This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Absurdity Of NATO

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

The Absurdity Of NATO

The whole world knows the name Gavrilo Princip, and that of he man he assassinated, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Princip’s shot triggered the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia that set in motion the chain of events leading to the Great War of 1914.

After Serbia appealed to Russia for help, Russia began moving towards mobilization of its army, believing that Germany was using the crisis as an excuse to launch war in the Balkans. Upon hearing news of Russia’s general mobilization, Germany declared war on Russia. The German army then launched its attack on Russia’s ally, France, through Belgium, violating Belgian neutrality and bringing Great Britain into the war as well.

Is it possible that a similar chain of events may have already begun unfurling with the Syrian downing of a Turkish F-4 fighter jet? Turkey have already invoked a full meeting of NATO,  claimed that Syria have fired on a second Turkish plane, and vowed that Syria’s actions “won’t go unpunished”.

The vast and sprawling system of national alliances that existed prior to the events 1914 were considered by policy makers of the time to be a counterbalance against excessive tension and the threat of war. The great powers created alliances ostensibly for the purpose of deterring war. The dominant view was that the potential for dragging in allies reduced the chances of an attack. In reality, it just meant that one spark could set the entire world aflame.

This is functionally the same as the interconnecting mesh of derivatives and shadow intermediation that foreshadowed the crash of 2008. As financial parties sold each other more and more “hedges“, the consensus of the time was that this made the system safer, as it allowed risk to be dissipated around the system. The theory was — and there were plenty of inaccurate mathematical models to back this up — that spreading risk around the system made the financial system safer. As it turned out, it didn’t. In the wake of MF Global and the London Whale, we know that the financial system has not learned the lessons of 2008. But it seems even more absurd that the diplomatic system has not really learned the lessons of 1914. 

The NATO system — set up to oppose the Warsaw Pact system, which no longer exists — functions the same way — rather than dissipating risk, it allows for the magnification of international tensions into full-on regional and global wars. In the late 20th century the threat of nuclear war proved a highly-effective deterrent which limited the potential for all-out-war between the great powers, offsetting much of the risk of the hyper-fragile treaty system. Yet the potential for magnifying small regional problems into bigger wars will continue to exist for as long as NATO and similar organisations prevail.

We do not know exactly what arrangements Syria has with Russia and China — there is no formal defensive pact in place (although there is one between Syria and Iran) though it is fair to assume that Russia will be keen to maintain its Syrian naval assets, a view which is supported by the fact Russia heavily subsidises the Syrian military, and has blocked all the UN-led efforts toward intervention in Syria.

After the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was allowed to disintegrate. Until NATO is similarly allowed to disintegrate, the threat of magnification will remain large. Could a border skirmish between Syria and Turkey trigger a regional or even global war? Under the status quo, anything is possible.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:52 | 2559257 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Not too long from now, Syria will be owned by another country, Al-Assad will be put out of power, and the state will be left leaderless, you know... kind of like the other countries in the region that this has happened to in the past decade.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:53 | 2559266 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Not to mention the US, which has been leaderless for at least 50 years.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:14 | 2559325 Spirit Of Truth
Spirit Of Truth's picture


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:15 | 2559329 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

NATO: "Not Another Terrorist Organization!"

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:19 | 2559346 Spirit Of Truth
Spirit Of Truth's picture

If you want to know the truth, then read this article:


The Cold War’s Arab SpringStolen Kremlin records show how the Soviets, including Gorbachev, created many of today’s Middle East conflicts


Why do you think Syria's military has been arming the 'opposition'?!

Inside Syria: You will never guess who arms the rebels -

PBS: Who are Syria's Rebel Forces? - Why is the Syrian military arming opposition forces? (more)

Why is the Syrian military arming opposition forces??!! 

Why does this world fail to heed me??!!!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:55 | 2559457 Manthong
Manthong's picture

We haven't learned the lessons of 1913, either.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:49 | 2559801 Jay Gould Esq.
Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

Behold the Creature from Jekyll Island.


Tue, 06/26/2012 - 06:29 | 2560785 gold-is-not-dead
gold-is-not-dead's picture

Yup, it's so scary how those two things happend at the same time, Creature from Jekyll Island and Gavrilo's action.

Retail silver bullion currently in Serbia is 200$ per toz due to heavy premiums... strange?

Do we need thicker tin foils or what?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:09 | 2559696 LeisureSmith
LeisureSmith's picture

Your name and posts are as contradictory as The Patriot Act and The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:24 | 2559716 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

Don't you know Gorbachev was a British asset?

Who is arming the foreign rebels to commit terrorism and insurrection? Why Britain and the kingdom they created the house of Saud, otherwise known as Arabia the (Saudi) part is like calling here the Obama states of America or the Bush states of America. 

Of course our country is helping (on the record that is) with the non-arms funding.  You can bet the clandestine agencies of the west are having a field day in Syria. 

At some point like Libya and all the other planned imperial flashpoints, if not already, the war crime companies, known as private army brownshirts such as Xe will be there.  Xe fascist war criminals, yah yah.

The entire 'opposition' is west sanctioned, created, funded, and armed.  It's manufactured, like the media reports.

Don't forget all the 'witnesses' are of the 'opposition', their kids, etc.  The entire situation is a farce and once again the media is complicit with the crimes.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:15 | 2559331 kito
kito's picture

one could argue that we need a leader that can act almost leaderless-ly.....weve had too many "leaders"..."leading"..........

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:06 | 2559461 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

I'd argue that Aziz doesn't put much thought into these posts.  He just craps them out one after another, if one actually took the time to deconstruct one-he'd have three more published before you could have a propper rebuttal.


