What's new

Turkey and Hungary should be suspended from NATO

NATO certainly backed Turkey. Since Turkey did not invoke Article 4, they are handling the negotiations.

View attachment 914144
NATO as an organization, yes.

Individual members? Absolutely not, and let's not pretend otherwise.

For example, you had the Greeks outright backing Russia and saying Turkey lied. You also had German and (i believe, i could be wrong on this one) French ministers questioning Turkey's statement of events.

By the way, you switched from speaking about Germany to speaking about NATO as a whole.

Also, I don't think you know what Article 4 intails.

Also, the apology came because of pressure from Europe. @Dehydrated Trisolaran
 
Last edited:
For example, you had the Greeks outright backing Russia and saying Turkey lied.
Because that's what they do here too. They've been lying their asses. Their tactic is to present black as white. If I was someone who lived in a far away country or let's say somewhere in Western or Northern Europe,I might have said "Oh it's those Russians,they always lie". But we've been dealing with this for decades,so we don't buy announcements by the Turkish government,especially Erdogan's.
 
Because that's what they do here too. They've been lying their asses. Their tactic is to present black as white. If I was someone who lived in a far away country or let's say somewhere in Western or Northern Europe,I might have said "Oh it's those Russians,they always lie". But we've been dealing with this for decades,so we don't buy announcements by the Turkish government,especially Erdogan's.
It was a clear cut situation. It doesn't matter what Greeks thought about Turkey, NATO as an organization said they had evidence that backed Turkey's version of events.

Your personal opinion (as an individual or a nation) doesn't matter.

The Greeks should have backed Turkey.

I remember when the Russians first invaded Ukraine, there were Greek news channels showing maps of weapons factories in Ukraine with links to Turkey that they demanded Russia bomb.

You cannot act like Greece is always innocent and Turkey is always guilty. I know you're more than capable of being rational, so be rational.
 
You cannot act like Greece is always innocent and Turkey is always guilty. I know you're more than capable of being rational, so be rational.
Wait a minute...so when Turkey's interests are at stake,they can say "who cares about NATO" and when we do it,we are at fault?

Apart from that,Syria wasn't a NATO conflict. We're not in NATO to support Turkey's expansionist adventures in northern Syria nor condemn Russia for fighting against terrorists who take refuge in Turkish soil and are trained,funded and armed by the Turkish government (back then during the war in Syria).
 
Wait a minute...so when Turkey's interests are at stake,they can say "who cares about NATO" and when we do it,we are at fault?
Never said that. It's one of the criticisms I have for Turkey, where they seem to not give a **** about the alliance.

Apart from that,Syria wasn't a NATO conflict. We're not in NATO to support Turkey's expansionist adventures in northern Syria nor condemn Russia for fighting against terrorists who take refuge in Turkish soil and are trained,funded and armed by the Turkish government (back then during the war in Syria).
Syria may not have been a NATO conflict, but you do know that NATO is a defense Treaty, right? If a NATO member is harassed or attacked by any nation, then NATO has an obligation to intervene.

Turkey was harassed.

This was BEFORE Turkey sent any force into Syria.

And it isn't expansionist, you know for a fact that what you just said is propaganda.

Turkey is setting up safe zones within Syria to relocate Syrian refugees back to their own country. They're not looking to annex Syrian territory.

Russia wasn't targeting forces within Turkey, they were targeting refugee camps within Syria itself. The FSA at the time was backed by everyone, including the USA and UK.

Once again, this was a clear cut situation.

Russia is a known violator of NATO airspace, and aggressor.
 
And it isn't expansionist, you know for a fact that what you just said is propaganda.

Turkey is setting up safe zones within Syria to relocate Syrian refugees back to their own country. They're not looking to annex Syrian territory.
They sure want to push the Kurds South,but the either wanna install their own pawns as local government and use them as a Buffer or downright annex it in the long run.

Russia is a known violator of NATO airspace, and aggressor.
In the North...like Sweden and Norway, I know they are. Probably in Baltic countries as well. But in Syria,I think they had a reason to do it,because of the guerilla warfare.
 
They sure want to push the Kurds South,but the either wanna install their own pawns as local government and use them as a Buffer or downright annex it in the long run.
They don't want a bunch of refugees, not with their current economy, so no annexation. And pushing the Kurds south doesn't really matter and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Do they wanna install their own pawn? Literally everyone involved in Syria does. The US, Russia, Iran, Turkey...etc. this isn't the condemnation you think it is.

