Correct

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get how that link is relevant to the discussion here?

Is it an example of a treaty that failed?

If a NATO country is attacked, NATO has to respond.
Article 5 says that an armed attack on one NATO country is an armed attack on all NATO countries, and is kindof a cornerstone of the whole alliance.
I'm pretty sure they'd have to "care", If they don't, they can just as well dismantle NATO since it serves no purpose anymore.

Yes and no.

Yes, because when the agreement is invoked that is exactly correct. When invoked, the text of the treaty says that they agree an armed attack against any of the nations is considered an armed attack against them all, and each nation will take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

No, for multiple reasons.

First, the treaty must be invoked. There have been plenty of armed conflict in and around NATO countries over the last 60 years that did not invoke the treaty. It is not part of the text of the treaty, but it is part of global politics, nations generally must specifically invoke treaties, saying "Hey allies, we need assistance."

Second, note that even if they did invoke the treaty each nation gets to do what it deems necessary to restore security. In this case it was a single jet fighter that (allegedly) crossed the border. That immediate threat has been dealt with.

Third, if there is a longer-term threat that will need to be addressed as a longer-term action. As others have written, Russia has a long established pattern of posturing and pushing up against other nations. They fly directly to Sweden and other nations with transponders off in an aggressive posture. They test other nation's response times and probe how long it takes for them to respond. They fly right against the borders of other nation's air space. That is stupid and risky, because exactly this situation can happen. If you keep threatening and posturing and stop at the last instant with "just kidding!", sooner or later somebody is going to respond to your threats and posturing but because of your history of threats nobody will come to your aid.

So even though yes, NATO has a treaty that covers this, no, the treaty has not yet been invoked, no, other nations are not obligated to respond because the immediate threat is dealt with, and no, other nations are not bound to take pro-active long term actions if they choose not to.

Russia has been setting themselves up with a lose-lose situation globally by the posturing. Friends don't constantly make jabs at their friends; friends respect borders and treat others with respect. When one (a person or a nation) is constantly probing and threatening and posturing they get known as a bully. If the bully beats someone up the bully is at fault. If someone attacks and provokes the bully the bully is STILL considered at fault, because of their history. So even if Russia is correct that the jet didn't cross the border, globally they have weakened themselves because of how frequently they have threatened and postured. When you act the bully and someone punches you in the face, people cheer rather than come to your aid.

Russia's leaders seem to forget this frequently. When you are on good terms you don't need to make threats, you can be polite and kind. When you are confident you don't need to challenge your neighbors and test their response times. Even though they believe the acts are big and tough, they are a sign of insecurity and (possibly feigned) weakness. Russia shows a strong case of "little man" syndrome: someone who acts tough and aggressive because they are really small and weak unwittingly are disrespecting others and acting in ways drawing disrespect; big and tough men don't need to be aggressive, they don't need to lash out, they tend to act in a way that deserves respect and consequently be respected.

So even though yes, NATO has a treaty that covers this, no, the treaty has not yet been invoked, no, other nations are not obligated to respond because the immediate threat is dealt with, and no, other nations are not bound to take pro-active long term actions if they choose not to.

I never meant to imply this incident was grounds to invoke article 5.

I don't think the article even could be invoked, since just violating airspace is not an armed attack.

It would be different if Russia decided to respond to what they view as a violation when their aircraft was attacked. (luckily it seems the Russians are wiser then that)

Article 5 is more then just a treaty, its one of the cornerstones of NATO, without it, it's not much of an alliance anymore.

I'm not so worried about this particular incident as I'm worried about the trend it seems to be part of, and what incidents it could be a catalyst for in the future.

If a NATO country is attacked, NATO has to respond.

Well yes, but the point is, they were not attacked. They shot down that airplane, not the other way around. If you provoke a war by shooting at airplanes, you cannot rely that everybody else is letting you drag them into the conflict (though admittedly such things have happened in history).