What he lacks in insight and facts, he makes up for in volume. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:33 | 2559580 Aziz
Aziz's picture

You bring me some "rebuttals" and I'll read them.

I'm waiting. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:29 | 2559752 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Your last article was destroyed in the comments, why don't you start there. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 19:22 | 2559877 Aziz
Aziz's picture

I hadn't read yesterday's thread 'til now, but it's quite amusing.

Saying that the LtG projections are on track is like me saying "The world is going to end on Saturday" and chalking up my great success when the world doesn't end on Wednesday or Thursday or Friday. The projections aren't Malthusian until the supposed crunch hits. It can only be judged by that moment, not by the preceding years. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:58 | 2559820 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

"This is functionally the same as the interconnecting mesh of derivatives and shadow intermediation that foreshadowed the crash of 2008"


This sentence that you use to tie the whole piece together is:  1. completely unsupported, and 2. a gigantic leap of faith.  You offer no evidence.  Just make a claim and move on. 


"The NATO system — set up to oppose the Warsaw Pact system, which no longer exists — functions the same way — rather than dissipating risk, it allows for the magnification of international tensions into full-on regional and global wars. In the late 20th century the threat of nuclear war proved a highly-effective deterrent which limited the potential for all-out-war between the great powers, offsetting much of the risk of the hyper-fragile treaty system. Yet the potential for magnifying small regional problems into bigger wars will continue to exist for as long as NATO and similar organisations prevail."


This paragraph show you have very little understanding of why Nato exist and what it is used for.   It exists as a body to provide political cover to the United States and other members 

(France/UK) to carry out "missions" of their choosing, when it benefits them.  It is not a functioning force or even a reliable defense pact (the US base network is the only defense needed).  It may be absurd, but it is as usefull and serves the same purpose as FOX news. 


"We do not know exactly what arrangements Syria has with Russia and China — there is no formal defensive pact in place (although there is one between Syria and Iran) though it is fair to assume that Russia will be keen to maintain its Syrian naval assets, a view which is supported by the fact Russia heavily subsidises the Syrian military, and has blocked all the UN-led efforts toward intervention in Syria."


This is a throw away paragraph:  Russia may do this, or it may not.  Well no shit.  That's why what's happening is happening--Russia is being probed for a response, testing their commitment.  You could maybe expand on this to make a point, but don't.  

I'll do it for you-Assad is toast.  Nato (read USA) is trying to find out if Russia is interested in defending the whole country or just their port.  Russia may have blocked UN procedings, but everybody knows it's game on for covert ops in Syria.


"After the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was allowed to disintegrate. Until NATO is similarly allowed to disintegrate, the threat of magnification will remain large. Could a border skirmish between Syria and Turkey trigger a regional or even global war? Under the status quo, anything is possible."


Quite the money shot you shut it down with here.  Except that NATO has nothing to do with it.  This shit would be going down right now whether NATO existed or didn't.  Judging from your other articles you are a cornicopian who doesn't grasp the resource depletion wars because you wilfully deny such a situation exists.  You offer up lipstick analysis instead. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 19:24 | 2559858 Aziz
Aziz's picture

1/ I'm talking about systemic complexity and how systems deal with strain. The similarity between the financial system and the treaty system is an analogy, but it does illustrate the same principle: in complex nonlinear systems interconnectivity doesn't dissipate risk, it magnifies it. There are a myriad of examples beyond WW1 and 2008 — read Taleb's Antifragile.

2/ Of course NATO exists as a cover for the US (etc). And of course they have been looking for an excuse to get involved in Syria for a long time. 

3/ I don't know what Russia's commitment level is. I actually think it's quite likely that the Eurasian states may be looking for a proxy war to divert attention away from problems at home, which is one possibility I floated in my last article on this subject.

4/ I can't address the "if NATO didn't exist" argument; seems nonsequitur. The point is that the "attack" on the NATO-member Turkey is a great excuse for intervention, and the treaty system exists as a pseudo-legal justification. 

5/ No I am not a Malthusian. Malthusians have never made any correct projections about anything, ever. Look at the results of Ehrlich-Simon. I am not exactly a cornucopian (I think there is a lot of potential for manmade problems) but we do not know what the limits to growth are, and every time someone prominent comes up with a testable projection reality proves it wrong. There is nothing "lipstick" about going against the foolish consensus that we are headed inexorably to a future of Malthusian resource wars and environmental cataclysm. Look at the facts instead of mathematical models.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 20:41 | 2560053 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

You throw Malthusian around like it means something to me.  You label people with it often, and dismiss them out of hand.  That's weak sauce. 


We may, or may not get tech advancements to "save" society.  But even then it's still more complex because you're dealing with power structure that are willing to kill every other man on the planet to maintain the caste.  We'll get an oil replacement when:  they have it under their control, and it's no longer profitable to sell us oil.  Or as I've heard put sarcastically but more to the point:  we'll get functioning solar power when they figure out how to put a meter between earth and the sun. 


And by that time, we'll have to be hoping that they've got some handy tech on the shelf that we can retool the world for overnight.  We won't be mining asteroids-Unless of course those UFOs are real, but to even propose such ideas as solutions require massive leaps of faith and reliance on extrapolating mathmatical models of advancement while ignoring facts on the ground.  You've got a narrow view of history I noticed on your last piece.  Its very, very recent.  The modern world is an anomoly, a blip on the screen.  It is a complex system with achilles' heels everywhere you turn.  It can, and most likely will end faster than it began. 


