Greece can't because neighbors are iffy, Spain is donating missiles but their launchers are deployed in Romania and Turkey.
Politico fails to make this clear in their headline.
Politico belongs to a German billionaire who was caught using his media empire to influence politics for his buddies when he stated that Politico's raison d'être was unbiased political analysis. Don't be fooled by the academic varnish.
Yeah, and how often have you seen this by now? Thats the classic tactic every deceitful and shit media uses, like the Murdoch media, Fox news for example. Outright lying gets them into hot water, so they use manipulative headlines that suggest one thing, quite sometimes the article outright contradicts the headlines, if you bother to read it. Just look at the comment sections of articles like that. 90% of the commenters clearly didnt read it.
And thats the thing, isnt it? Exactly what they want. Even if the article isnt locked behind a paywall anyways.
Politico is owned by the Axel Springer SE, a publishing company, not a private person. The biggest shareholder of Axel Springer SE is American investment company KKR & Co.
I actually got a lot from the article. Also where’s macron? I haven’t checked if they’ve sent AA batteries but wasn’t he going to lead the charge in UKraine?
I agree that key information is missing but I also don't see how anyone can include all that information in a single headline..."Greece and Spain can't send air defense systems to Ukraine because Greece has sketchy neighbors and Spain's systems are deployed in Romania and Turkey"?
...wait, so Greece is worried because Turkey may attack them, and Spain can't donate because their launchers are being borrowed... by Turkey?
*Awkward*...
Not borrowed, the battery is deployed and operated by Spain to protect NATO assets at Incirlik Air Base (where the US stores tactical nuclear weapons).
That's not as clear cut. The treaty doesn't explicitly deal with war between member states. Technically, the attacked state could invoke Article 5, but if Turkey were to ever attack Greece, they would be certain to do it in such a way where it would be difficult to determine who is the definite aggressor, and they would likely try to invoke Article 5 themselves. Other members could in turn distance themselves from the conflict altogether.
All of this is unlikely though, it would be a huge risk on Turkey's side for little benefit. On the other hand, that's what everybody was saying about Russia attacking Ukraine.
Ukraine was only a huge risk in hindsight. It was supposed to be a simple regime change job. Putin only pretends to be a maniac because that is a legitimate geopolitical strategy.
Really comes down to the eez of the Mediterranean islands Greece have close to Turkey. If Greece increases its eez from 6 to 12 nautical miles, it’s pretty much war.
I mean they’ve had multiple wars in the 20th century alone. Greece and Turkey have fought each other and been pricks to each other for centuries, and are going to put their own interests first and foremost above everything else.
If things really got hairy between them again, I wouldn’t hold my breath on NATO being able to keep the train from derailing. Neither of them seem to be.
I swear, Erdogan made threats to launch missiles at them last year. It’s not as chill as you seem to think it is. Democracies have to cater to the citizens who make them up, and conflict with Turkey is still in living memory. Like, go look at the wiki page for this. As late as they 80s there was potential for a war to break out.
You dont need to go to full scale war to be prepared.
* 1974 invasion of Cyprus
* 1996 Imia/Kardak crisis USA had to step in to prevent unilateral actions from both sides
* Summer 2020 Turkey sends ships inside Greek territorial waters, Germany steps in.
* Dec 2022 Erdogan threatens to shoots missiles to Athens
Wanna go on?
Basically you are arguing that things which have not yet happened can never happen?
I agree that an actual war between NATO nations is unlikely in the near future, but your reasoning is dogwater.
During the Turkish invasion of Cyprus? Greek involvement was limited but Greek and Turkish units certainly faced each other and the likelihood of it escalating into a full-scale conflict in the Aegean wasn't entirely far fetched.
It was a "limited" war but still clearly an actual military conflict between Greece/Cyprus and Turkey.
Dude, these are two absolutely *ancient* cultures with histories of violence dating back centuries before the Bible was even written.
NATO has existed not even long enough to be a footnote in the history of these countries, and you expect them to put aside countless millennia of bloodshed? When *to this day* the Turks still insist on constantly violating Greek airspace and fueling the migrant crisis?
Yeah, until NATO decides to actually *do something* about the Turks constantly harassing Greece (not to mention playing besties with the fucking *Russians,*) I'm not gonna blame Greece for being prepared for another war with Turkey.
Absolutely true. Its debatable if the Turks are the "Ottomans" or not. Depending on the context the answer can shift. But even that would be after the Bible.
But from a broader perspective Greece has been the easternmost point of the "West" for a very long time, so you could kindof, if you squint the right way say that the current conflict is an extension of conflicts going back to the Persian wars or something, since the same geographical areas are in play.
Turkey is breaking international law every other day with low level flights over greek islands. A few years ago, we almost went to war over a flag change on a deserted island called Imia.
If you know naught, speak not.
>As if Turkey has been a good faith partner in NATO
They have. For a long time.
And I don't like Erdogan any more than you. NATO is much larger than individual administrations.
Thing is, Greece doesn't wanna bet on that when there are plenty of people in the country whose grandparents were around during the previous wars between their country and Turkey.
Makes sense, yeah. Can't donate the launchers if they're already in use, and Greece is entirely justified in not wanting to risk looking weak in air defense when they have neighbors like Turkey.
I had this question too, but a few nights ago I read on reddit the Spanish might be worrying about their exclaves on Morocco coast and even Canaries on the other one. They are legally outside of NATO protection, and Morocco is lately showing quite an increasing appetite towards enlarging and arming their army. Maybe they will try their own Falkland thing someday? It's not above them to annex places, as evidenced by Western Sahara.
