How important/relevant is NATO?

[farscott]

Are the Russian going to use the Fulda Gap to launch an armor assault? Probably not, but that does not mean that NATO lacks value in today's world. NATO countries sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, and NATO does provide some "slack" in terms of resources for the DoD. Are all NATO allies equal? Heck, no. The UK and Canada (as well as non-member Australia) are still our most important and helpful allies, but NATO as a whole offers capabilities that the US would not have on our own, notably pre-positioned equipment and personnel. Flying DoD assets over and through Turkey is a lot easier than it would be if Turkey was not in NATO.

[Jeep]

I'm not so sure that it was Putin who destabilized Syria.

Well, yes, Putin has destabilized Syria, but others are far ahead of him in line.

Tied for first place place are the big three: Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey.

In a somewhat distant fourth place is Russia.

Next is the EU--which by encouraging Syrian refugees come and camp out in Europe has decimated the population of many areas of Syria.

Finally comes the US, which is actually running multiple completely different and contradictory Syrian policies, all of which which are being conducted under orders of the boy-genius President, Mr. Obama who is both in favor of, and opposed to each of those policies. The Pentagon/JSOC is conducting an anti-ISIS campaign. Currently State is conducting an anti-Assad, pro-EU, bring in the refugees, policy. And CIA, under orders from the NSC is supposedly conducting an anti-Assad campaign. Sometimes the militias funded by the Pentagon and the militias funded by CIA use all those shiny new weapons to shoot each other. Where, exactly, Valerie Jarrett stands is hard to tell--presumably she opposes all of our policies, including her own.

Hillary tried her best to get us fully involved in the anti-Assad campaign, and that would have moved us up the de-stabilization rankings, but she wasn't able to get that done.

[Jay Cunningham]

I think it's fair to say that Putin destabilized the destabilization.

[orionz06]

I think it's fair to say that Putin destabilized the destabilization.

With Putin and Lord Emperor Trump the possibilities would be endless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jay Cunningham]

With Putin and Lord Emperor Trump the possibilities would be endless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's God Emperor Trump, if you please.

[Suvorov]

Well, yes, Putin has destabilized Syria, but others are far ahead of him in line.

Tied for first place place are the big three: Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey.

In a somewhat distant fourth place is Russia.

Next is the EU--which by encouraging Syrian refugees come and camp out in Europe has decimated the population of many areas of Syria.

Finally comes the US, which is actually running multiple completely different and contradictory Syrian policies, all of which which are being conducted under orders of the boy-genius President, Mr. Obama who is both in favor of, and opposed to each of those policies. The Pentagon/JSOC is conducting an anti-ISIS campaign. Currently State is conducting an anti-Assad, pro-EU, bring in the refugees, policy. And CIA, under orders from the NSC is supposedly conducting an anti-Assad campaign. Sometimes the militias funded by the Pentagon and the militias funded by CIA use all those shiny new weapons to shoot each other. Where, exactly, Valerie Jarrett stands is hard to tell--presumably she opposes all of our policies, including her own.

Hillary tried her best to get us fully involved in the anti-Assad campaign, and that would have moved us up the de-stabilization rankings, but she wasn't able to get that done.

I would put the US ahead of Russia. I'd even say that Soros's NGOs and his millions have done more to destabilize Syria. Russia's goal is keeping Assad in power which is antithetical to destabilization. Now the Trillion Dollar question? Why is the US/Saudi/Turkey/NATO so hell bent on deposing Assad? He's is a mucho bado vatos. He kills little kids and rapes women and doesn't even recycle his soda cans, but since that is par for the course of most world leaders (the first world leaders just do it under the protective cover of the media), what is our real issue with the guy? Why is the rise of ISIS worth the deposition of Assad?

[BaiHu]

I would put the US ahead of Russia. I'd even say that Soros's NGOs and his millions have done more to destabilize Syria. Russia's goal is keeping Assad in power which is antithetical to destabilization. Now the Trillion Dollar question? Why is the US/Saudi/Turkey/NATO so hell bent on deposing Assad? He's is a mucho bado vatos. He kills little kids and rapes women and doesn't even recycle his soda cans, but since that is par for the course of most world leaders (the first world leaders just do it under the protective cover of the media), what is our real issue with the guy? Why is the rise of ISIS worth the deposition of Assad?

Distraction from all the other failed policies of this administration?

[Jay Cunningham]

I would put the US ahead of Russia. I'd even say that Soros's NGOs and his millions have done more to destabilize Syria. Russia's goal is keeping Assad in power which is antithetical to destabilization. Now the Trillion Dollar question? Why is the US/Saudi/Turkey/NATO so hell bent on deposing Assad? He's is a mucho bado vatos. He kills little kids and rapes women and doesn't even recycle his soda cans, but since that is par for the course of most world leaders (the first world leaders just do it under the protective cover of the media), what is our real issue with the guy? Why is the rise of ISIS worth the deposition of Assad?

Well now, that's a pertinent question. Why indeed?

[Joe in PNG]

My question is, what's Putin's long term strategy for Europe? What's the motive behind his threat?
Stalin and the Soviet Union mainly wanted a nice, big, friendly armed buffer zone to avoid a repeat of the Surprise of 1941.
Since Putin isn't ideologically linked to International Marxist-Leninism, converting the world by force is pretty much out.
Grabbing the parts of Eastern Europe that were historically part of Russia, such as in the Ukraine or the Baltic, that seems more of a likely goal.
Thoughts?

[Wondering Beard]

Now the Trillion Dollar question? Why is the US/Saudi/Turkey/NATO so hell bent on deposing Assad? He's is a mucho bado vatos. He kills little kids and rapes women and doesn't even recycle his soda cans, but since that is par for the course of most world leaders (the first world leaders just do it under the protective cover of the media), what is our real issue with the guy? Why is the rise of ISIS worth the deposition of Assad?

Shia/Iranian crescent. Eastern part starts in Iran proper, moves through Iraq and ends west at the Mediterranean.

The reasoning is that with Assad embattled, the capability of Iran to control things in the Middle East (something they very much want) is checked. Now, to which degree that that reasoning is correct, partially correct, or totaly wrong is another thing entirely.

Part of what we're looking at, from Turkey's point of view, is the old rivalry/battle between the Turks and the Persians since the Middle Ages (before that it was the Romans, Byzantines included). Nothing new here except that it's exacerbated by an ambitious Erdogan.

From the Saudi point of view, Iran (because all things done in Syria have to do with Iran) is a religious rival as well as a power rival but the Saudis do not have the military capability to check the Iranians (and money is getting scarce with the fallen price of oil - which affects the Iranians too and benefits us, btw), so they try to get us to do the heavy lifting. Of course, they have a problem with Daesh as well, so their strategy is a bit confused and confusing for the rest of us.

From the US/West's point of view, at the time of the Arab Spring there's was a thought that Assad was going to naturally fall and so we got involved with Anti Assad groups, so as to democratize Syria. Of course, no one in the Obama administration was paying any attention to the goings on in Libya and Egypt, never mind learning any lessons from there. Thus, the US/western world point of view became:" this is a total mess and we really don't know what to do; doing nothing makes things worse, doing something makes things worse, but we have to be there because .. err .. reasons?". Thus the totally ineffectual and piece meal reactions without any strategic foundation we see; and it's made worse by the fact that we have leadership deep in Dunning Kruger. NATO follows along with all that because it's a bureaucracy unsure of its purpose.

Syria is the tar baby.