And btw:  I know it is fashionable to dismiss any kind of environmental science out of hand on ZH, but nobody in the real world will ever take you serious if you can't acknowledge basic understood and accepted science.  It helps to understand that it is not a hoax, and they never let a crisis go to waste.  There is no need for the most elaborate hoax of all time, these people have no qualms in creating a genuine crisis if the need arises.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 04:47 | 2560706 Aziz
Aziz's picture

1/ I throw the term Malthusian around a lot because there are a lot of people in the modern world who meet its criteria, namely belief that we are hitting the limits to growth, belief that the world is overpopulated, and at a more extreme level belief that humanity is a cancer or plague on the earth, and that the only way for humanity to survive is a population reduction regime. I can dismiss them because all of their key premises are — based on the known facts — wrong or unproven. That's not to say that they don't bring anything to the conversation, or that they haven't introduced some interesting ideas. In fact I think Malthus did the world a favour for interesting the concept of a Malthusian catastrophe, because it has given us more of a chance to deal with problems. 

2/ For every super-elite who believes the stuff written on the Georgia Guidestones, there is another (possibly more) who doesn't. Exterminating the race to save the caste is a very, very poor economic decision, because a larger population is (by force of numbers) more productive, inventive, etc. I can't rule it out (though I think it is far less likely than many seem to) but if it does happen those who carry it out are ultimatey harming their own interests.

3/ I agree the modern world is something of an anomaly. I don't think we can really say whether or when it will end, precisely because we don't have any empirical examples to compare to. But my interpretation of the raw data is that the picture (resources, population, technology, atmosphere etc) is a lot rosier than most think it is. Of course there are lots of variables none of us have a handle on at all. I think that if we experience a real civilisational breakdown it will either be manmade, or the result of something that is not very widely feared. I fear gamma ray bursts, supervolcanoes, massive solar flares and rogue asteroids far more than I fear global warming and overpopulation, and a big reason for that is that for the latter issues we are aware of more of the variables and can take steps to mitigate.

4/ I don't dismiss environmental science out of hand. The raw data is very useful to have. Mathematical modelling on the other hand, especially of complex nonlinear multi-dimensional systems — which is where the cataclysmic projections come from — is junk science, because we don't know all (or even 10%) of the key variables. Every unknown variable hurts, but when you have hundreds or thousands and you don't even fully understand how different variables affect each other modelling becomes totally sophomoric and useless. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:13 | 2560139 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

A couple more things.


We know damn well what the limits to growth are at an extreme level, and I'm not talking the sun going supernova, I'm talking much closer in time.   From Do The Math:  


thermodynamic limits impose a cap to energy growth lest we cook ourselves. I’m not talking about global warming, CO2 build-up, etc. I’m talking about radiating the spent energy into space.......... Alright, the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. [Pained expression from economist.] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we don’t have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase.

In fact, the whole article is a hoot, you should read it and his blog.


Economics is really just an another psuedo science like sociology.  Or psychology.  Junk. 

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 03:57 | 2560710 Aziz
Aziz's picture

Why is perpetual energy-output growth even necessary? The thermodynamic constraints argument is worried about hitting a limit 400 years from now assuming that energy output doubles every 23 years?

We have a reasonable standard of living today. I can see us doubling once or doubling twice energy output, or maybe even three or four times. But 17 times? Why — unless we leave the planet and colonise other ones — would we even need to do that? Population growth drastically slows once industrialisation hits. Even if the population of the planet hits 10 billion, and they all achieve an energy usage double that of Americans today, we'd only be at maybe 8 or maybe 16 (four doublings) times current output levels.

I think what he's trying to calculate is rather disconnected from the reality of what growth actually is — which is improvement in technology and efficiencies, not greater energy output. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:41 | 2577588 All Risk No Reward
All Risk No Reward's picture

Ooooh, noooo.  That's a baaaad assumption.

America has a leader, it just isn't who they tell you it is.

My name for them is Big Finance Capital.  Probably more accurat eis Biggest Finance Capital.

Others have used the term "money changers," "den of vipers," "money power," "NWO," "globalists," etc...

Make no mistake, they are leading...  us all to a point where we are under their authoritarian control.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debt.”
~Henry Ford

Their propaganda is good though - because you aren't supposed to know they are leading you into the age old pit of tyranny...  and that's if they don't decide to, well, cull you from the "herd."

Better start organizing resistance or begin boot licking practice.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:51 | 2559258 reader2010
reader2010's picture

It's been a Turkey shoot. Go press the button now.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:02 | 2559295 noses
noses's picture

Did someone tell the Rednecks it is Turkey season already?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:07 | 2559306 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

I smell fowl play.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:10 | 2559317 CommunityStandard
CommunityStandard's picture

Syria and Turkey play chicken; everyone else needs to duck and cover.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:02 | 2559473 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

As god as my witness.....I thought Turkey's F4 could fly.



Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:52 | 2559262 cossack55
cossack55's picture

NATO should be renamed NATT (Need Another Three Trillion)

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:08 | 2559308 john39
john39's picture

ZATO= zionist armies of total occupation. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 20:17 | 2559999 robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

NATF Need another tree fitty. Damn you Lock Ness monster!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:58 | 2559282 Abner Doon
Abner Doon's picture
What are the chances that two blog posts concerning Warren Buffett, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, the Federal Reserve and Insider Trading be completly ignored by all for profit press since 8:37pm, June 23, 2012?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:01 | 2559294 noses
noses's picture

Who cares?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:41 | 2559420 El
El's picture

Well...I care. Who am I? Just one of the taxpayers footing the bill...otherwise known as nobody.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:59 | 2559286 sangell
sangell's picture

Turkey invaded Cyprus and though Greece didn't much care for it ( and there were British military bases on the island too it was resolved sort of an inter Nato war. Argentina invaded the British Falkland Islands territory and NATO didn't respond I think because NATO does not cover areas outside Europe and if so then what Turkey does with Syria is not going to involve NATO either.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:15 | 2559328 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

I do not disagree, but how does Lybia affect NATO? Though NATO dropped Peace & FReedom all over the place there

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:15 | 2559330 XitSam
XitSam's picture

NATO is in Afghanistan. As far as I know, Britain never asked NATO for help in the Falklands.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:00 | 2559469 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Some French rocket was said to have helped...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:27 | 2559744 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

Who knew Britain was in the southern hemisphere.  I thought it was in the North Atlantic.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:33 | 2559387 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

NATO is currently active globally, on ALL continents.



Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:35 | 2559397 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

The big question has been and continues to be:"If Turkey attacks Syria from the rear will Greece help!?"


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:19 | 2559528 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Truly funny on multiple levels

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:24 | 2559547 gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

Tuco, Tuco, Tuco......

I guess it was only a matter of time before before someone asked. In answer to your question, IF Greece gets involved, I imagine that it would benefit Syria the most.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:33 | 2560576 Joseph Jones
Joseph Jones's picture

I still remember this ad from the Bar Guardian in the 70s: "Man wanted to do excavation work in the rear of my property.  Age and size of equipment unimportant.  As needed, will supply fluid lubrication for erection of machinery."

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 20:32 | 2560027 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

It's supposed to be that an attack on any member is considered an attack on all. That's how we dragged them into Afghanistan. The Turkey-Greece thing was a puzzler. In retrospect we should have took Turkey's side and helped them occupy all of Greece.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:00 | 2559291 noses
noses's picture

So the moronically inclined Turks send out a pre-historic aircraft they found in some scrap yard (come on - a Phantom, could it get more ridiculous?), send it into the territory of another (not too friendly) state where it certainly had as much business to be as US drones in Pakistan killing civilians, get shot down by a lead-throwing device (we're not talking about rocket science here) and now they are starting to demand all-out war?

Seriously brain dead. They got what they deserved.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:21 | 2559352 JohnG
JohnG's picture



The F4 was in service in all 4 branches of the US military until 1996.  The arcraft is definitly not pre-historic.

The Navy still uses unmanned, remote controlled F4 "drones" for target practice.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:50 | 2559448 sushi
sushi's picture

Any idea why one of those remote controlled Navy drone F4s was shipped to Turkey two months ago? I believe it was delivered by USS Maddox. Or was it the Turner Joy? So many details so little time.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:54 | 2559455 JohnG
JohnG's picture

My thoughts exactly.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:15 | 2559507 OhOh
OhOh's picture

More importantly was the drone driver in Turkey or Kansas?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:07 | 2559687 JohnG
JohnG's picture

Now you're getting it.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:02 | 2559475 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

JohnG said:

The Navy still uses unmanned, remote controlled F4 "drones" for target practice.

Turkey apparently uses them for that purpose as well.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:07 | 2559692 JohnG
JohnG's picture

See above comment.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:46 | 2559438 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

noses - they got what they deserved


The Turkish government is attempting to get what they want.

For over 6 weeks, Turkey has openly desired NATO intervention in Syria.


“I am ready to ask NATO for a military intervention in Syria,” Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan was quoted as saying on Monday (May 7, 2012).


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:04 | 2559478 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Don`t make fun of a classic still military owned F-4 with
originally supplied ottoman maps for navigation...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 20:14 | 2561597 Element
Element's picture

Keep in mind that the F-14 and F-111 were both very effective aircraft, when they were withdrawn (earlier than necessary) from US service. and were the same contempory vintage as the F-4.  The USAF knew their F-111s absolutely kicked-ass, and had just proven it beyond dispute in Kuwait and Iraq, when they were suddenly retired at the end of the cold war.  It was just that the newer F-15E was even better as a true long-range self-defending (not needing to be escorted) multirole strike-fighter (but the F-15E actually performed badly hunting down scud TELs, whilst the F-111 was interdicting and killing every target it was assigned).  

Same applied to the F-14's early withdrawal, as it was a capable heavy fighter, but not ideal nor even properly developed as a two-seat strike option.  But the F/A-8E/F/G's were extremely good at both and even more agile, so the Tomcat got the chop earlier than was necessary. 

Interestingly, the F/A-18E/Fs and F-15Es were both a bit shorter-ranging, and a bit slower than the proven older aircraft they were replacing.  So don't imagine that these F-4s are completely outclassed crap as the Israeli's, Germans and Iranians still all kinda think they're still viable operationally capable frontline combat aircraft.  They are a reliable and a flexible 2-seat design, and some versions are fairly modern.  The German's operate 110 F-4s (about to be retired), and these have genuine beyond visual range missile engagement capabilities and avionics (using the F/A-18A's APG-65 radar with AIM-120B AMRAAMs).  Greece has 57 modernised versions of the F-4, Japan has about 90 F-4s in service, and South Korea now right now replacing their F-4s with new F-15Ks, plus the Israelis operated an advanced fleet of F-4s until 2004 and soon after this they updated the existing Turkish F-4s with advanced Israeli avionics options.  Plus the Iranian F-4s have also been upgraded to try and eliminate the outdated legacy US avionics package.

So the Turkish RF-4s may be old-ish but if they're RF versions, this also means their airframes and wings were not shagged-out by carrying bombs around for several decades, so they probably have a decade or more of airframe operation time left in them.