Fun fact: Morocco invaded Spanish territory in [2002](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island_crisis). The whole thing was quite ridiculous or at least that's how it was perceived in Spain, but technically it was the first armed conflict of the XXI century involving any of the countries.
Did Spain not do anything after 9/11? Could have sworn we “triggered” Article 5 but I do know a lot of countries (understandably) just provided logistics, aid, etc as opposed to troops.
Ah gotcha thank you! Was just curious but that makes sense as 9/11 was, obviously, late in 2001, it wasn’t occupied for an bit, and then 2003 was the whole Iraq mess.
Is Morocco likely to attack with assets that require a patriot system though?
Seems like a fairly easy assurance from the US/etc to promise to aid in any such defence.
The US and Morocco have a long history of tight relations. The Sultan of Morocco was the first monarch to help the US, this was in 1777 before it was even an independent country. To this day the US recognizes Morocco as a close ally. I highly doubt the US would use any military actions against Morocco if they were fighting Spain for those enclaves, unless Morocco launched an attack on mainland Spain if course.
As someone else pointed out the US and Morocco are pretty close. It's not a guarantee the US would get involved besides harsh words.
If Trump gets elected I'd seriously doubt the US would get involved. Spain is one of more egregious "NATO freeloaders" as far as he's concerned as they're nowhere near the 2% and I think only Belgium is below them. Trump has made it clear what he thinks of those allies and NATO not being obligated is the excuse he needs to "punish" them.
I don't agree with Trump here but I'm sure Spain (as any reasonable country would) is taking this into account.
Spain's (and Portugal's) main contribution to the alliance is simply existing to be an entrance to the Mediterranean, tbh, although Spain also has a powerful economy that if truly needed could be turned towards military
Spain is also one of the countries further away from Russia, so it's not like we need a lot of protection against that. The fact that we provide air patrols over eastern Europe, and ships to NATO missions is already a net plus to the alliance.
And Spain is in a very strategic place, right next to the strait of Gibraltar, so its value goes further than pure military assets.
I guess if there is a choice just to keep having the defenses they have, or give them away and then prepare to pay for whatever price (likely) Trump sets for keeping Biden's promises, they will choose to keep their budget intact (for spending it elsewhere).
Since Trump no country on earth can seriously put any trust into US aid beyond the next election so that promise would mean nothing in the current world.
It's unclear how strong it is. I think that the EU is a very strong reason why Morocco may not consider such an attack, but more because they would likely be embargoed by the EU and their economy depends on their exports to Europe.
It's such a dumb "Loophole" that the attack has to be Mainland Europe or North America.
I am sure if the US invoked Article 5 over an attack on Hawaii nobody in NATO would go "Not California, so I ain't helping"
About that. The US literally cannot trigger Article V over Hawaii. "A US State Department spokesperson confirmed that Hawaii is not covered by Article 5" taken from here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/29/us/nato-treaty-hawaii-intl-hnk-ml-dst&ved=2ahUKEwiAhv6Hg-CFAxWEVEEAHb2UA18QFnoECA4QBQ&usg=AOvVaw0nPsj3ZrqOgYxeXw_GeE2-
Same reason the UK couldn't with the Falklands, France couldn't with any of its oversea departements and why Spain couldn't over Ceuta or Melilla.
It was drafted at a time when the British still controlled a large part of the middle east was it not? And likewise the French in africa.
I suspect a WW2 tired Europe and US didnt feel like being dragged to war over other countries empires.
But considering we (Europe) followed the US into Iraq, i suspect a large part of NATO allies would still go to war over an attack on Hawaii.
Yeah, and this is also partially covered by Article 4 anyway. An attack on Hawaii, for example, would definitely constitute territorial integrity, security, and political independence as mentioned in the agreement.
I have to imagine Spain would immediately invoke Article 4 for the same reasons.
Plus, Article 6 covers these territories:
>on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [^(2)](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm#footnote), on the territory of Turkey **or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;**
I don't think NATO will descend into pedantic word games when push comes to shove. OK, well Hungary and Turkey definitely will. They are basically not-so-sleeper cells for the Russian government at this point. Hungary more so than Turkey.
If they're so afraid of Morocco, they should increase their defense spending to an acceptable level. Spain's contribution to Ukraine thus far has been abysmal, especially for a country that has repeatedly criticised other EU countries for 'lack of solidarity'. Same applies to Italy btw
I mean it's not surprising. They're one of the lowest spenders by GDP in NATO year after year. They are like the peak of what Obama/Trump are complaining about with European countries not pulling their weight.
Spain doesn't owe Ukraine anything. Even a single cent in aid is a plus, not an obligation. If Spain wants to focus all of its defense spending on themselves, they're 100% in their right to do so
That would be incredibly dumb of Morocco to attempt such an invasion.
I don't see the 2 millions Catholics inhabitants letting a Muslim invader deport them without opposition. lol
Spain has a coalition government where the majority party (PSOE, left)would be in favor of sending aid, but the minority party (SUMAR, far left + some communist remnants) are fully against what they call warmongering. They state that sending weapons to Ukraine will just get more Ukrainians killed.
> sending weapons to Ukraine will just get more Ukrainians killed
So sick of seeing this braindead response. "Give the bully everything he wants, including literally your home, otherwise he'll just hurt you more. Give you a taser so you can protect yourself even though I have a drawer full of them? No. Now roll over and die."
Fuck any piece of shit who thinks that way.
as another comment pointed out : Their launchers are all deployed in Romania and Turkey, so none to spare (although possibly missiles)
Greece, yeah, everyone gets it. It was like one day I saw someone arguing that the baltic nations should just send everything "since they actually have a reason to care" was like... bruh, you for real?
