Wednesday, July 29, 2015

NATO Bows Out on Turkey. Turkey and Article 4

Long term readers here know I've put forth a line of thought last year that envisions Turkey being destabilized. Made vastly smaller. Vastly smaller.
Some time last year I begin to wonder about all those NATO backed destabilizers piled up at Turkey's southern border and began to understand how they would be turned on Turkey. I failed to consider NATO's destabilizers on Turkey's northern border, initially. But soon enough it dawned on me that the PKK, as a "Stay behind Army" would inevitably become a player in this destabilization.

Yes, I have mentioned on several occasions in multiple posts that, in my opinion, the  PKK is a functioning Stay Behind Army backed by NATO. I have gone so far as to talk this point up elsewhere too. Surely I can't be the sole person who realizes the connection?

With that background in mind consider the latest news which by all appearances  suggests that NATO is leaving Turkey to fend for itself- Come what may.. This falling out was alluded to in yesterday's post:
"Although public statements from the NATO meeting stressed unity, the official said members also urged Turkey to continue peace efforts with representatives of the Kurdish minority.
 Although NATO’s lying lips are talking unity it is abundantly clear there is NO unity- 

12:40 p.m.
Turkey's NATO partners say they stand "in strong solidarity" with the nation, and that the security of the U.S.-led alliance is "indivisible."
Indivisible, eh? Well I guess that depends on who wants the division?


There is NO unity- Turkey and NATO are divisible. When I read the article that will be linked below it seemed quite clear that Turkey is on it's own. 


Turkey's article 4 Consultation Explained




As usual the interesting bits will be highlighted and or underlined
ON TUESDAY representatives of each of NATO's 28 member states gathered at the organisation's headquarters in Brussels, at Turkey's behest, to address the security threats that country faces related to the Syrian civil war. Turkey says it wants its allies' support in combating recent attacks by the jihadists of Islamic State (IS) and by Kurdish militants. Its NATO allies are happy to support its fight against IS, but the battle against the Kurds is more complicated. NATO member states were forced to attend the meeting after Turkey invoked the North Atlantic Treaty's Article Four.

NATO member states were "forced"? Like at gun point?
Or, more likely, did other NATO member states not relish the thought of attending but felt compelled to in order to put on a show of unity?


What is Article 4 and why is it important to a NATO state such as Turkey?
Article Four is less well-known. It says the member states will "consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security" of any member is threatened. In other words, any NATO member can call for a meeting regarding a threat to itself or any other member.
 Article Four has been very seldom invoked; based on a British parliamentary document, this appears to be only the fifth such consultation since NATO was founded in 1949. (A NATO historian confirmed that Article Four consultations are extremely rare, but was unable to produce an exact figure.)
 The Economist goes to lengths to make the point that Article 4 is rarely evoked, except for
  *The first time it was called upon was in 2003, when Turkey invoked it to ask the allies for protection (around the time of the US invasion of Iraq)
* Last year, when Poland and Lithuania jointly requested an Article Four consultation after Russia's annexation of Crimea
 Turkey seems to be the only country that has ever used it, and may be developing a bit of a habit
Back that train up! First we have Article 4 being "rarely evoked" and then immediately after making that claim the writer @ the Economist tells us Poland & Lithuania requested an Article Four consult. Only to contradict their initial claims to tell the reader that Turkey 'seems to be the only country to have used it, habitually! What!?  Liar, liar?
Or are we reading a bit of demonization towards Turkey?
Some good old perception management, perhaps?

Why is Turkey so keen on Article Four?
Turkey has always worried that other members of the NATO alliance do not take its security considerations seriously enough. Turkey has been a member since 1952, yet America has tended to see it more as a crucial strategic asset, first against the Soviet Union and later in conflicts in the Middle East, rather than as a full-fledged partner. When Turkey invoked Article Four in 2003, it was worried that the invasion of Iraq was threatening its own borders in ways that would be overlooked by the rest of NATO
In plain talk Turkish leaders know that NATO doesn't really concern itself with Turkey's security unless it benefits NATO to share in that concern. The 2003 invocation had everything to do with.. you guessed it- the Kurds and their aspirations- I did a post on this way, way back.

What is Turkey asking for now?
In the past two weeks, the fighting in Syria has spilled over into Turkey itself. First, an IS suicide bomber struck the border town of Suruc, killing 32 people, most of them volunteers planning to cross the border to provide aid to the Kurdish town of Kobane. Then militants from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), who have been fighting an on-and-off guerrilla war against the Turkish government for decades, violated a two-year-old cease-fire by killing several policemen. Turkey responded with air strikes, first against IS and then against PKK camps in northern Iraq. (The PKK retaliated in turn, with a car-bomb attack on a Turkish military convoy.)
 Turkey wants NATO to express support for its efforts to combat both IS and the PKK. But while NATO is pleased with Turkey's newfound eagerness to fight IS, it is hesitant about Turkey's aims towards the Kurds. America has a strong relationship with the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq and an increasingly strong one with another Kurdish militia in Syria, the People’s Defence Units (YPG), which battles IS. The YPG is closely allied with the PKK.
And the PKK is a designated terror group- aka NATO left behind army, purposed with keeping Turkey off balance, always.