All that Syria did was to show Turkey that their F-4's are now increasingly obsolete against Syria's modernised air-defense capabilities.  That is going to cost Turkey a lot of money, and is at least a part of the reason that the Turks are rather pissed-off about this situation, as they look weak due to it, and more than anything else, they don't want to look weak.

So now they have the opening to beat their chests, and try to look stronger, due to NATO ... and maybe also to bid for some more F-35s more capable of evading early detection and thus surviving against modern air defenses. 

[NOTE:  but this time the replacement F-35 option is actually significanly faster in routine cruise speed, more fuel efficent, with much higher fuel load capacity for longer-ranging aircraft, than anything that's been in service prior.  Thus far fewer tankers are going to be required for them, or required to be defended by other escorting fighters for them ... that also have to be refuelled ... i.e. this is a huge material operational difference and advantage, and leads to a much less congested battle airspace, to manage and deconflict flights, thus more of the flights can attack and defend themselves, so rapid and higher-intensity air attacks become viable, even with fewer aircraft.]

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:00 | 2559292 papaswamp
papaswamp's picture

Hey this is where govts test those multi million/billion dollar/ruble/yuan aircraft and anti-aircraft systems. I can think of no better way that actual in theater usage. Plus...the price of oil is probably getting too low...have to do something to get it up...little 'viagra' for petroleum prices.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:03 | 2559293 Pampalona
Pampalona's picture

Jesus just pick a fucking side, who else manages to get attacked by the Israelis, and then Syria? Fucking incompetence, theyve pissed the greeks and the Armenians right off too..... And worse still from my own personal point of view, they dont put enough spices in their minced lamb (as compared to Indians/Pakistanis)

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:06 | 2559304 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Will you be running this year?  If so, pick me up a 2012 poster from the Gubmint store.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:02 | 2559297 fishwharf
fishwharf's picture

This will be over very quickly and we'll all be home for Christmas.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:10 | 2559490 JohnG
JohnG's picture



I hope you are joking.  NO IT WON'T BE OVER QUICKLY.

Syria is VERY well armed, military is motivated and tough as nails.

Gotta put those potential "terrrist" troops somewhere......

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:03 | 2559299 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Until NATO is similarly allowed to disintegrate, the threat of magnification will remain large.

...or just wait until Warsaw Pact II emerges from the ashes of the Euro and then the see-saw will be a bit more balanced.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:09 | 2559312 sangell
sangell's picture

Outside its nuclear weapons Russia is a spent power. Putin might want it to be otherwise but they had trouble fighting Chechen militias. They can't fight a coventional war with any nation much bigger than Finland ( they almost lost that one too last time they tried) and they aren't going to use nuclear weapons to defend Assad. Relax.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:28 | 2559369 Paul Atreides
Paul Atreides's picture

Russia will strategically place tactical nukes to defend it's only warm water port. They rolled them out in Georgia not too long ago.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 07:34 | 2560835 kralizec
kralizec's picture

I'm sure everybody will be OK with that.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:04 | 2559300 Paul Atreides
Paul Atreides's picture

Very little to no intel on this second attack. Turkish governement says an unnamed aircraft involved with the rescue operation of the downed F4 Phantom from last week was shot at. With the wreckage at a depth of 1000m it is unlikely the rescue operation would involve aircraft especially in the context of the original incident.

This is playing out just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident where the second attack is fictional.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:16 | 2559334 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

"The NATO system — set up to oppose the Warsaw Pact system, which no longer exists — functions the same way — rather than dissipating risk, it allows for the magnification of international tensions into full-on regional and global wars."

It does not "allow" for magnification.  It "promotes" it as shown by NATO's hiring of the "good" Al Qaeda to foment "kenetic action" in Libya and now Syria.  Is this not obvious!?  Old thunder thighs Hillary is back at it again!


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:17 | 2559502 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

Gleiwitz or Eriwan ? Short or long wave radio station ?

I kind of get confused with all these 20th century stories...

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 07:39 | 2560842 kralizec
kralizec's picture

The only thing that could possibly make this fantasy a reality is if it is meant as a distraction from F&F and the general disintigration of the Obama Regime.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:13 | 2559320 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Urgent: Turkey threatens to halt exports of electricity to Syria

(AP) — Turkey said Monday it would push NATO to consider Syria's downing of a Turkish jet as an attack on the whole military alliance.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:21 | 2559351 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

3 Russian warship file paperwork to transit into Med next week maybe on their way to #Syria (from CNN Pentagon correspondent)!/barbarastarrcnn

This was posted on June 22... So the warships are coming to Syria this week in a big FUCK YA move to NATO...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:24 | 2559362 walküre
walküre's picture

To which we respond, that Turkey considers getting its head out of its ass.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:56 | 2559460 sushi
sushi's picture

Update: Syria is now refusing to pay for the electricity not delivered by Turkey. Turkish Foreign Minister states Syria is acting in a provocative manner and will be bombed if baklava deliveries not resumed post haste.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:14 | 2559326 Overflow-admin
Overflow-admin's picture

"Strange game, in which the best move is not to play."

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:22 | 2559732 sunaJ
sunaJ's picture

Futility.  The best lesson to come from Goose Island on Tall Cedar Road.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:14 | 2559327 Whoa Dammit
Whoa Dammit's picture

NATO is Hillary's sex toy.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:16 | 2559333 daz
daz's picture

World wars.. to fix the system.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:23 | 2559342 Ima anal sphincter
Ima anal sphincter's picture

More BS to start ANOTHER war. One country at a time. Another million souls.....GONE.