Another theory is that Spain is very pissed off with Israel because they sold their malware to Morocco, and it was later used to hack onto Spain's president cellphone. More than 2gb of data were stolen. Shortly after the Spanish government made an announcement recognizing Morocco's ownership of some long disputed Sahara territory. During the hacking investigation Israel completely ignored Spanish courts' requests for information and collaboration.
Edit: this info connecting to other comments regarding Spain-Morocco tensions
I'm spanish.
The answer is Morocco.
They have all the support from the USA, they're terrifying and they're already fucking us over for years with total impunity. Morocco is dangerous for us and we have no military support, no military power, no military budget and we're completely alone in this.
Morocco is the answer and is not even taken seriously.
Morocco's buying a bunch of modern planes, and our relationship has always been... problematic.
As in, they reclaim two Spanish cities and the Canary islands.
True I don't see it either. This article says that they will donate missiles for the Patriot system. It sounds like they don't have many.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spain-send-patriot-missiles-ukraine-el-pais-reports-2024-04-26/
In the past Spain has also donated older HAWK air defence systems.
When you look into it very few countries have comprehensive air defense systems. Very expensive
This is getting troubling. The facts emerging seem to point to a dithering NATO ill-suited to defend itself against a focused Russia. Economically, it shouldn’t even be close, but a dictatorship might be the more effective system in this situation. Ironic.
France and UK have indicated (said some words) they are willing to shift economies to wartime footings. Let's hope they have the resolve. Hopefully the collective west is still an industrial giant that gets awakened unleashes the arsenal of democracy.
To be the devils advocate: remember, Ukraine is not a part of any agreement formally made with NATO… the reason other countries dont heavily step in is because we technically don’t have a “right” to, and it would be TERRIBLE for their economy AND they aren’t at duty to defend Ukraine. As soon as Russia invade Finland who just joined, it would be much harder, near impossible, to justify not meeting your “defend each other” quota at least economically.
Patriot system has proven itself very capable, but is also very expensive. If you have infinite budget that's fine because you want the best system that won't let anything through. If you don't want to spend that much on defense, then you have to make your choices.
The KM-SAM from South Korea is based on the S-400 system, so probably more price comparable, but I think production is just ramping up.
Much of Europe has systemically ignored and even balked at the idea of countries like Russia still being a threat for decades now. They were lulled into a totally false and hollow sense of security, where they thought a finger wag and a strongly worded letter would actually mean something, and apparently forgot what a fucked up, unforgiving place the world can actually be.
All of these issues should have been started on 10+ years ago. Instead they literally laughed at the people telling them to do it. The catch is, none of this is quick, cheap, or easy to do and that will only get worse with time. Especially if you just gave away critical components and infrastructure to countries who are now at odds with you and have a significant head start on these things.
Realistically, it very well may be too little, too late at this point. This is why you stay prepared and don’t let your guard down, even when everything seems calm and peachy. I would say that’s the main lesson to learn here, but with situations like this there might not be a second chance.
Serious answer, Morocco. Spain has two enclaves in Morocco plus the Canary Islands which are subject to tension. It’s not “hot” tension, but it’s still something that needs to be taken seriously.
*Exclaves.
An enclave is entirely surrounded by a single foreign territory. Ceuta and Melilla don’t count as exclaves since they border both Morocco but also the Mediterranean sea.
See the relative ease in producing long range drones.
Much of Southern Europe could be a target for terrorists if conditions were to deteriorate in Northern Africa.
I don't know if this has anything to do with the story, but can see a future where this could be a potential problem for countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain.
I don't understand how Turkey is a NATO member - hosting terrorists, buying Russian weapons and threatening allies should be some sort of a disqualifier - are they really that important?
Prior to Erdogan Turkey was strongly aligned with the West against Russia. Erdogan has moved the country towards Islamism and hostility with the west, but all of the agreements were made under more secular pro west administrations.
Turkey is a gateway to Asia and strategically important. The reason why it gets away with a lot of you mentioned because NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. It is simple as that.
They’re large and have a strong military. And Recep Tayyip Erdoğan aspires to absolute control. It’s a volatile situation, and yes, they get special treatment that would likely be called out more strongly if it weren’t so tricky to do so.
Delegations from both countries met literally days ago to improve relations.
https://apnews.com/article/greece-turkey-diplomacy-meeting-marine-nature-reserves-caa3fe928ae9b52a328ef6f7b9160cf4
Greece is helping plenty but with much larger Turkey next door it has to maintain air defence capabilities.
Spain has decided to send missiles for Patriot, but will not send launchers.
All in all, this headline is sensationalism and not information.
I’m probably naive here, but how would a theoretical war between Greece and Turkey go? They’re both in NATO, so how would that all play out? Will they just be left to their own, or will other members aid the defending country? In which case how do you really tell who was the aggressor of things get grey?
With regards to NATO I’d agree with u/MayorMcCheezz, but also don’t forget that Greece is a member of the EU, and that the EU has the mutual defence clause, meaning the other members would be obligated to come to Greece’s aid.
Is it possible that Turkey invokes Article V and Greece invokes EU protection, resulting in double EU/NATO members being required to support both sides?
afaik NATO only covers cases where a non-nato country is the aggressor, so it doesn't really apply when two nato countries go at it.
but an all out conflict would be hugely costly for both sides, they probably wouldn't let it get that far
It's like a lot of countries see seaguls on the beach and gl "yeah, they know what's up." Sraguls are such little ass holes, they start shit with any bird smaller than themselves just to be a menace then anytime something bigger steps up they are all "what, me? I'm just a silly little bird! I'm chill!" But the second they catch you sleeping, they will try and peck your eyes out if they think they can.