Did Turkey get what it wanted out of the Article Four consultation?
Partly. In a statement, the NATO partners said they "strongly condemn the terrorist attacks against Turkey", and affirmed that "the security of the Alliance is indivisible". They placed their support for Turkey in the context of the international struggle against terrorism. America and other NATO allies consider both IS and the PKK to be terrorist organisations. But while the NATO statement specifically offers condolences to the families of the victims in Suruc, where IS staged its attack, it goes on to mention only "other attacks against police and military officers" rather than referring more clearly to the PKK's attacks.
So, you see NATO offered condolences for the victims of the ISIS suicide bombing, but, for PKK victims condolences were given without mentioning their deaths were at the hand of the PKK. Why? Are some victims more 'worthy' then others? Is the political agenda made clear in who we should feel sad for vs who we should not feel sad for?
And it (NATO) does not offer support for any particular actions undertaken by Turkey in response. Invoking Article Four has reminded everyone that Turkey is a NATO ally, but if Turkey wanted NATO's imprimatur for its war against the PKK, it does not seem to have got it.

So, Turkey is a NATO ally, when it suits NATO and when it doesn't NATO doesn't give a hoot about Turkey's politically incorrect dead or the victims of NATO's own covert terror ops
NATO's response or lack of one says it all- NATO has bowed out on Turkey
What happens next?

From Earlier Today:

Lion Cubs of the caliphate? Who is really recruiting children?

22 comments:

  1. US will hedge all the way to kurd declaration. Armenia protests and joint russian Azeri naval drills telling. Azeri and armenia flaring with putin mediation would appear to be part of the strategy. Consider the us backed away from genocide claims whereas putin did not..and still turkstream. Kyrgyzstan looks next to blow off with recent revocation of the us cooperation pact.. Georgian opposition protests also notable as is the current academic president

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. US will hedge all the way to kurd declaration.

      I believe that is what they are going for

      "Consider the us backed away from genocide claims whereas putin did not..and still turkstream"

      which genocide claims are you referring to? I'm not sure-

      I saw Georgia was heating up a bit
      Kyrg, also noticed they had revoked that military base cooperation pact?
      correct me if I am mistaken on that and which genocide?

      Delete
  2. After the bloom article on Turkish pipeline hack who hacked the German patriots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. can you leave a link for that article?
      thanks

      Delete
    2. Germany reportedly wants to pull out its patriots from Turkey post the hack of the missiles? Armenia genocide. Krgy just revoked the us cooperation pact in addition to pulling the base ove,r a year ago.

      The repeated hit pieces on Russia economy per bloom followed by more us sanctions on defense cos refresh as russia moves to sieze any food imports into the country collating it's ban.

      Delete
    3. just went to find that news report
      http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150730/1025215805.html

      Military expert of the German CSU party Florian Hahn called for the withdrawal of German Patriot missiles from Turkey

      The expert believes that Germany and Turkey have less and less in common due to attacks of the Turkish forces against the Kurds in northern Iraq.
      This signifies the first split inside NATO, which earlier decided to lend military support for its member, Turkey, the German newspaper wrote.

      This doesn't signify the first split- the split was obvious enough
      It just validates my claim from last year- NATO is setting Turkey up for the take down

      Delete
  3. Not saying this is all correct, but lots of food for thought:

    http://www.theathensrepublic.com/twsp-morning-brief-coup-d-etat-in-washington/

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  4. Besides NATO not being united, there is a strong case that DC is very divided. The article by Leslie Gelb about the need for a caretaker regime in DC of elders, such as Baker and Kissinger, to make all the decisions till the end of Obama's term is quite telling. One of the saving graces for Syria has been that all their enemies have had significantly different interests.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Paul
      when I've got time I will have a look
      thanks

      Delete
  5. Yes.it is true that Turkey is meant for destruction just like Syria, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. And yes the west (the rest of NATO) will use Turkey and dump the first opportunity they get. But the real question does Turkey deserve any sympathy. The answer is resounding “NO”. 99% of the responsibility of the destruction of Syria lies with Turkey. Remember history. In 1980’s, General Zia Ul Haq supported so called “mujahidin” to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And we see the result today for both Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result of that we do not even know what to describe todays Islamist in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those Islamist clearly lost their humanity. Islamist in both countries kill unarmed civilians just because they are different.
    In the same time period of 1980’s, Turkey was ruled by secularist, and Syria had similar problem with the Islamist of that time. The only difference was that the secularist turkey chose not to stoop to the level of Pakistan at the time. And remember just like Afghanistan, Syria was a client state of Soviet Union. Today’s turkey is totally in bed with the Islamist that is responsible for the destruction of Syria. Without turkey actively supporting the terrorist, the destruction of Syria would not have been possible. U.S.A, Israel, and Saudi Arabia could not have destroyed Syria without Turkey. So Turkey had choice, and they chose to be evil, and I have no sympathy for evil.