Isn't it great!!! The American people just sit on their fucking asses while a bunch of evil piss-ant assholes wave the magic wand of terrorism and away we go again.

Until ALL the traitors and ALL the bankers are "removed" from power. This WILL continue.

The way Americans and other world citizens have reacted (not!!!!!), I guess we're all just screwed.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:27 | 2559375 darteaus
darteaus's picture

What's a soul?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:21 | 2559350 walküre
walküre's picture

I think I'm going to crawl under a rock and come back in a thousand years when this shit show is over. What else is there to do? I was obviously born in the wrong millenium. Mankind is still playing with sticks and throwing dirt around the sand box. Wake me up someone, please.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:45 | 2559428 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

A thousand years won't be enough.  All of these power games are a pattern as regular as the tide.  The tech, place, names and scale change, but the cycle continues of birth (of a state), expansion, resistance when it meets a similar power and either continued expansion or contraction followed by death.  Just sleep for 5 billion years and come back when the Sun goes Red Giant and consumes the Earth.

Cc Sumer, Akkad, Ur, Babylonia, Assyria, Media, Persia, Alexander's Macedon, Rome, Mongols...


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:28 | 2559568 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

If you happen to have the right pre-arian genes out of Europe, you`ll be doing just fine under your rock. Avoid the English and any trade in corn or potatoes , though.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:23 | 2559359 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

The world will be a better place when all who remember the Cold War, on both sides, are dead and gone. Unfortunately, that includes me.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:30 | 2559381 walküre
walküre's picture

No, that would just keep the cabal in power and they could run amok with their war games. Ever read the Old Testament? The "chosen" were on a rampage pretty much from the time they "fled" Egypt where slaves were paid in gold. How would they have built that golden calf otherwise? Their God told them to kill and prosper and found whatever reason to justify the killing of women and children in the name of God. They've done it for centuries and come out on top, again and again.

What the generation you are referring to, needs to remember is who benefited from the wars and who is the biggest bully in the sandbox called the Middle East. Strip away their privileges and their box of financial tricks to create money from thin air and we are looking into a brighter and better future.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:40 | 2559613 TheGardener
TheGardener's picture

I don`t trust your mission Mr.Umlaut, why not mention the first born`s ?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:26 | 2559372 darteaus
darteaus's picture

A government bureaucracy, its original mandate no longer relevant, continues on for years afterwards consuming ever increasing money while declaring that the sky is falling.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:28 | 2559377 zilverreiger
zilverreiger's picture

NATO is ok, but they should stick to their defensive role, and throw america out.

and rename to 'north sea treaty organisation'

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 20:35 | 2560034 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

Yes, they have suceeded in preventing wars with each other. Not counting the Turkey-Greece dispute. Turkey never made any sense as part of NATO except when confronting USSR.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:35 | 2559389 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

the problem isn't that NAT0 exists;  the problem (today) is its agenda in syria;  since it will not be able to advance its agenda thru the UN it will try a military defense summit

last year this time it was about its agenda in libya;  where was aziz then?

we don't need nonsense about "lessons needing learning from 1914" or a campaign speech for X or Y

we need to watch if the EU can perceive the real problem and what it will say to the propaganda about the planes that turkey can't fly straight

turkey is in a tough situ here;  not too different from syria in some key ways;  there have been enormous recent diplomatic efforts which have culminated in these two shoot-downs.  yes.  i wrote that and it is true

we'll see if the hawks can smell the coffee or if their brains are completely non-functional

this is quite a show!  and i think TPTB will use the cameras to make an enormous show of heading for the chairs at the edge of the dance-floor here

no matter what it appears, or what they say, i don't see that they really have a choice

they still have about 3 weeks for UN observers to attempt to get the sides to stop shooting/bombing, but the UN obs have had to leave recently~~too much dancin!

time is of the essence here so STFU and get ready to sit down & talk.  please

i mean it!  this shit stinks! if the EU wants a larger, more regional war, they can certainly have one;  just ask bilary

anything else... just listen to slewie...  this isn't about whther NAT0 makes sense or not;  it is about whether assad can be removed militarily or not and still keep this contained, and the answer is:  nope!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:38 | 2559606 PhattyBuoy
PhattyBuoy's picture

Spot on Slewie ...

Assad isn't going anywhere ...  !

God help us if these war-mongering pricks open up this can of worms!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 20:38 | 2560040 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

No way is Europe going to go to war for Turkey. Why should they? When we attacked Iraq , Turkey would not let us use any bases even though we probably paid for them. The Turks have been attacking Europe and European/Christian people for as long as they been around. Hell, Istanbul used to be the Eastern Roman Empire capital. Their murderous campaigns against Armenians, Greeks and others are quite Hitlerish and inspired Hitler.



Mon, 06/25/2012 - 20:52 | 2560089 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

I think HLS will have to do more to protect us from syria and such, granny bend over and spread em.

these jokers in DC think they are real smart..they are half right

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 22:30 | 2563408 Element
Element's picture

Indeed slewie, the attempt by NATO fools to impose their version of sickurity and stabeeleetee on the rest of the world, is endlessly generating it's polar opposite elsewhere, and that is probably going to lead to asymmetric military state on state attacks on NATO countries themselves.

We'll in fact be lucky if this absurd situation now results only in a regional proxy-war between great powers, that dwarfs what occurred in Indochina and Korea.

WWII was really just a series of large-scale running mobile battles, that waxed and waned in countries and regions, and then spread and grew in scale. 

