Ukraine agrees to host NATO war games

[happyslug]

41. I think Putin would have, the question then is what would NATO have done.

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 11:12 PM - Edit history (2)

Remember the world economy is on edge, a war with Russia means reduction in fuel to Western Europe, with no alternatives. Wheat for the Middle east would also have come into shortage (people tend to forget the "Arab Spring" followed a Russia Drought that forced Putin to ban export of Russian grain, so to keep internal Russian price for grain low, the resulting high prices is the main cause for the "Arab Spring&quot .

Food shortages are historically the cause of Revolutions. The Great Famine of 1787 lead to the French Revolution of 1787. The European famine of 1844-1846, lead to the 1848 Revolutions throughout Europe. The Russian defeats of 1916, and the resulting grain shortage in Russia lead to the Revolutions of 1917.

Would NATO have risked the above? Russia's economy would be worse, but no shortage of fuel or food, thus little possibility of revolution in Russia. Western Europe actually export food, so the real concern would be the Middle East. Could NATO permit another Arab Spring while fighting Russia? Would Poland agree to support the Ukraine, given Poland's overwhelming dependence on Russia Fuel? Will Turkey support a NATO attack on Russia, given the possibility of an Iranian boycott of shipping fuel (Turkey is dependent on Iranian Natural Gas for its energy and Iran has close relations with Russia).

In simple terms, would a Russian take over of the Crimea, under the cover of technically being a move of independence by the Crimea itself NOT a Russian Invasion, be held NOT to be an invasion by Turkey and Poland and thus NOT subject to defense under NATO?

Remember, NATO does have a clause (insisted on by the US) that no member of NATO is obligated to fight if its government does not want to.

Now, NATO has two section, one is the Alliance and second is to operate jointly. In the Second part, to operate jointly, the US has overall command and the right to order any Member force, assigned to NATO, to do what the US orders. Germany for decades had NO troops NOT assigned to NATO, but since the fall of the Soviet Union, has increased the units NOT assigned to NATO. France and Britain had always had units NOT assigned to NATO (And France under DeGaulle in 1961, withdrew from all such assignments, but have recently rejoined that part of the Alliance).

Turkey main fear is Iran, not only can Iran cut off its supply of Natural Gas, but Iran can supply arms to the Kurds. On the other hand Turkey tend to identify with their Turkic relatives, the Crimea Tartars, but is that concern enough for them to forget about their pocket book? I have my doubts, the same with Poland (does Poland really want the Ukraine to be part of NATO, given that any border between Poland and the Ukraine is a line drawn in the sand?).

I suspect that Poland and Turkey have BOTH objected to expanding NATO to include the Ukraine for both see the Ukraine as a problem for each of them more then they see Russia as a problem. Poland does NOT fear a Russian Armor Thrust into Poland, but Poland does fear Ukrainians terrorists attacks on land Ukrainian Nationalists insist should be Ukrainian AND on Poles living in the Ukraine.

Sidenote: I will NOT mention the Greeks, who would LOVE to do anything to frustrate Turkey, and that includes supporting Russia, even as a member of NATO. Another reason Turkey may want Ukraine out of NATO, one less way for Greece to attack Turkey. Remember it is believed the main arms supplier for the Kurds till recently was the Greeks, for the Greeks will do anything to weaken their Fellow NATO member Turkey.

Here is the clause I mention that does NOT require actual military action:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

Notice the high lighted section, "such actions as it deems necessary". That is a broad term, which can mean doing nothing. No actual requirement that any member MUST fight, all that is required is "actions" each member deems "necessary". No declaration of war, no movement of troops, no automatic sending in of troops, ships, or aircraft.

Senator Moniyhan once commented that NATO was NEVER intended to fight the Soviet Union, but to control the Streets of Paris (and other Western Countries).

In 1998 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and then Senator Ashcroft both opposed expanding NATO for it would bring instability to Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/01/world/senate-approves-expansion-nato-vote-80-19-clinton-pleased-decision.html