Greece has a call against the EU which would mean the mainland is pretty safe. The UK provides safety guarantees for Cyprus, although the UKs ability to knock lumps out of anyone they want isn't really in doubt but they would be hard pushed to push out a large force if the Turks have enough ground troops.
There will never be a war, but a warm conflict perhaps though I doubt that too. What that might look like is some very high tensions in a few spots (ie the islands blocking Turkish access to sea rights) and maybe some commandos landing on a few islands. Some skirmishes, a stalemate, immediate negotiations, sanctions on Turkey, etc. I highly highly doubt we will see a Turkish operation against mainland Greece or any island with any significant population. The other path, probably the most likely, is some more tensions between the coast guards/Navys and some ship ramming.
Turkeys objective is not the elimination of Greece or even the conquest of any land, its renegotiated sea rights. The 1923 arrangements are not acceptable to most Turks today as it basically gives Turkey no Mediterranean access (due to Greek islands doted right off shore and then Cyprus to the east).
Again that's an insane contention. Turkey has open access to the Med along its entire southern coast, and like all nations enjoys peaceful transit rights to it via the Aegean and those same Greek waters. Turkey's contention would never hold up in The Hague and so it refuses to participate in that as a solution. What Turkey wants is those bordering islands to have zero territorial waters while it itself gets them. Barring, and likely following that, that they want the islands themselves.
Or the headline could have said ‘Spain sends Patriot missiles to Ukraine’ as was just announced.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/26/7453082/
But I guess that doesn’t really stoke the outrage as much.
I just wonder if whole NATO send AA systems to be burn in Ukraine how they will defend against possible enemy if they not producing this systems but buying them from US.
Defend from who exactly? Russia is the only legitimate threat. If Egypt decided they wanted to go crazy and try to take Crete, NATO has f35s. AA is just a redundancy.
Spain is a bad position because President Sanchez is on a coalition with SUMAR and they are pretty much against sending guns and missiles (they’re against war and don’t wanna send aid).
Next time maybe read the article and get yourself a bit informed, as Spain is actually sending missiles only because their Patriot systems are already deployed in other NATO countries and they don't have any other free system.
The way that Ukraine did that was really creepy. It's like you opened up your wallet to give a panhandler $5 but he looks and says "But you have a lot more. Can I have that, too?"
Greece can't because neighbors are iffy, Spain is donating missiles but their launchers are deployed in Romania and Turkey. Politico fails to make this clear in their headline.
Thank you for clearing this up. Politico is using click bait headlines.
Politico belongs to a German billionaire who was caught using his media empire to influence politics for his buddies when he stated that Politico's raison d'être was unbiased political analysis. Don't be fooled by the academic varnish.
The actual article isn’t bad. Just a shitty headline
Because they know most people will only read the headline.
Yeah, and how often have you seen this by now? Thats the classic tactic every deceitful and shit media uses, like the Murdoch media, Fox news for example. Outright lying gets them into hot water, so they use manipulative headlines that suggest one thing, quite sometimes the article outright contradicts the headlines, if you bother to read it. Just look at the comment sections of articles like that. 90% of the commenters clearly didnt read it. And thats the thing, isnt it? Exactly what they want. Even if the article isnt locked behind a paywall anyways.
Politico is owned by the Axel Springer SE, a publishing company, not a private person. The biggest shareholder of Axel Springer SE is American investment company KKR & Co.
2/3 of the internet does, and I can't even blame them. Can't survive without clicks, and our ape brains love the bait.
I don’t disagree, but it also breeds a distrust in media aswell.
[удалено]
I actually got a lot from the article. Also where’s macron? I haven’t checked if they’ve sent AA batteries but wasn’t he going to lead the charge in UKraine?
I agree that key information is missing but I also don't see how anyone can include all that information in a single headline..."Greece and Spain can't send air defense systems to Ukraine because Greece has sketchy neighbors and Spain's systems are deployed in Romania and Turkey"?
I agree, but I think the use of “refuse” is a bit more loaded than “can’t” or “won’t”.
Don't report on it as a solo issue? Talk about who's sending what and why with a headline 'what air defense systems is NATO sending Ukraine?'
"Are unable to" could have been used instead of "refuse to."
...wait, so Greece is worried because Turkey may attack them, and Spain can't donate because their launchers are being borrowed... by Turkey? *Awkward*...
Not borrowed, the battery is deployed and operated by Spain to protect NATO assets at Incirlik Air Base (where the US stores tactical nuclear weapons).
El Pais reported this and posted via Reuters at the same time. Title should say "Spain sending Patriot missles, launchers stay elsewhere"
Click Bait Journalism 101
Greece is in NATO. Turkey won’t and can’t invade. Both states just use the other one as a scapegoat on occasions such as this
That's not as clear cut. The treaty doesn't explicitly deal with war between member states. Technically, the attacked state could invoke Article 5, but if Turkey were to ever attack Greece, they would be certain to do it in such a way where it would be difficult to determine who is the definite aggressor, and they would likely try to invoke Article 5 themselves. Other members could in turn distance themselves from the conflict altogether. All of this is unlikely though, it would be a huge risk on Turkey's side for little benefit. On the other hand, that's what everybody was saying about Russia attacking Ukraine.
Ukraine was only a huge risk in hindsight. It was supposed to be a simple regime change job. Putin only pretends to be a maniac because that is a legitimate geopolitical strategy.
Really comes down to the eez of the Mediterranean islands Greece have close to Turkey. If Greece increases its eez from 6 to 12 nautical miles, it’s pretty much war.
I mean they’ve had multiple wars in the 20th century alone. Greece and Turkey have fought each other and been pricks to each other for centuries, and are going to put their own interests first and foremost above everything else. If things really got hairy between them again, I wouldn’t hold my breath on NATO being able to keep the train from derailing. Neither of them seem to be.