We have this same dynamic war and trap emerging now as decentralised battles keep moving and keep on destroying countries, and are being generated by Washington and NATO alliance powers, with Israel perched on its shoulder and issuing its relentless and endless warmongering demands to attack countries.

And Russia has already said, several times, that continued NATO action could lead to even a nuclear exchange.  How much more blunt do they have to be to get these ludicrous pompous NATO retards to wake-up step-back and look at what they're doing to the world? 

NATO is NOT a security alliance as it stands now, it is in fact an insane system of insecurity generation, and of imperial strategic warfare, conquest and grand blundering, like nothing previously seen.

And the United Nations certainly is not, and is absolutely dysfunctuional and captured. 

Thus we're drifting from one failed catastrophic grossly idiotic (but oh-so-'rational') military intervention to another, and have been since 1989, when George Bush Senior set-up and gave a green light to Iraq to invade Kuwait, then turned around and said a new world order can now emerge.

It is a completely immoral, insane, criminal and parasitically destructive ideology that's being expressed in Washington and European capitals, and forced down the throat of the rest of the world via their sick MSM grand-lie support apparatus.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:36 | 2559400 Bam_Man
Bam_Man's picture

The Military Industrial Complex and their lobbyists, plants and mouthpieces will ensure that NATO lasts forever. The same way that the Banksters and their lobbyists, plants and mouthpieces do the same for The Fed.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:43 | 2559414 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Turkish deputy PM edits his earlier remarks that Nato Art. 5 was invoked. He says only Art. 4 is invoked and NATO will meet tomorrow morning

WW3 canceled... sorry Keynesians!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 16:53 | 2559450 tjmc
tjmc's picture

Nato has probably outlived it's usefulness, but it was a huge success.  To compare regional defense alliances to commercial investing firms, ("This is functionally the same as the interconnecting mesh of derivatives and shadow intermediation that foreshadowed the crash of 2008.") is specious at best. 


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:12 | 2559497 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Especially when all the investment firms have failed and NATO is still doing its job. The fact of the matter is what NATO "does" must be agreed upon. Unlike say "what the United States does."

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:03 | 2559474 tony bonn
tony bonn's picture

when the rockefeller axis of evil ordered the soviet experiment closed in the 1980s, they were retooling for a greater conflict between faux muslim and faux christian nations because that is where the oil was....the ussr was a wasteland - thanks to wall street - and offered nothing to the bush crime syndicate for the next couple of generations.....

nato is the arm of wall street (led by the bush crime syndicate ) to impose its rapacious will on the rest of the world.....the cia created conflict in the middle east in order to perpetuate the gargantua and pantagruel of europe.....

the obamney thugs see the correlation of forces and window of opportunity fast closing so want to strike iran before it's too late....whatever is reported about the middle by the western press is a pack of goddamned lies - strong delusion for the fucktard....

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 07:09 | 2560816 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

I agree with your assessment, except that I think the "Bush crime syndicate" is too shallow and limited a term.  Bush is an evil puppet, just as Obama.  But they take their orders from "on high", no matter how imperial they try to portray themselves.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:17 | 2559524 Chaos_Theory
Chaos_Theory's picture

For a second I thought Princip was the pilot of the F-4...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:24 | 2559544 mark7
mark7's picture

What is this obsession to compare current situation either to 1930's or even pre-world war one?! This article could be written by a six grade kid with only elementary knowledge of history.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 17:34 | 2559578 duckarooni
duckarooni's picture

This BBC report about Syria is worth watching :

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:37 | 2559776 LeisureSmith
LeisureSmith's picture

I used to watch bbc back in the day when US & "The willing" misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq started, now i just get a headace from all the hypocracy. Back then they seemed to have (at least i thought) some level of objectivity. These days terrorism is double plus good and Al-qaeda is an ally in the war on terror. Pretty decent mindfuck.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:17 | 2559718 honestann
honestann's picture

Oh, predators DBA governments learned the lessons of 1914 alright.  But since most governments inserting themselves into this issue are just itching for war because it distracts the population from their other egregious actions, and because it gives them more unjustified excuses to mistreat their own population as well as others.  The predators DBA governments of most countries love war, especially against "enemies" that could never in a million years defeat them in return.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 20:05 | 2559979 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

NATO is the US military puppet organization that allows the US to act in Europe, Africa and the Middle East with the cover of a so called alliance.

It really is the elties and the bankers of Europe and their military puppets whom the USA needs to provide cover for unilateral invasions, bombings, terrorist bombings and the new Sunni alliance.

If Iran is to be conquered, it is better for the US military if it can be covered in a NATO oepration, rather than a USA only conquest. The NATO forces do not matter or are of little consequence except as diplomatic cover and support. As the US bombs and conquers, they simply point to NATO and say, "We are acting in support of the defensive alliance called NATO. We operate in self defense under the treaty".

WIthout NATO, the US would have to act alone and the world would assume the USA was a unilateral empire. Under NATO we are not an empire but a selfless army acting to defend our threatened friends.

NATO is in Afghanistan, NATO was in Iraq, NATO provided cover for the LIbayan bombing, NATO bombed all hell out of little Serbia, NATO is lining up to provide the forces to destroy Iran and conquer the oil fields in order to spare Isreal any expense in their greater Mid East empire.