Just wondered if you didn't notice that occupation when letting Cypriots into EU? (Maybe you also didn't notice that before accession, Cypriot Turks approved a plan reuniting island while Greek Cypriots rejected.) Who told EU to let them in?

You really have to ask? Socialists, most notably Schröder, who else. Even Merkel cannot do as much evil as Schröder has done during his rule. She tries hard to lead us to doom, but it's just impossible to compete in malicious incompetence with a Red-Green government.

Everybody knew that neither Greece nor Cyprus should have entered the EU, and that this would inevitably lead to a major issue (both for them and for the community). But socialists don't care about whether a decision is desastrous. On the contrary, the more everything goes down the drain, the stronger the proletariate gets. Which is the very part of the population that elects socialists, so that's exactly what they want. Ugh, my blood pressure...

And for that more agreeable pace, seems you mean better than "no progress at last 5 years" so "literally better than nothing"

Well, from an objective point of view, you have to agree that "no progress" is the right thing, though. Turkey is not ready to even think about joining the EU. Not in any way. Yes, similar can be said about most other present candidates, and it is also true for several ones (not just Greece and Cyprus) who did join. But that doesn't change the fact that Turkey (Erdogan in particular) is totally not ready and no-go for the EU as it stands.
But I understand that you cannot agree with this point of view since that would mean putting your freedom and your life at risk. Which is the very problem, it's one of the very reasons why Turkey isn't ready.

Nevertheless, it's been on the table with negotiations about the fugitives, along with no-visa-for-Turks and considering Turkey a safe country (effectively making it impossible for Kurds to flee, even when they are being hunted and killed) and 2 billion Euros (if I remember correctly) into Erdogan's pocket.

I couldn't care less about Kurds on my own but that doesn't mean I want them dead, I want them gone ( I am not buying integrationist policies ), let them have their Kurdistan (which is de facto already present at Iraq) and live happily ever after there. Unlike majority in Turkey, I am even ok with getting rid of some of southeastern Turkey where they vote around 70%-90% for Kurdish party.

I congratulate you on being the probably most tolerant Turk whom I have met in my life. If everybody was like that, the world would be a better place. Unluckily, I have the feeling that Erdogan will not quite agree with that opinion.

I don't recall a Jewish terrorist organization killing over 30K people

It is almost always problematic throwing the "T" word (terrorist) at someone too easily. Who is a terrorist? This depends not only on whom you ask, but also on who wins the conflict.

We had the RAF killing people (mostly politicians and wealthy civilians) here in Germany because they somehow didn't agree with our state and had some perverted idea of their own order. Are they terrorists? By all means. Terrorists, and criminals, and if you are a proponent of death penalty who is looking for a positive argument, there you go. Look no further.

Are the IS terrorists? I think nobody will doubt that.

Were the French Résistance fighters terrorists? They did more or less the same thing, but are commonly considered heroes, not terrorists. What is the difference? Well, for one reason, they rarely killed someone who didn't "deserve" it. There's a difference between killing a SS man and a civilian. Also, they were fighting against an enemy who invaded their lands and who was vastly superior from a military point of view. They could not engage in an open fight since that would have meant their immediate and certain demise. So they went the underground route. Was that heroic or terroristic? History tells us: heroic.

Aha! So... are the PLO terrorists or heroes? Are the IRA terrorists? Now it's difficult to tell. While I don't agree with their methods (in particular when they detonate a bomb in an airplane or in a public place where civilians, possibly people whom I know might get injured!), I concede that they are to some extent right, and they may have some valid, legitimate reason for what they have been and are doing, evil as it may be.