    The world would be better off if Saudi Arabia is the poorest country in the world. And similarly if turkey remains Islamist led country, the world would be better off if Turkey is broken to twenty pieces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keyon Melvin- on blogger since July 2015 with just one profile view- the one I made- Very, very interesting-- Very suggestive of an agenda- But let me take you at face value-

      You have no use for evil unless the evil suits the agenda your promoting and then you are just hunky dory with it. That's obvious from your disinfo comment

      'Yes.it is true that Turkey is meant for destruction just like Syria, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East"

      So,Turkey being "meant for destruction" just like Iraq and Syria, your words, for an imperialist agenda is not evil? To a promoter of double standards, apparently that's quite acceptable?

      "And yes the west (the rest of NATO) will use Turkey and dump the first opportunity they get"

      It's not evil, to a disinfo agenda pusher, when other nations use and abuse a nation and it's people?

      "But the real question does Turkey deserve any sympathy. The answer is resounding “NO”."

      Because that's not your approved evil, right?

      " 99% of the responsibility of the destruction of Syria lies with Turkey"

      So only 1 percent lies with NATO Israeli/Kurds etc? Absolute hogwash. Out and out lying- When you make a claim, as you have, it is up to you to substantiate your figure. So substantiate your figure? Or I will just consider it the nonsense it is

      "Without turkey actively supporting the terrorist, the destruction of Syria would not have been possible. U.S.A, Israel, and Saudi Arabia could not have destroyed Syria without Turkey.

      Oh the US was doing just fine arming militants at the border
      and flying bombing runs from the Med
      And bringing fighters from around the globe into Syria
      Transporting Kurdish terrorists through the mountains into Syria etc
      As for Israel- running amok at Golan- killing Syrians
      making bombing runs straight on into Syria . Turkey wasn't a consideration


      " So Turkey had choice, and they chose to be evil, and I have no sympathy for evil"

      You have plenty of sympathy for evil. When it's your type of evil. When the evil suits your agenda, you promote it. Which tells me you are a special kind of evil yourself

      Delete
  6. Logical Fallacies such as shoot the messenger and all the other disinfo tactics are not tolerated here.
    Be clear, concise, back up your own claims with verifiable facts or go away

    ReplyDelete
  7. Penny,

    I might be wrong, but really doubt that the destruction of Syria could have happened without major support from Turkey. It was the key, and another of Assad's mistakes was trusting Erdoghan. Like Khadaffi and Khadaffi's son, he made mistakes.

    Not saying that this justifies the desire for revenge amongst Syrians, but is a routine sentiment. Only Turkey could hurt Syria in a way that had no decent possible response by Damascus, so it was foolish to not prepare for that, and, instead, think Ankara was motivated by the significant increase in trade as opposed to the profits of empire, which would be much greater. It is perhaps similar to all the business types in high places in Russia who only looked at business deals with the West, and not the geopolitics.

    Not that this justifies the destruction of Turkey, but it might be like those in the USSR who wanted revenge against Nazi Germany in 1943. Ugly, but all too human.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  8. If I was to assume anything about the Syrians it is that they want their homes, land and lives back- and those that are displaced want to go back home. And they want to rebuild those shattered lives- that is what is human

    Assad trusted Erdoghan is another assumption I find incorrect. Given the history I find that highly doubtful

    Paul, I realize the demonize Turkey agenda is big right now- and have also come to realize you are pushing that exact agenda- Turkey bad- So now we can destroy it

    It was the same with Syria
    It was the same with Libya
    It was the same with Iraq

    create a perception in the mind that the country, the elite psychos want to destroy is deserving of it's destruction- that's exactly what you are engaged in
    That's exactly what troll was engaged in
    That's is how an elitist agenda is pushed- willing or unwillingly you are engaging in it
    Quite frankly, it's tiresome

    ReplyDelete
  9. @82

    Your response to my comment at 81 had nothing to do with one another
    It was what I would call at my blog - "dazzling with bullshit"
    The Kurds have engaged in every activity mentioned
    It's all been documented very thoroughly.
    They are not the "good guys"
    That is just an illusion created to manipulate the perception of the repeaters.
    If you would like to actually respond to my comment, clear, concise and with some actual relevance to my comment would be much more appropriate