NATO was behind the Georigian blitzkrieg invasion of Ossetia, this plan went all wrong when Russia refused to surrender and instead acted to defend Ossetia. This is perhaps the only case of Russia acting to fight a NATO invasion or terrorist bombing campaign. NATO was stunned that Russia fought back, it took them a week to regain their footing, but by then Georgia was well and truely defeated. Though some US senators asked for a NATO invasion of Russia. MS Palin the former governor of Alaska also requested a US invasion of Russia. For some reason the US military did not support the invasion plan and Russia ended the georgian conflict with Ossetia as a client state of Russia.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:33 | 2560632 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

The U.S. has invoked NATO many times.  Turkey is now invoking NATO; not because Syrian defenses downed their plane (which was probably spying on the Russian fleet as much as the Syrian coastal defenses), but because they see the Russian threat bearing down on Greece, Cyprus, and Crete.

Germany will likely stand with Turkey on this: the U.S. as well.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 23:26 | 2563809 Element
Element's picture

Not so much that last bit, as Greece is also a client-state of Russia's most advanced export air defense systems, something very few other states in NATO could get access too.

And this is mostly because;

(a) the Russians were desperate for foreign sales and money at that time, and;

(b) the Greeks are not really aligned to any great power, especially that of the USA, London, Paris, Brussels or Berlin.

Greece simply does what it has to and tries to remain utilitarian and pragmatic, if practicable.  They were never going to become truly alligned and subordinated within NATO.

And note that Greece bought these Russian S-300 PMU-1, TOR and Crotale SAM systems during and after Yugoslavia broke-up, as NATO intervened in Bosnia, bombed Serbia, degraded its air force and IADS and killed its SAMs to do so this, then sliced of Kosovo from Serbia for an Albanian Muslim enclave.

So Greece did the logical thing, it bought BOTH the top-shelf US SAM system(s), and also the Top-shelf Russian SAM system(s), at tremendous expense, because it figured that at least half of these systems should work and remain uncompromised if it got into a serious air battle with either Israel, Turkey, or even the US, via its new puppet within the Balkan's.

And note that Cyprus also bought the S-300 PMU-1 from Russia.  (it is doing similar to Greece, to hedge NATO)

Russia needs the 'S-400' (which was actually called the S-300PMU-3 originally - it's basically the PMU-1 system with new electronics and longer-range missile options) expansion and to develop an S-500, mainly because it needs to presume that NATO has since fully compromised the S-300 PMU-1 system and it's missiles.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 07:06 | 2560813 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

It amazes me that we still hear to this very day that Russia attacked first, and people just go, "Uh, ya..."


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:00 | 2560110 hyperbole2000
hyperbole2000's picture

Revisionist history at its worst.  When Germany attacked Russia, their supposed military ally France took a pass. With the French's heads up their asses, the Germans then hit France.  If France had, with British logistical support, immediately opened a second front against Germany, the War might never have needed become Great. The exact opposite logical outcome of your system sensitivity analysis.

NATO, love'em or hate'em honour,  they execute their alliance responsibilities without doubt or hesitation.  If you f#*k with NATO expect to get hit hard, really f#*king hard.  A program of maximum sustained firepower on target until the target no longer has the ability to cause you harm, algorithmically speaking.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:40 | 2560392 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

What exactly are these alliance responsibilities you speak of and can you illustrate when and how they have been acted upon "without doubt or hesitation"? I don't recall any bombs raining down on NATO signatories and any resulting cries for assistance lately... or ever.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 23:03 | 2560440 hyperbole2000
hyperbole2000's picture

Pershing short range nukes posted in Europe in response to Soviet short range nukes posted in Warsaw pact.  Against virulent public protests in western European cities they were still posted.  NATO is also powerful diplomatically as well as militarily.  What you consider a problem, diplomatic political power, is actually a strength which prevents hot wars and civilian casualties.

Today's analogy: Iranian nukes.  Syria is an allay of Iran; therefore, a target for NATO's soft power.  No shit!!!!!   I agree with you; however, unlike you I see it as a good thing.  Deal with it. NATO ceratinly is, one step at a time algoritmically speaking.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 21:45 | 2560228 ciao
ciao's picture

NATO has never executed an alliance responsibility retaliatory attack.  No charges were ever laid against bin Laden.  The 9/11 domestic crime is an unresolved case.   All NATO aggressions have been imperial strategic projects with regime change and the under mining sovereingty and regional influence/access to resource corridors the strategic priorities.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 22:34 | 2560384 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Like the bombing of white Christian Serbs in '98, who were vicious anti-Nazi guerilla fighters on the side of the allies in WWII. THE KLA and other radical Muslim terror groups have certainly benefitted from NATO.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 00:24 | 2560563 Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

Not to point out one glaring flaw, but NATO was NOT set up in response to the Warsaw Pact.  The Warsaw Pact was in fact set up only after NATO insisted on including West Germany in it's sphere.  This is an important point because, although it's counterintuitive to the "Lone Ranger Brand of American History," NATO, since it's inception has been a provocative and aggressive organization.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:39 | 2560641 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

NATO is an expression of the member-nations common national interest.  Nations (just as any individuals or groups of people) form pacts in their common interest.  NATO exists because it functions in the general interests of the member-states.  The only thing provacative about NATO has been U.S. foolishness in Asia and general U.S. belligerence (especially in the Middle East) since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 01:41 | 2560642 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

NATO is an expression of the member-nations common national interest.  Nations (just as any individuals or groups of people) form pacts in their common interest.  NATO exists because it functions in the general interests of the member-states.  The only thing provocative about NATO has been U.S. foolishness in Asia and general U.S. belligerence (especially in the Middle East) since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 16:05 | 2562693 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It's a fine analogy, but there's no way to divine what a nation-state's "interest" is. 

They're too big and too inherently contradictory.

Tue, 06/26/2012 - 04:37 | 2560735 prains
prains's picture

the only thing provocative about NATO is the tight pants from too many donuts

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!