Embrace your burden
Which of the superpowers, or nations involved in the Syria conflict *aren't* known as bastardous bullies?
Seems very strange to single Russia out, as if the other players there actually have better reputations...
Oh I agree there, the world has plenty of national bullies to go around. Most major powers act as bullies.
In this case I'm not talking about the full-on attacks to other nations. To be sure the US has blacked their own eye in the name of helping the world, and they aren't alone.
I'm talking about the poking and prodding and the little 'psych-out' trips that look like an armed attack that gets aborted at the border.
For the past few decades, Russia has been particularly aggressive towards its neighbors as others have pointed out. You don't see the US running beacon-less fighter jets on a direct path to other nation's military centers. French bombers don't turn off their transponders and head on a bee-line to Geneva turning back right at the borders. German fighters don't fly halfway from Dresden to Prague then turn around and fly back just to see how long it takes for Czech forces to scramble a defense. Russia, on the other hand, has been quite aggressive about poking other nation's borders. That is what I am referring to.
Good, really, it shows that Turkey's willing to defend their airspace. This shouldn't happen in the future because Russia will avoid violating NATO airspace.
Also, there's 2 parts to the issue. The Russian jet was shot down, yes, however, the pilot ejected safely, and was then shot to death by Turkish forces as he was descending (Can't get the video right now, but google it and it should turn up). I think there's something in NATO's agreement about not shooting down stranded parachuters... Maybe I'm wrong on that.
+1
Pretty much... don't like Turkey's current president, same autocratic errrh.... person as russias current president, but he did the right thing.
Even IF it is true and the russian jet was shot down as it was entering syrian airspace again (which would make the "didn't listen to warnings" part a little harder to swallow), that will hopefully make the russian military keep a safe distance to turkish borders. Which is good, means the non-ISIS rebels have something of a safe zone.
And just shows the russians that there is a limit how far you can go with provoking others, which hopefully means they are more careful in the future when violating other countries airspaces all over europe.
Now all turkey has to do is become more active and actually help in the fight against ISIS, so that their borders don't become a safe zone for ISIS. I am not so sure this in Erdogans best interest, or that he even cares about it, but I hope the NATO will force him to help out now.
To get an entertaining and unbiased overview of the situation, which also covers why the plane was shot down, watch:
Brief:
The Russian fighters were warned prior to the firing 10 times (and had been warned in the past), however those 10 warnings may have spanned only a few seconds.
The fighters were in Turkish airspace, but possibly only for a few seconds.
Both pilots ejected. 1 was killed by Turkish rebels.
Putin has said there will be consequences.
Any attack by Russia on Turkey will be considered an attack on NATO and NATO will respond in kind. The discussions on whether or not NATO would join in the fight can stop.
L. Spiro
I restore Nintendo 64 video-game OST’s into HD! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCtX_wedtZ5BoyQBXEhnVZw/playlists?view=1&sort=lad&flow=grid
You don't see the US running beacon-less fighter jets on a direct path to other nation's military centers.
No, instead we see them violate the Swedish border with their transponders shut off. The Russian jets are more aggressive (and almost caused a collision with a civilian airliner) but that doesn't make the first violation any less severe.