The Palestinians were driven off their lands, and all political and pseudo-legal arguments and nitpicks aside (such as no functional government at that time), the fact remains that they were driven off their lands. As such, they have every fucking right to fight and to resist. Now of course, their opponent has assault rifles, tanks, cruise missles, and even nuclear weapons. In open combat, they will be mowed down in seconds, and forgotten by history. So really, what can they do but go underground? Can you blame them? Well yes, you can blame them if someone whom you love and who has never hurt anyone is killed. But you cannot really blame them in general. If someone drove me off my lands, I would do the same (and you would, too!). You could even go as far as saying that if such an injustice is being dealt to you and your people, you not only have the right, but the obligation to resist.

Were the US independence fighters terrorists? You go ahead and tell me. They weren't driven off their lands, but they didn't want to pay tax to the King of England (who was their rightful ruler by all means). Traitors? Terrorists? Heroes? You tell me.

You see, it's not that easy. So... are the PKK terrorists? And in particular, if the PKK are terrorists, are all Kurds terrorists? Do they have to tolerate that (assuming that what I've seen regularly on media during the last 4 decades, is true) that entire villages of them are destroyed, women and children killed? With bombs and gas, and with whatnot? Do you expect them to just let this happen and do nothing? They may be terrorists, but there is something to it which at least somehow justifies them being.

What I see, and this is why I compare the Kurds to the Jews is that they are subject to the same behavioural pattern. And besides, "we" in the light of Islam Terror are subject to the same pattern, too. A large group of people does not outright commit murder, but they silently agree with it, giving the murderers acceptance, confirmation, and protection.

The generation of my grand-grand parents killed Jews. My grandparents were about 13-14 years old at that time, so I may assume they didn't. However, both my grand-grand father and his brother were in the SA, the latter being a commanding officer. Even if they didn't kill anyone themselves (they didn't survive the 1st of July 1934, so they didn't have that much of an occasion), they helped establishing the regime that murdered millions. But more importantly, every single one of the countless hypocrites who "were never with them" and who never said a word, but secretly agreed and smiled when nobody could see it is just as guilty.

If nobody was behind Adolf, how the heck could all that happen? Surely, if a mildly gifted Austrian postcard painter decided to raid Poland alone, the Polish would just give him a good tolchocking and drive him out of their country. If that same Austrian decided to kill all Jews, what would happen? Nothing. But it did happen, because there were enough Germans actively supporting him and whoever didn't actively support him did so passively.

Now let's turn to present-day Muslim Terror. I will tell you a tale from someone whom I call a "good Muslim", and what I think is wrong with the others.

That "good Muslim" is a ca. 50 year old runing a barber shop in a city in south-western France. He's doing the magic thingie of cutting hair with a real old-fashion razor blade, and he is good at it (my wife will go on an airplane to get her hair cut). His shop is like the bazaar of the Algerian quarter, there's always crazy action in there, people coming and going and chatting. A lot of people only come for a cup of coffee or some other business, too (not for a haircut). It's like going through a door and entering a different world. He is also a hell of a Muslim. That kind of Muslim that doesn't eat or drink before sunset when it's feasting time (but still goes to work) and that kind that prays to Allah five times per day, the only valid excuse for not praying being dead.
But he agrees that not everybody is a Muslim, and I feel well-accepted with him and his family (in fact, he proudly introduces me to everybody who comes into his shop since I'm a doctor/scholar -- which, unlike in my own culture, actually means something to them). He is not at all what -- if you know no Muslim -- you would expect from a Muslim, indeed he is super tolerant, and even agrees that "my god" and "his god" are the same, we only have different prophets (he calls Jesus a prophet). Some 2-3 years ago when those controversial Muhammad carricatures were around, he told me that he disapproved of it, not because it was a sacrileg or such, but because some people take it very seriously and it creates needless hate, and you must respect all prophets, not just the one from your own religion. This is a matter of decency and respect for each other, he said. I can't really tell that he is wrong.

