Turko-Russian powder-keg

[JFKvsNixon]

Tbh JFK I'm more mytsified at what loob is going on about.

 

1. Yes to your first point absolutely, which is all the more reason why your scenario of them leaving is a bit unusual.

 

2. Ejecting them because a few other Nato countries said they were too risky because the soviets didnt like them being in Nato? I cant see that happening at all. Once they are in they are in. What sort of message would that send? That would mean Russia gets to pick who can and cant be a member of Nato.

 

Has there ever been an example of a company being ejected from Nato.

Has any core member (ant member)of Nato ever voiced concerns sice the Baltic states joined, that it was too risky to have them as members and they were rethinking?

Surely the time to voice such concerns is before they join?

 

 

My point was this: If the Baltic states left by their own accord then Nato would survive.

It existed before they joined and could exist afterwards.

 

If I now take into account your new information that the reason they left is because they were forced out, then that would fundamentally show Nato doesnt work because it gives into aggression and will not defend any member. Is there any evidence core countries would consider doing this?

 

Of course no evidence exists beyond speculation.

 

It needs noting that Russia's play may be to do their best to make the Baltic countries appear to be the unreasonable aggressive nations, just like they tried with Georgia, Ukraine and now Turkey.

 

Russia may also use their propaganda to cement the suggestion that no historical ties exist between the Baltic countries and the rest of NATO, whilst suggesting why should the Germans, French or the British risk conflict with Russia over a battle that doesn't concern them.

 

Can you imagine the average person on the street here in the UK having any enthusiasm for conflict with Russia of the Baltic countries? I can't, and the politicians on both sides will know this.

[999tigger]

Of course no evidence exists beyond speculation.

 

It needs noting that Russia's play may be to do their best to make the Baltic countries appear to be the unreasonable aggressive nations, just like they tried with Georgia, Ukraine and now Turkey.

 

Russia may also use their propaganda to cement the suggestion that no historical ties exist between the Baltic countries and the rest of NATO, whilst suggesting why should the Germans, French or the British risk conflict with Russia over a battle that doesn't concern them.

 

Can you imagine the average person on the street here in the UK having any enthusiasm for conflict with Russia of the Baltic countries? I can't, and the politicians on both sides will know this.

 

 

As far as I recall the Baltic states were extermely keen to join Nato and all this was understood at the time they joined. I think its well known that Nato is a mutual defence pact, so by attacking one you attack all.

 

They arent really very big do you think Russia is that keen or aggressive to try and threaten confrontation over them? I dont see it. I think wed defend them . The west as a trading partner is very important for Russia.

 

I just learned something new. EU trade to Russia is much more than the otherway round. As its mostly energy then id imaine it would eb much easier for the EU to take it on the chin than Russia.

 

https://www.rt.com/business/us-eu-russia-sanctions-590/

 

Can you figure out what Loob is going on about?

[phantom309]

Im saying they work under a series of protocols so they minimise the chances of shooting each other down, but neither are under the command of the other. This is whats happening have you not read the news? They inform each other according to protocols, its nothing to do with not going down well, its nothing to do with having to becayse Russia controls the airspace, its do with trying to aboid an accidental conflict.

 

Its the Americans that proposed the protocols to the Russians.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-responds-to-u-s-proposal-to-coordinate-aircraft-operations-over-syria-1444439626

 

America would not let its forces be governed by or commanded by Russia, unless it was part of a UN command and even then it would more likely be a joint command.

 

Phantom out of interest where do you get over 70 from and how is that number made up? Please link.

 

I am unable to find the link now but it was with the news of Russia deploying their latest air defence missile system and it quoted extra aircraft to suppliment the 69 already there

[999tigger]

I am unable to find the link now but it was with the news of Russia deploying their latest air defence missile system and it quoted extra aircraft to suppliment the 69 already there

 

Im interested because I had a look and couldnt see it.

How many and breakdown of what makes up that number would be interesting.

 

Does it include drones, heliopters, transport aircraft etc. Am sure articles will pop ugain please do post a link when you see one.

[MikeFrank]

If turkey can shoot down a plane for being in their airspace then why is the US in Syria airspace without Assads permission?

The west are hipocrites and Putin has outfoxed them on this one, turkey was in the wrong and so were the Turkmen who shot the parachuting pilots and killed the marine during the rescue operation and then blew the helicopter up while shouting Allahu Akbar.

The US and Brit gov are a Bunch of hypocrites, people like you have been brainwashed to believe Putin and Assad are the bad ones when in reality it is the so called moderate rebels and Isis that are the bad ones.

The Turks are bombing the Kurds who are the ones doing most of the ground fighting against Isis anyway but no nato country says anything about that.

Saudi Arabia along with Qatar is funding Isis but the US say didly squit to them, wonder why?

 

[phantom309]

Im interested because I had a look and couldnt see it.

How many and breakdown of what makes up that number would be interesting.

 

Does it include drones, heliopters, transport aircraft etc. Am sure articles will pop ugain please do post a link when you see one.

 

 

Tigger I am sorry for not posting link as they move and change them so often if you do not post straight away its to late ! I spent over a hour looking for it

 

It did not say so I would assume that total included everything which could fly

[999tigger]

Tigger I am sorry for not posting link as they move and change them so often if you do not post straight away its to late ! I spent over a hour looking for it

 

It did not say so I would assume that total included everything which could fly

 

Oh phantom dont worry. I was just asking as an aside. Its amazing how much ifnormation there is out there about what hardware there is. I was just surpised because 70 is a lot higher than the numbers id seen. I will also be interested in how effective their campaign is, when its all over.