    Posted by: Penny | July 31, 2015 at 07:38 AM

    Another place that's chock full of meme pushers- sigh

    ReplyDelete
  10. Penny,

    Then we can agree to disagree. It just seems that you have a blind spot towards Turkey's general brutality within and without, and how this leads to all the other problems. You see this as some agenda on my part, and I see your position as missing the trees for the forest. I don't think Turkey should be destroyed, but it is obvious that many Syrians want revenge. Not against Jordan, which is hardly even a country with any independent actions, but against Turkey, their former imperial master. I thought Libya was one of the bright spots on Earth, and didn't want it destroyed. And Syria was a bright spot for that region, too. But Assad did screw up in some ways, and was unlucky in others, such as the drought. They very much did open the economy to Turkey, which of course let the Turkish guys in, along with the usual undercover NATO guys.

    What I would like to see is autonomy for the various groups that are causing problems, such as the Kurds. However, if you cannot see the internal problems and brutal nature of the various governments in Turkey over the last 40 years, then I think you are engaged in wishful thinking due to the threat for yet another country in the crosshairs.

    By the way, Egypt is being destroyed as we speak. To me, it hasn't been nearly as rough as Turkey over the decades. This is not a disinfo statement on my part; I even have relatives there, although some have had to leave due to the rotten economy.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It just seems that you have a blind spot towards Turkey's general brutality within and without, and how this leads to all the other problems"

      Your statement is a logical fallacy-
      First of all it's an ad hominem- an attack against my person- in the form of accusing language "You have a blind spot" Hence everything I post here can be attacked by you.
      It's also a strawman- you built so you can tear it down- As demonstrated above
      Penny with the blindspot can then be attacked by Paul.
      It's tiresome and has gone on long enough.
      " However, if you cannot see the internal problems....."
      I addressed this already here and am not going over that yet again!

      My post was about NATO bowing out on Turkey- that's the discussion point
      Has NATO bowed out on Turkey? It's abundantly obvious they have.

      btw: Paul I notice whenever I post information about atrocities committed by the Kurds you have nothing to say- Or you down play it. In order to excuse it. There is no excuse for it. Their recruiting children for gods sake and putting them in harms way.

      Like I said, it's all tiresome.
      Your still beating the bash Turkey drum...
      There are other blogs that are big on that type of meme pushing, perhaps, your comments are better suited for those blogs.



      Delete
  11. Penny,

    Not saying it is true, and not trying to promote the destruction of Turkey, but here is an article by Meyssan that some might find interesting:

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article188307.html

    It discusses the possible NATO scenario of breaking up Turkey or at least promoting/allowing a civil war.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for leaving a link relevant to the topic of the blog post
      That I appreciate

      Delete
  12. Oh Penny, remember when i said NATO, U.N, E.U will all be no more, just watch and see how this will happen slowly then BAM!, i have been watching this world for way to long, the fact of the matter whether anyone likes it or not is the zionists want world domination.

    The zionist took over the most powerful country in the world without firing one shot, it was done by stealth, wherever zionists go destruction follows, therefore wherever america goes destruction follows.

    In the end it will be a fight where pro-zionists will be waring with anti-zionists, once the zionist fail which they will, only then we will have world peace, from then on a new wqorld law should come in where no one from any sect should rule or intrude anyones country, a death penalty should be introduced.

    CHEVI789.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chevi :)

      "once the zionist fail which they will, only then we will have world peace"


      Chevi, I hope you are right. I would love to see NATO gone
      The EU fall to pieces. All trade deals broken and the UN dismantled
      Every CIA agent, intelligence operative locked away, keys lost for good
      And I would love to see people, start dealing with one another, as people.

      The biggest problem the folk have is they long for a leader, this has to stop. A leader will lead the follower exactly where it is the leader wishes the follower to go- and the follower who 'believes' the leader is operating in the best interests of anyone but him or her self is a sorry individual- this is what has to stop!

      The vast majority of 'leaders' are psychopaths

      Delete
  13. I totally agree Penny, i have also stated that the arabs will unite one day, but only when the right leaders are in power, for now i can see it will be the East vs west, but many ion the west will leave the zionist mafia as the people of those countries will have had enough.

    The west has a huge problem, most of the eastern nations represent almost half of the worlds population, China along with Russia will be a massive force with hi tech weapons and so much manpower, not sure about India at this point in time as although they are part of the BRICS, Modi is unpredictable, if India joins China and Russia then the west will have one hell of a fight on it's hands.

    Either way it's going to be one hell of a fight, america i predict will be in ruins no thanks to the zionists, as i ahve said, a holocaust like never before will be perpetrated by the people the zionists control.

    CHEVI789

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS