The NATO leader is admitting that NATO is an offensive “alliance” fully led and commanded by USA and it has never been anything different. The only time NATO has triggered article 5 was to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 under false pretenses. NATO has never fought a defensive war.
NATO assembled to invade the Middle East multiple times. But NATO will NOT act in defense of its members when it conflicts with US interests.
By now everyone knows the answer of what will happen to article 5 when Israel attacks Turkey. Israel is already publicly threatening Turkey as their next target after Iran and Lebanon, and this is what the NATO leader had to say about it.
But NATO will NOT act in defense of its members when it conflicts with US interests.
US has a lot to say, but their power is decreasing. Other NATO members not following the US into a war with Iran shows that difference. NATO members are not blind to being played about the war in Afghanistan. It’s highly unlikely NATO members (aside from Turkey) will pick up arms against Israel, but it’s even more unlikely that they all back down because the US says so. NATO as a whole will most likely not do anything, but NATO members individually very much might.
The other NATO countries are supporting the logistical chain making it all possible.
Transporting bombs, getting the US use their bases, spare plane parts, etcetera. The UK was launching the US B2 bombers on Iran from their bases to expediate the bombing run logistics. Not to mention interceptors running low everywhere.
They also defended the NATO base at Krete which was directly involved in bombing and spying and the EU sent multiple boats to guard the waters. Turkey is accused of tracking Iranian missiles using radars on their ground.
NATO countries did directly join the war to defend the US and Israel. But for now it was mostly indirectly because of how unpopular direct participation is.
I think this is excellent case where there is a difference between nato as an organisation and individual nato members. But i think that distinction can be very irrelevant, like in the eyes of the ‘other side’. Whether something is discussed on a nato level or a national level, those are the same military people making reports to the same politics people. But either all of nato or none of nato is involved, i think the last is technically more correct.
Wow, good job Rutte, you’re successfully undermining the entire point of NATO 🤦♂️
The NATO leader is admitting that NATO is an offensive “alliance” fully led and commanded by USA and it has never been anything different. The only time NATO has triggered article 5 was to invade Afghanistan after 9/11 under false pretenses. NATO has never fought a defensive war.
NATO assembled to invade the Middle East multiple times. But NATO will NOT act in defense of its members when it conflicts with US interests.
By now everyone knows the answer of what will happen to article 5 when Israel attacks Turkey. Israel is already publicly threatening Turkey as their next target after Iran and Lebanon, and this is what the NATO leader had to say about it.
US has a lot to say, but their power is decreasing. Other NATO members not following the US into a war with Iran shows that difference. NATO members are not blind to being played about the war in Afghanistan. It’s highly unlikely NATO members (aside from Turkey) will pick up arms against Israel, but it’s even more unlikely that they all back down because the US says so. NATO as a whole will most likely not do anything, but NATO members individually very much might.
The other NATO countries are supporting the logistical chain making it all possible.
Transporting bombs, getting the US use their bases, spare plane parts, etcetera. The UK was launching the US B2 bombers on Iran from their bases to expediate the bombing run logistics. Not to mention interceptors running low everywhere.
They also defended the NATO base at Krete which was directly involved in bombing and spying and the EU sent multiple boats to guard the waters. Turkey is accused of tracking Iranian missiles using radars on their ground.
NATO countries did directly join the war to defend the US and Israel. But for now it was mostly indirectly because of how unpopular direct participation is.
They lso added new sanctions on Iran during the war
Nato was involved in the war. It was more behind the scene with inteligence and logistic.
I think this is excellent case where there is a difference between nato as an organisation and individual nato members. But i think that distinction can be very irrelevant, like in the eyes of the ‘other side’. Whether something is discussed on a nato level or a national level, those are the same military people making reports to the same politics people. But either all of nato or none of nato is involved, i think the last is technically more correct.
Nato was always an imperialist force that was formed to fight another imperialism force. It destroyed Libya