So, one day about 9 or 10 months ago, there's this guy that walks by and spots the shampooing girl. Typical southern shampooing girl, bronze skin, make-up and a short skirt, and with the legs for it. Typical Muslim Trouble guy, in the early 20s with Salafist beard and crazy eyes, and wearing a pyjama in the street. Trouble Guy sees the girl, turns, steps in, and shouts: "Fucking whore!" followed by some curses in a language (Arabian?) that I don't understand. From his gestures and the way the girl turned pale, I'm guessing it was something like "the fucking witch will burn".

Courageous Barber gets a red head almost instantly, shouts, and throws the curling iron at Trouble Guy. Both shout in unknown tongues, a short brawl follows, then Trouble Guy takes back two steps, and I think he pulled a knife. I admittedly didn't see the knife, but the two young men sitting to my left and right jumped up and drew knives, so I guess they saw it (or, something). So I'm thinking "Oh shit..." when the neighbour, a Maroc owning a leather shop, comes in swinging a clothes rail and starts beating Trouble Guy, also shouting in foreign tongues. Trouble Guy starts running, Maroc shouting and running after him (for as long as a well-obese 50-year old will run).

So, with that guy gone, Mr. Courageous Barber tells me: "I am sorry for that. This bastard. That is not what the prophet tells us, it is people like him who poison young people and make everybody think bad of Muslim. What he says is perverse, this is not what we will agree with" (I still don't know what he said). And Maroc Leatherseller adds: "I like to live here, and it is good. I will not let them take that away from me".

That's what all Muslims should be like. Unluckily, they are not. And here we're back to what I said earlier about the time of my grand-grand parents. If you look away and silently agree, you are just as guilty. Because if you say nothing, and do nothing, you confirm these people.

Which of the superpowers, or nations involved in the Syria conflict *aren't* known as bastardous bullies?
Seems very strange to single Russia out, as if the other players there actually have better reputations...

Oh I agree there, the world has plenty of national bullies to go around. Most major powers act as bullies.

In this case I'm not talking about the full-on attacks to other nations. To be sure the US has blacked their own eye in the name of helping the world, and they aren't alone.

I'm talking about the poking and prodding and the little 'psych-out' trips that look like an armed attack that gets aborted at the border.

For the past few decades, Russia has been particularly aggressive towards its neighbors as others have pointed out. You don't see the US running beacon-less fighter jets on a direct path to other nation's military centers. French bombers don't turn off their transponders and head on a bee-line to Geneva turning back right at the borders. German fighters don't fly halfway from Dresden to Prague then turn around and fly back just to see how long it takes for Czech forces to scramble a defense. Russia, on the other hand, has been quite aggressive about poking other nation's borders. That is what I am referring to.

Good, really, it shows that Turkey's willing to defend their airspace. This shouldn't happen in the future because Russia will avoid violating NATO airspace.

Also, there's 2 parts to the issue. The Russian jet was shot down, yes, however, the pilot ejected safely, and was then shot to death by Turkish forces as he was descending (Can't get the video right now, but google it and it should turn up). I think there's something in NATO's agreement about not shooting down stranded parachuters... Maybe I'm wrong on that.

+1

Pretty much... don't like Turkey's current president, same autocratic errrh.... person as russias current president, but he did the right thing.

Even IF it is true and the russian jet was shot down as it was entering syrian airspace again (which would make the "didn't listen to warnings" part a little harder to swallow), that will hopefully make the russian military keep a safe distance to turkish borders. Which is good, means the non-ISIS rebels have something of a safe zone.

And just shows the russians that there is a limit how far you can go with provoking others, which hopefully means they are more careful in the future when violating other countries airspaces all over europe.

Now all turkey has to do is become more active and actually help in the fight against ISIS, so that their borders don't become a safe zone for ISIS. I am not so sure this in Erdogans best interest, or that he even cares about it, but I hope the NATO will force him to help out now.

You don't see the US running beacon-less fighter jets on a direct path to other nation's military centers.

No, instead we see them violate the Swedish border with their transponders shut off. The Russian jets are more aggressive (and almost caused a collision with a civilian airliner) but that doesn't make the first violation any less severe.