For instance you state Article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked once. After 9/11 NATO declared that an attack against the US was an attack against all. Hence the involvement of NATO in Afghanistan.
Again you show your cluelessness. Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a mutual defense agreement when a member state is "attacked." Turkey was not attacked by any definition of the word. Armed aggression was not perpetrated on Turkey; no property was destroyed, no lives taken, no extortion against Turkey committed. Turkey in this instance was the attacker, shooting down a Russian aircraft.
You just make my point that geo-politics is not for small children. From the fall of the Soviet Union we have done our best to stand with our toes on the Russian defense perimeter with our noses hanging over the line under the idiot argument of Condi Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld that we don't recognize "spheres of influence." But spheres of influence are physical law. Our ability to project power into South Ossetia varies as the inverse square of the instance from our support bases. Russia is right there.
Now you could try the argument that we are not going to accede to divvying up the world into spheres of influence to sanction immoral conduct (human rights violations, economic depredation, deprivations of basic freedoms, etc.) But, first, you have to make that argument and admit that that is what you are doing. Second you have to have the power to make it stick. But most importantly, if you are invoking the moral argument, you must be morally in the right, and this just fails laughably. Calling Putin a thug does nothing to attack the validity of his goals vs our goals.
So we can weigh Russian goals, Turkish goals, ISIS goals, Assad goals, and the goals of the [sarcasm] muslim "freedom and democracy party" [/sarcasm] that we are supporting. That is a worthy analysis and you have not done it.
It is like attacking a mafia Don when he provides protection and maintains the peace for residents in his territory driving out the riff raff and other kinds of ne'er do wells. Thug he is, I suppose. But when the alternative is rampaging lawlessness, the residents will put up with it and part willingly with a modest contribution for the service provided.
LOL. You don't need no stinkin' facts. Putin invaded Ukraine and took over part of the country--Crimea. He is approaching Cold War numbers when it comes to sending military planes to the edges of our airspace. About a month ago, he buzzed the our carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, less than a nautical mile away at 500 feet while the US was conduction joint naval operations with South Korea. Putin is siding with Iran in Syria.
Again you show your cluelessness. Article 5 of the NATO treaty is a mutual defense agreement when a member state is "attacked." Turkey was not attacked by any definition of the word. Armed aggression was not perpetrated on Turkey; no property was destroyed, no lives taken, no extortion against Turkey committed. Turkey in this instance was the attacker, shooting down a Russian aircraft. Pentagon backs Turkey’s version of events, blames ‘incursion’ of Russian jet
Calling Putin a thug does nothing to attack the validity of his goals vs our goals.
There is no moral equivalency between Putin and the US. Putin's goals are to keep Assad in power and restore Russia to the power and influence of the former Soviet Union. He is an ex-KGB agent who has ruled Russia for almost 15 years. Why anyone who is a Freeper supports this thug is a mystery to me. You must really hate this country.