 

There seems to be at least a squadron of su24's and one of su25's, which form the backbone .

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-air-war-syria-begins-can-32-planes-really-make-13972

[phantom309]

This may be the reason why Turkey shot down the Russian plane and due to the lack of confirmation of exactly where the incident occurred could Turkey be claiming the area as their air space to protect their ethnic rebels

 

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-raids-repeatedly-hit-syrian-turkmen-areas-moscows-110209677.html#WB4QaB4

[L00b]

Am genuinely mystified Loob. What are you going on about? I think theres some confusion.

tigger, I was equally mystified by your earlier posts and was attempting to answer them as best as I could understand your points in context.

 

Your earlier contention was that "If the baltic countries left it wouldnt be a big deal". My answer was that it would be a big deal, because NATO is mostly about protecting Europe from Russian aggression, the main NATO members (US excepted) are founding members of the EU, and the Baltic states are full-bird EU member states, not 'accession states' any more.

 

If the Baltic states left, whether voluntarily (can't ever see it, for the same reasons JFK mentioned subsequently) or pushed, it would have tremendous consequences for the EU. Far more so than e.g. GB Brexiting (because even after a Brexit, GB would still be part of NATO and put its oar in about defending Europe - just like long before it was an EU member states - whereas the Baltic states would be all on their own through and through).

 

You next clarified that "we are talking about a theroretical situation", which I accept, and the premise on which I joined in and then you asked "what would be the significance if they decided to leave Nato?"

 

Your contention was that "It wouldnt mean Nato fell apart", which I accept again - conditionally: what I left unsaid (my bad) was that it's the EU that would start to fall apart (same effect a Brexit could have). Maybe that would in turn bring NATO down with it, in full or part - or maybe not. I'd wager that territorial defence in the face of potential Russian aggression is still considered more important than socio-economic integration, so am inclined to think NATO would still survive in one form or another. There was a NATO long before the EU even got half as integrated and monolithic as it is nowadays.

 

What I didn't get at all, but chose to reply about, is your comment that "EU member states who are not part of the NATO include Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden".

 

Austria and Malta are too small to matter much, militarily.

 

The UK has airbases Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus with full UK jurisdiction thereon (so Cyprus is effectively NATO'd in part).

 

Ireland has been a de facto member of NATO for donkeys' years through the logistical platform which it continually provides to the US at Shannon. Just about every Europe- and ME-bound US serviceman transits through there, and has been for decades.

 

Finland and Sweden partook in this summer's NATO large-scale exercises in the Baltic for the first time ever, and on an unprecedented scale: though they're not NATO, the message to Putin was clear as a sunny winter's day in the Arctic circle: we'll have at you right by NATO's side just the same. Putin would do well to remember what taste the Finns left in Joe Stalin's mouth as well: that was a very bloody and costly adventure that didn't end well for the Red Army.

 

The Baltic states won't ever leave NATO voluntarily. If they get pushed out, you can expect the EU to come apart at the wheels faster than you can say "Article 50 TFEU" alongside a north-south axis east of Berlin - to begin with. It's already halfway there in the Balkans after this summer's shenanigans.

 

Hope that clarifies things and apologies for anything I've left out and for any confusion I may have caused, entirely unintentional. I'm interested in this debate, but under a bit of professional pressure atm and only following the debate on-off as infrequent breaks allow.

Edited November 30, 2015 by L00b

[999tigger]

Loob it wasnt really a debate as such, more a discussion and with JFK hes always reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to respond as I couldnt gather where you were going.

 

It really stemmed from something JFK started. @ post 324 and 327.

 

Nato's expansion east into territory that was considered to be under Russia's sphere of influence has really annoyed and maybe threatened Putin. His reply may be to put NATO under as much political pressure as possible with the aim of rolling back NATO from Eastern Europe.

 

It all depends upon what the end game is for either party. I've got a sneaky hunch that Puntin is looking to drive a wedge between NATO members with the ultimate goal of splintering NATO.

 

One way to do this may be to force one NATO country to act in a way that some of the other NATO countries might not agree with or even support. I wouldn't be surprised if the Batlic NATO countries were the next countries to feel the heat, and provoked into action.

 

I think my point was that if the Baltic states decided to leave, then Nato would survive just fine without them. Nato functioned fine before they joined. Contrast that with if someone like the US, UK or Germany left.

 

I think the point you were jumping in at which caused your alarm is what would be the reason they left? If the reason they left was due to Russian aggression then that would be a massive deal and I do not think Nato would cave in at all. It would send all the wrong messages.

 

So we are then left with the scenario that for some reason they unilaterally decide to leave of their own volition and without Russian aggression. I still think wed be fine and nato would survive, but its such a highly unlikely scenario its hard to take it seriously.The Baltic states are commited to having the protection of Nato.

 

What I was pointing out is that even in the scenario they left then there are other countries who are within the EY, but not officially in Nato.

 

So:

1.The Baltic states wont leave Nato voluntarily.

2. That means Nato wouldnt permit Russian aggression be the cause.

3. If they did leave, then do I think the EU would unravel? No, because there are functioning members of the EU who are not in Nato.

4. The theoretical reason they left would make all the difference, some are much more damagingt han others, but in the same vein I just dont see them happening.

 

Hope that clarifies. The point iof interest was really post #327 and JFKs idea that Putin would be able to generate enough dissension in Nato that it would force certain members to leave. I cant see him doing that and certainly not in Syria because I dont think its just a sideshow and nato would pre empt any tensions that Russia attempted to generate.