(TASS) NATO’s decision to join the coalition against the Islamic State has little to offer since all the NATO countries are already involved in that coalition in one way or another, the Russian Ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko told Rossiya’24 news channel.

“They endorsed an action plan that envisions NATO as an organization will join the anti-IS coalition led by the U.S. but from the standpoint of added value of the motion this step has little to offer, since all the member-states of the alliance all, I’m stressing are already involved in that very same coalition,” Grushko said.

Earlier on Thursday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said NATO had decided to join the U.S.-led coalition fighting with the Islamic State grouping in Syria and Iraq. He announced the decision as he addressed a news conference upon completion of the NATO summit in Brussels.

Up to date, NATO as an organization was not a member of the coalition but accorded assistance to it on the terms of partnership. NATO’s AWACS planes make regular reconnaissance flights along Turkey’s border with Syria and along the Syrian coast without crossing over into the latter country’s airspace.

In addition to it, NATO is training cadres for the Iraqi Armed Forces.

More:
http://tass.com/world/947732

Advertisements
Share this article:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 2
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    2
    Shares
ALSO READ  Breaking: Jihadists attempt to attack Hmeimim Airbase in western Syria

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Member
Master
Upvoted
Commenter
Flay the Daeshbags

Meanwhile, Russia’s “missile-defense system” failed to prevent American destroyers from firing missiles at an air base.

Member
Regular
Upvoted
Commenter
brdlip

IKR! 59 Tomahawks and the base was up and running 2 days after te attack. Then Russians cancelled any coordination with USA on the field (your F22’s are free game, Donnie). Then Tillerson *rushed* to Moscow. Then everything is back fine.

Can’t you smell something strange may have happened behind the courtains regarding this attack?

Daeshbags Sux
Member
Master
Upvoted
Rookie Mentor
Commenter
Daeshbags Sux

Which was a false attack after a false flag. It was purely tailored to shut the f**k up the Killary klan that led a violent anti-Trump campaign. BTW, it was synchronised with a dinner with Chinese prez but again, the target was domestic politics. BTW, you want to ruin an airbase, you don’t use classic warheads against aircraft hardened shelters but ‘bunker-busters’, you don’t warn the Russian you’re gonna strike there and you use specialized anti-runway ammos, like those in the MBDA Apache cruise missile or or anything alike their 60’s Durandall bombs. These pierce the runway concrete to then… Read more »

Floriangeyer
Member
Active Member
Master
Commenter
Upvoted
Floriangeyer

The Not Always Trustworthy Organisation has a lot to answer for. The least being the colossal wast of taxpayers cash by this self serving cabal of warmongers since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Daeshbags Sux
Member
Master
Upvoted
Rookie Mentor
Commenter
Daeshbags Sux

Strangely, there may be less that 2-3 NATO countries spending the sum they’re supposed to in their military!
Take Germany, they spend about $32-33bln while they should spend $85bln, France spends $53.8 while it should be about $70-75bln (more than Russia for both). Only USA exceeds 2% of GDP they’re supposed to spend by the NATO charter.