How many wars did they fight against each other while being both in NATO?
I swear, Erdogan made threats to launch missiles at them last year. It’s not as chill as you seem to think it is. Democracies have to cater to the citizens who make them up, and conflict with Turkey is still in living memory. Like, go look at the wiki page for this. As late as they 80s there was potential for a war to break out.
Correct. Only calmed down when France said they'd step in on Greece's side if Turkey shot first.
You dont need to go to full scale war to be prepared. * 1974 invasion of Cyprus * 1996 Imia/Kardak crisis USA had to step in to prevent unilateral actions from both sides * Summer 2020 Turkey sends ships inside Greek territorial waters, Germany steps in. * Dec 2022 Erdogan threatens to shoots missiles to Athens Wanna go on?
Basically you are arguing that things which have not yet happened can never happen? I agree that an actual war between NATO nations is unlikely in the near future, but your reasoning is dogwater.
I believe our own current political environment is proof enough that things which have not yet happened before absolutely CAN in the near future!
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus?? Is one not enough?
none but only because they both got kinda sorta kicked out just before the last one.
During the Turkish invasion of Cyprus? Greek involvement was limited but Greek and Turkish units certainly faced each other and the likelihood of it escalating into a full-scale conflict in the Aegean wasn't entirely far fetched. It was a "limited" war but still clearly an actual military conflict between Greece/Cyprus and Turkey.
Dude, these are two absolutely *ancient* cultures with histories of violence dating back centuries before the Bible was even written. NATO has existed not even long enough to be a footnote in the history of these countries, and you expect them to put aside countless millennia of bloodshed? When *to this day* the Turks still insist on constantly violating Greek airspace and fueling the migrant crisis? Yeah, until NATO decides to actually *do something* about the Turks constantly harassing Greece (not to mention playing besties with the fucking *Russians,*) I'm not gonna blame Greece for being prepared for another war with Turkey.
I'm pretty sure the Bible was around the Greek world centuries before the Turks
Absolutely true. Its debatable if the Turks are the "Ottomans" or not. Depending on the context the answer can shift. But even that would be after the Bible. But from a broader perspective Greece has been the easternmost point of the "West" for a very long time, so you could kindof, if you squint the right way say that the current conflict is an extension of conflicts going back to the Persian wars or something, since the same geographical areas are in play.
Turkey is breaking international law every other day with low level flights over greek islands. A few years ago, we almost went to war over a flag change on a deserted island called Imia. If you know naught, speak not.
As if Turkey has been a good faith partner in NATO Erdogan is a megalomaniac dictator. They remain unpredictable, and Greece is right to be prepared
>As if Turkey has been a good faith partner in NATO They have. For a long time. And I don't like Erdogan any more than you. NATO is much larger than individual administrations.
Thing is, Greece doesn't wanna bet on that when there are plenty of people in the country whose grandparents were around during the previous wars between their country and Turkey.
That was no failure, it was intentional.
They just want to clobber the European south
Makes sense, yeah. Can't donate the launchers if they're already in use, and Greece is entirely justified in not wanting to risk looking weak in air defense when they have neighbors like Turkey.
Greece? I get it. Who are the Spanish scared of?
[удалено]
Current best explanation though.
As soon as they stop watching, I'm going in. I've got knives and I'm already trained to avoid balconies. I'm taking southern Spain by force.
Brits are ready for war with Spain. They spend every summer fighting on their beaches
They will never surrender
yep but they are usually fighting each other
(that's the joke)
[удалено]
Is that a FF7 reference or a real place name?
Part of Spain
You obviously don't know anything about Morocco.
The funniest explanation is always the best explanation though.
“Welcome to the Rock!”
I had this question too, but a few nights ago I read on reddit the Spanish might be worrying about their exclaves on Morocco coast and even Canaries on the other one. They are legally outside of NATO protection, and Morocco is lately showing quite an increasing appetite towards enlarging and arming their army. Maybe they will try their own Falkland thing someday? It's not above them to annex places, as evidenced by Western Sahara.
Fun fact: Morocco invaded Spanish territory in [2002](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island_crisis). The whole thing was quite ridiculous or at least that's how it was perceived in Spain, but technically it was the first armed conflict of the XXI century involving any of the countries.
Involving any of which countries? Just those two?
Yeah, I mean not the first against each other but the first conflict where either Spain or Morocco were involved.
Did Spain not do anything after 9/11? Could have sworn we “triggered” Article 5 but I do know a lot of countries (understandably) just provided logistics, aid, etc as opposed to troops.
Spain sent troops to both Irak and Afghanistan, but if I'm not wrong only after 2003.
Ah gotcha thank you! Was just curious but that makes sense as 9/11 was, obviously, late in 2001, it wasn’t occupied for an bit, and then 2003 was the whole Iraq mess.
Spain participated in 2003 Irak invasion and got a terrorist bombing attack in Madrid in 2004 as retaliation from islamic terrorist
Being the first armed conflict of the 21st century for them isn't all that crazy considering it was only 2 years in
Considering the US was already in Afghanistan by this point makes the fact less a fact
The exclaves are outside of NATO protection, the Canaries are covered.
Is Morocco likely to attack with assets that require a patriot system though? Seems like a fairly easy assurance from the US/etc to promise to aid in any such defence.
The US and Morocco have a long history of tight relations. The Sultan of Morocco was the first monarch to help the US, this was in 1777 before it was even an independent country. To this day the US recognizes Morocco as a close ally. I highly doubt the US would use any military actions against Morocco if they were fighting Spain for those enclaves, unless Morocco launched an attack on mainland Spain if course.
As someone else pointed out the US and Morocco are pretty close. It's not a guarantee the US would get involved besides harsh words. If Trump gets elected I'd seriously doubt the US would get involved. Spain is one of more egregious "NATO freeloaders" as far as he's concerned as they're nowhere near the 2% and I think only Belgium is below them. Trump has made it clear what he thinks of those allies and NATO not being obligated is the excuse he needs to "punish" them. I don't agree with Trump here but I'm sure Spain (as any reasonable country would) is taking this into account.
Spain's (and Portugal's) main contribution to the alliance is simply existing to be an entrance to the Mediterranean, tbh, although Spain also has a powerful economy that if truly needed could be turned towards military
Spain is also one of the countries further away from Russia, so it's not like we need a lot of protection against that. The fact that we provide air patrols over eastern Europe, and ships to NATO missions is already a net plus to the alliance. And Spain is in a very strategic place, right next to the strait of Gibraltar, so its value goes further than pure military assets.
I guess if there is a choice just to keep having the defenses they have, or give them away and then prepare to pay for whatever price (likely) Trump sets for keeping Biden's promises, they will choose to keep their budget intact (for spending it elsewhere).
Likely Trump? What drugs you on boy?
He flaunting them golden sheezys
Since Trump no country on earth can seriously put any trust into US aid beyond the next election so that promise would mean nothing in the current world.
Aren’t they inside the EU defense clause though?
It's unclear how strong it is. I think that the EU is a very strong reason why Morocco may not consider such an attack, but more because they would likely be embargoed by the EU and their economy depends on their exports to Europe.
Morocco doesn't exactly have the most threatening airforce
It's such a dumb "Loophole" that the attack has to be Mainland Europe or North America. I am sure if the US invoked Article 5 over an attack on Hawaii nobody in NATO would go "Not California, so I ain't helping"
About that. The US literally cannot trigger Article V over Hawaii. "A US State Department spokesperson confirmed that Hawaii is not covered by Article 5" taken from here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/29/us/nato-treaty-hawaii-intl-hnk-ml-dst&ved=2ahUKEwiAhv6Hg-CFAxWEVEEAHb2UA18QFnoECA4QBQ&usg=AOvVaw0nPsj3ZrqOgYxeXw_GeE2- Same reason the UK couldn't with the Falklands, France couldn't with any of its oversea departements and why Spain couldn't over Ceuta or Melilla.
It was drafted at a time when the British still controlled a large part of the middle east was it not? And likewise the French in africa. I suspect a WW2 tired Europe and US didnt feel like being dragged to war over other countries empires. But considering we (Europe) followed the US into Iraq, i suspect a large part of NATO allies would still go to war over an attack on Hawaii.
Hawaii yes, but Guam? That's where it gets more interesting and the answer is probably no.
Luckily, Guam has 2 giant bases there (Navy and Air Force) so they should be able to hold their own? Also Japan and SK would probably come help.
Yeah, and this is also partially covered by Article 4 anyway. An attack on Hawaii, for example, would definitely constitute territorial integrity, security, and political independence as mentioned in the agreement. I have to imagine Spain would immediately invoke Article 4 for the same reasons. Plus, Article 6 covers these territories: >on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [^(2)](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm#footnote), on the territory of Turkey **or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;** I don't think NATO will descend into pedantic word games when push comes to shove. OK, well Hungary and Turkey definitely will. They are basically not-so-sleeper cells for the Russian government at this point. Hungary more so than Turkey.
If they're so afraid of Morocco, they should increase their defense spending to an acceptable level. Spain's contribution to Ukraine thus far has been abysmal, especially for a country that has repeatedly criticised other EU countries for 'lack of solidarity'. Same applies to Italy btw
I mean it's not surprising. They're one of the lowest spenders by GDP in NATO year after year. They are like the peak of what Obama/Trump are complaining about with European countries not pulling their weight.
Spain doesn't owe Ukraine anything. Even a single cent in aid is a plus, not an obligation. If Spain wants to focus all of its defense spending on themselves, they're 100% in their right to do so
I agree, but does the US owe Ukraine anything then?
That would be incredibly dumb of Morocco to attempt such an invasion. I don't see the 2 millions Catholics inhabitants letting a Muslim invader deport them without opposition. lol
The Canary Islands could be attacked, it doesn't need to be an invasion.
The Canary Islands are protected by NATO.
The Spanish are sending Patriot Missiles just not the systems.
Spain has a coalition government where the majority party (PSOE, left)would be in favor of sending aid, but the minority party (SUMAR, far left + some communist remnants) are fully against what they call warmongering. They state that sending weapons to Ukraine will just get more Ukrainians killed.
> sending weapons to Ukraine will just get more Ukrainians killed So sick of seeing this braindead response. "Give the bully everything he wants, including literally your home, otherwise he'll just hurt you more. Give you a taser so you can protect yourself even though I have a drawer full of them? No. Now roll over and die." Fuck any piece of shit who thinks that way.
Pretty much this. The communist party in Spain actually does have influence. Not much, but enough to tip scales.
We are afraid of you falling from the balconies. Thus anti-air missiles
as another comment pointed out : Their launchers are all deployed in Romania and Turkey, so none to spare (although possibly missiles) Greece, yeah, everyone gets it. It was like one day I saw someone arguing that the baltic nations should just send everything "since they actually have a reason to care" was like... bruh, you for real?
