"Now Is the Time to Strengthen NATO's Resolve" Topic

"The November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris and late October bombing of Russian Metrojet flight 9268 have not only crystallized the threat of the self-declared Islamic State to the world, but also created an unlikely opportunity to open a dialogue with Russia. However, these tragedies do not change the long-term threat Russia poses to stability in Europe. Russia's encroachment in Eastern Europe is a threat to the security and stability of the continent and tests the resolve of NATO in an unprecedented way. Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent military intervention in Syria is further evidence of his ambition to broaden Russian influence and capitalize on regional instability.

One thing appears certain: Putin will not be swayed by tough talk from our allies and friends. The failure to take bold action, even amidst a potential collaboration against ISIS, only serves as tacit acceptance of Putin's violations of international law. Through an increased military posture, an increase of our ground forces specifically, the United States must take the lead to stem the tide of Russia's advances with tangible efforts to protect our interests in Europe and strengthen the resolve of the NATO alliance…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

With the current administration in charge NATO's resolve will never be strengthened. We would be better off if NATO is instead immediately dissolved before it drags the world into a war no one wants. We should let Russia have a free hand and let them clean up the mess that we helped to create. Assad was never a threat to any other nation. ISIS though is a real threat to the rest of the world. Assad is fighting a civil war and using whatever weapons are available to him. The US has used much worse weapons in war.

Someone pointed this out but let me expand a little bit. With Turkey's new election the government is now strongly Islamic. Turkey has done little to attack ISIS but has spent a considerable amount of effort bombing Kurdish forces. Russia was bombing a group of pro-Turkey rebels, also Islamic, who are fighting Assad. By shooting down the Russian aircraft then if Turkey is attacked, they can call on NATO for help. This means that NATO will be defending Islamic values whether we really want to or not.

If NATO tries to not support Turkey, then the alliance could be viewed as pointless. This could dismantle the alliance quickly.

I suspect, Turkey has shot down the Russian aircraft to force the US to support the Islamic viewpoint.

Hopefully, this puts a final nail into the coffin for Turkey's EU membership ambitions, assuming it still has those.

The fact they elected an Islamic president should be enough to put the nail in the coffin. It should be apparent that the attack on Paris is just the beginning and Turkey will be helping to push them into the EU.

Yes, don't think the US will be leading from the front for sometime. And it appears the Turks are becoming less secular and more Islamic. Don't know how well that will work being a NATO member ? And as USAF noted, Daesh is the real threat. Some especially from the region just don't seem to get that or care …

'Daesh is the real threat. Some especially from the region just don't seem to get that or care …'

That depends on whether they see them as primarily a threat to themselves, or to others.

Indeed … many are playing a "double" game in regards to Daesh. Like the Turks and Syrians, off the top of my head.

'And as USAF noted, Daesh is the real threat. Some especially from the region just don't seem to get that or care …'

No, depends on point of view. They are the real threat to us. Other people disagree. That's why the situation is so confused – different priorities.

Apparently, a senior German official now admits they have ISIS agents mixed in with the refugees in their country as well.

Didn't get to read the article yet, but I do see where Merkle says she'll provide more support to France. Apparently, German Tornadoes will be flying recon missions for the French jets.

A shame they aren't carrying those nice cluster-bomb pods, instead of cameras. I suspect the former would be a lot more useful against ISIS.

No, depends on point of view. They are the real threat to us. Other people disagree. That's why the situation is so confused – different priorities.

I know … the old saying goes, One man's freedom fighter is another's revolutionary/terrorist/traitor/insurgent, etc. … as we saw in the AWI … Like Redcoats and the Yankees.

And the region in discussion it is full of ethnic, religious etc., hatreds going back for decades and longer … That is why I said "some" not "all" in the region. Pretty sure the Kurds, Yazidis[those that are left], the Christians [who almost 100% are gone from the region !], the Shia', and many others don't see Daesh and their supporters as "the Good Guys" …

Apparently, a senior German official now admits they have ISIS agents mixed in with the refugees in their country as well.

Yes, how surprising !?!?!?

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Surprising that they are not saying the majority of the men taken in are not ISIS agents.

Now is the time to clarify and limit NATO's mandate to its original purpose of protecting Europe and the North Atlantic. It has no business bombing Libya, Iraq, or Syria. It has been used by opportunistic nations like France, Britain and the USA to give a veneer of legitimacy to rampant militarism and post colonial interventions. It is high time that NATO stops allowing nations bent on warlike actions to do end runs around the UN and use it's name to give a modicum of legitimacy to what used to be called rogue nation behaviour. If nations want to go bombing and invading other parts of the world, let them form new coalitions to do so and stop dragging other NATO nations into these belligerent schemes and adventures.
Rod Robertson.

I'm rather surprised they'd admit that any of them could be.

It has no business bombing Libya, Iraq, or Syria. It has been used by opportunistic nations like France, Britain and the USA to give a veneer of legitimacy to rampant militarism and post colonial interventions.

Rod … in many cases NATO is more interested in keeping most of its members safe from islamo-fascist, jihadi, terrorism, etc. … than rampant militarism. If you think some of NATO's action are considered rampant militarism … you have not seen nothing yet. Just like many claim the US/West is does not care about CD. Again … you ain't seen anything yet. Like I constantly say, If the US, etc. was not concerned about CD ., etc., there would be places in these conflict zones that would resemble the dark side of the Moon. And I not talking about Nukes … just conventional.

One problem with idealism/idealists and such and their use of "Legalese", etc., in many/most cases are blind to the reality/Realpolitik, etc., of the situation.