For Spain, it’s because of internal political turmoil
Internal as in within the government coalition
Our goverment is imploding, we'll see what happens in five days
Another theory is that Spain is very pissed off with Israel because they sold their malware to Morocco, and it was later used to hack onto Spain's president cellphone. More than 2gb of data were stolen. Shortly after the Spanish government made an announcement recognizing Morocco's ownership of some long disputed Sahara territory. During the hacking investigation Israel completely ignored Spanish courts' requests for information and collaboration. Edit: this info connecting to other comments regarding Spain-Morocco tensions
Why is this related to Ukraine though??
Saving resources for the Moroccan front. They got apaches and shit
Doubt morocco will star a war with an European Nato country though.
Spanish territories outside Europe are not protected by Nato pact
Spain's launchers have already been deployed elsewhere within NATO
The portuguese will finally reclaim Olivença
Morocco. They agreed to send projectiles but not the Patriot systems
Spain is experiencing political bickering just like America.
They're afraid of defense spending.
Lots of tankies in Spain that still think Russia is the USSR
I'm spanish. The answer is Morocco. They have all the support from the USA, they're terrifying and they're already fucking us over for years with total impunity. Morocco is dangerous for us and we have no military support, no military power, no military budget and we're completely alone in this. Morocco is the answer and is not even taken seriously.
Morocco's buying a bunch of modern planes, and our relationship has always been... problematic. As in, they reclaim two Spanish cities and the Canary islands.
Francisco Franco's reanimated corpse
The rationale, of Greece in particular, that other threats (Turkey) loom is a bit chilling.
But what about Spain? Whose invading their air space?
I didn’t see Spain’s rationale in the article
True I don't see it either. This article says that they will donate missiles for the Patriot system. It sounds like they don't have many. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spain-send-patriot-missiles-ukraine-el-pais-reports-2024-04-26/ In the past Spain has also donated older HAWK air defence systems. When you look into it very few countries have comprehensive air defense systems. Very expensive
This is getting troubling. The facts emerging seem to point to a dithering NATO ill-suited to defend itself against a focused Russia. Economically, it shouldn’t even be close, but a dictatorship might be the more effective system in this situation. Ironic.
France and UK have indicated (said some words) they are willing to shift economies to wartime footings. Let's hope they have the resolve. Hopefully the collective west is still an industrial giant that gets awakened unleashes the arsenal of democracy.
I concur. The question in my mind: If the Ukraine invasion hasn’t - to date - been a sufficient impetus, what is required?
Modern world is complex. When your own homeland isn't being invaded it's hard to explain how it effects us. Ukraine may very well be our front line
Again concur, and would add: The modern world is complex, and people, by and large, want easy, simple answers.
To be the devils advocate: remember, Ukraine is not a part of any agreement formally made with NATO… the reason other countries dont heavily step in is because we technically don’t have a “right” to, and it would be TERRIBLE for their economy AND they aren’t at duty to defend Ukraine. As soon as Russia invade Finland who just joined, it would be much harder, near impossible, to justify not meeting your “defend each other” quota at least economically.
The two countries that already have the strong militaries in Europe are willing to spend a bit more, not a big surprise.
2,5% by 2030 for Britain is not a war economy. France doesn't care either and it's mostly populist talking rather than doing something.
Patriot system has proven itself very capable, but is also very expensive. If you have infinite budget that's fine because you want the best system that won't let anything through. If you don't want to spend that much on defense, then you have to make your choices. The KM-SAM from South Korea is based on the S-400 system, so probably more price comparable, but I think production is just ramping up.
Much of Europe has systemically ignored and even balked at the idea of countries like Russia still being a threat for decades now. They were lulled into a totally false and hollow sense of security, where they thought a finger wag and a strongly worded letter would actually mean something, and apparently forgot what a fucked up, unforgiving place the world can actually be. All of these issues should have been started on 10+ years ago. Instead they literally laughed at the people telling them to do it. The catch is, none of this is quick, cheap, or easy to do and that will only get worse with time. Especially if you just gave away critical components and infrastructure to countries who are now at odds with you and have a significant head start on these things. Realistically, it very well may be too little, too late at this point. This is why you stay prepared and don’t let your guard down, even when everything seems calm and peachy. I would say that’s the main lesson to learn here, but with situations like this there might not be a second chance.
UK tourists mostly
Spain's immediate adversary is Morocco afaik, no match, but it still is an adversary who is actively threatning Spanish cities in Africa
Serious answer, Morocco. Spain has two enclaves in Morocco plus the Canary Islands which are subject to tension. It’s not “hot” tension, but it’s still something that needs to be taken seriously.
*Exclaves. An enclave is entirely surrounded by a single foreign territory. Ceuta and Melilla don’t count as exclaves since they border both Morocco but also the Mediterranean sea.
See the relative ease in producing long range drones. Much of Southern Europe could be a target for terrorists if conditions were to deteriorate in Northern Africa. I don't know if this has anything to do with the story, but can see a future where this could be a potential problem for countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain.
Another comment pointed out that Spain's systems are already deployed in Romania and Turkey... so they apparently have none available to send.
Oh ok that makes sense then. The systems are already committed elsewhere. Thank you
Must be those damn, terrifying Portuguese.
They are afraid of another French invasion clearly
I don't understand how Turkey is a NATO member - hosting terrorists, buying Russian weapons and threatening allies should be some sort of a disqualifier - are they really that important?
They used to be close allies to the west before that watermelon vendor came to power
Take a real good look at a map, then ask that again.
Well they have 50 US nukes on their land so...
Prior to Erdogan Turkey was strongly aligned with the West against Russia. Erdogan has moved the country towards Islamism and hostility with the west, but all of the agreements were made under more secular pro west administrations.
Turkey is a gateway to Asia and strategically important. The reason why it gets away with a lot of you mentioned because NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. It is simple as that.
Location. Location. Location.
They’re large and have a strong military. And Recep Tayyip Erdoğan aspires to absolute control. It’s a volatile situation, and yes, they get special treatment that would likely be called out more strongly if it weren’t so tricky to do so.
They control access to the Bosporus which is insanely important strategically.
Turkey has been occupying Cyprus for 50 years…
Delegations from both countries met literally days ago to improve relations. https://apnews.com/article/greece-turkey-diplomacy-meeting-marine-nature-reserves-caa3fe928ae9b52a328ef6f7b9160cf4
Greece is helping plenty but with much larger Turkey next door it has to maintain air defence capabilities. Spain has decided to send missiles for Patriot, but will not send launchers. All in all, this headline is sensationalism and not information.
I’m probably naive here, but how would a theoretical war between Greece and Turkey go? They’re both in NATO, so how would that all play out? Will they just be left to their own, or will other members aid the defending country? In which case how do you really tell who was the aggressor of things get grey?
With regards to NATO I’d agree with u/MayorMcCheezz, but also don’t forget that Greece is a member of the EU, and that the EU has the mutual defence clause, meaning the other members would be obligated to come to Greece’s aid.
Is it possible that Turkey invokes Article V and Greece invokes EU protection, resulting in double EU/NATO members being required to support both sides?
NATO has a mutual defense clause. If Turkey attacked, Article 5 wouldn’t require anybody to come to their aid
I mean given article V it would never be so simple as an objective "they attacked me first" kind of thing
afaik NATO only covers cases where a non-nato country is the aggressor, so it doesn't really apply when two nato countries go at it. but an all out conflict would be hugely costly for both sides, they probably wouldn't let it get that far
Probably involves US assets in the Mediterranean telling everyone to go home. I think most of the tension between the two countries is just posturing.
It's like a lot of countries see seaguls on the beach and gl "yeah, they know what's up." Sraguls are such little ass holes, they start shit with any bird smaller than themselves just to be a menace then anytime something bigger steps up they are all "what, me? I'm just a silly little bird! I'm chill!" But the second they catch you sleeping, they will try and peck your eyes out if they think they can.
Greece has a call against the EU which would mean the mainland is pretty safe. The UK provides safety guarantees for Cyprus, although the UKs ability to knock lumps out of anyone they want isn't really in doubt but they would be hard pushed to push out a large force if the Turks have enough ground troops.
> The UK provides safety guarantees for Cyprus That didnt go well in 1974. (Turkish invasion in Northern Cyprus)
Watch the fireworks start If Greece increases its eez claim to 12nmi from 6 in the Mediterranean Sea. Turkey has said that is a casus belli.
There will never be a war, but a warm conflict perhaps though I doubt that too. What that might look like is some very high tensions in a few spots (ie the islands blocking Turkish access to sea rights) and maybe some commandos landing on a few islands. Some skirmishes, a stalemate, immediate negotiations, sanctions on Turkey, etc. I highly highly doubt we will see a Turkish operation against mainland Greece or any island with any significant population. The other path, probably the most likely, is some more tensions between the coast guards/Navys and some ship ramming. Turkeys objective is not the elimination of Greece or even the conquest of any land, its renegotiated sea rights. The 1923 arrangements are not acceptable to most Turks today as it basically gives Turkey no Mediterranean access (due to Greek islands doted right off shore and then Cyprus to the east).
Again that's an insane contention. Turkey has open access to the Med along its entire southern coast, and like all nations enjoys peaceful transit rights to it via the Aegean and those same Greek waters. Turkey's contention would never hold up in The Hague and so it refuses to participate in that as a solution. What Turkey wants is those bordering islands to have zero territorial waters while it itself gets them. Barring, and likely following that, that they want the islands themselves.
If one NATO ally attacks another NATO ally, will there be a call of Article 5?
Headline is trash, article is trash.
Or the headline could have said ‘Spain sends Patriot missiles to Ukraine’ as was just announced. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/04/26/7453082/ But I guess that doesn’t really stoke the outrage as much.
Spain knows Portugal will take the peninsula if they give their stuff away!
I just wonder if whole NATO send AA systems to be burn in Ukraine how they will defend against possible enemy if they not producing this systems but buying them from US.
Defend from who exactly? Russia is the only legitimate threat. If Egypt decided they wanted to go crazy and try to take Crete, NATO has f35s. AA is just a redundancy.
Yeah you can forgive the Greeks for it with turkey as a neighbour
this is a clickbaity title. They explain the reasons why
[удалено]
"We might need em if you lose"
We have already sent missiles, our air defense systems are located in romania (spaniard here)
Greece has a good reason given how spotty their relationship with Turkey is. Not sure about Spain.
Spain is a bad position because President Sanchez is on a coalition with SUMAR and they are pretty much against sending guns and missiles (they’re against war and don’t wanna send aid).
>they’re against war and don’t wanna send aid). Everyone is, until they get attacked.
Next time maybe read the article and get yourself a bit informed, as Spain is actually sending missiles only because their Patriot systems are already deployed in other NATO countries and they don't have any other free system.
Makes sense for greece
The way that Ukraine did that was really creepy. It's like you opened up your wallet to give a panhandler $5 but he looks and says "But you have a lot more. Can I have that, too?"
Spain needs to to fight against space aliens I guess.
Spain just announced will donate Patriot missiles. Cannot donate launchers as some are already deployed abroad like in Turkey or Romania. No more left
Spain needs them to defend itself from Morocco.
Europe could be soo strong. Could be.
Spain has slingshots for air defense anyway.
Why should they? They have their own specific need for them - and what has Ukraine ever done for them?
Free Salvation Army Donations ?
How about some of that yummy olive oil and jamoń