In the North...like Sweden and Norway, I know they are. Probably in Baltic countries as well. But in Syria,I think they had a reason to do it,because of the guerilla warfare.
They did not

They were NOT hitting anyone in Turkey, they were needlessly violating Turkish airspace. If what you said was true, they should have hit targets within Turkey. Your comment is completely wrong here.

Just like in Ukraine, the Russians pushed for terror tactics by hitting civilian targets and launching a brutal air campaign that saw scores of civilians being killed. They did this to demoralize insurgent forces and force them to stop.

This has always been their modus operandi, and are now employing it in Ukraine.
 
NATO as an organization, yes.

Individual members? Absolutely not, and let's not pretend otherwise.

For example, you had the Greeks outright backing Russia and saying Turkey lied. You also had German and (i believe, i could be wrong on this one) French ministers questioning Turkey's statement of events.

By the way, you switched from speaking about Germany to speaking about NATO as a whole.

Also, I don't think you know what Article 4 intails.

Also, the apology came because of pressure from Europe. @Dehydrated Trisolaran
Article 4 is not very complex, and if Turkey does not feel a need to invoke it, other members can leave Turkey to do the talking.

I am not aware that any major NATO country (including Germany) questioning the Turkey version. Neither am I aware of any pressure to apology.

Greece and Turkey are like cat and dog. Turkey is continuously violating Greece air space, so they are taking a stab.


1675108684820.png
 

Attachments

  • 1675108660919.png
    1675108660919.png
    32.2 KB · Views: 22
Article 4 is not very complex, and if Turkey does not feel a need to invoke it, other members can leave Turkey to do the talking.

I am not aware that any major NATO country (including Germany) questioning the Turkey version. Neither am I aware of any pressure to apology.

Greece and Turkey are like cat and dog. Turkey is continuously violating Greece air space, so they are taking a stab.


View attachment 914167
You may not be aware of it, but it happened.

Article 4 applying or not is irrelevant to NATO's response, or even the individual nations that make up NATO.

As soon as it happened, Turkey was forced to apologize by the Europeans. We had German media and ministers (including the vice-chancellor) talking about how the Turks were needlessly provoking the Russians (we all know why the Germans did this), and were insane for defending their (NATO) airspace. We saw the UK question if Turkey was even considered an ally after the shooting.

While it wasn't black and white, this moment did shake the alliance to its core, and Turkey was deeply affected by it. This is when we started seeing Turkey start backing away from its NATO commitments (something I will continue to criticize Turkey for).
 
You may not be aware of it, but it happened.

Article 4 applying or not is irrelevant to NATO's response, or even the individual nations that make up NATO.

As soon as it happened, Turkey was forced to apologize by the Europeans. We had German media and ministers (including the vice-chancellor) talking about how the Turks were needlessly provoking the Russians (we all know why the Germans did this), and were insane for defending their (NATO) airspace. We saw the UK question if Turkey was even considered an ally after the shooting.

While it wasn't black and white, this moment did shake the alliance to its core, and Turkey was deeply affected by it. This is when we started seeing Turkey start backing away from its NATO commitments (something I will continue to criticize Turkey for).
You are now starting to twist words reducing your credibility.
An MP in the UK parliament asked a question if Turkey could be considered an ally, and got the reply that Turkey was an important ally from the PM.

To use that to say that the UK questioned Turkey is dishonest.

I think your other claims should be dismissed unless you prove them with sources. I am a bit surprised, since I have not seen this type of poor reasoning from you before.
 
You are now starting to twist words reducing your credibility.
An MP in the UK parliament asked a question if Turkey could be considered an ally, and got the reply that Turkey was an important ally from the PM.

To use that to say that the UK questioned Turkey is dishonest.

I think your other claims should be dismissed unless you prove them with sources. I am a bit surprised, since I have not seen this type of poor reasoning from you before.
Not really twisting words, but perhaps I misremembered it. I do remember that the comment by the PM was considered to be limited and deliberate in nature. Basically it had to do with only ISIL and nothing else, meaning that the UK didn't actually give a **** about Turkey.

As for the other claims, here you go...

Greece...

Official to show that the talks happened...


Content of the talks, it has direct quote.



German vice-chancellor absolving Russian aggression...


On Russia bombing targeting civilians...



I'd provide more links, but I'm literally at work right now. I could get in trouble. 😅

However, as you can see I have very good reasons for why I believe what I believe.
 
Last edited:
Do they wanna install their own pawn? Literally everyone involved in Syria does. The US, Russia, Iran, Turkey...etc. this isn't the condemnation you think it is.
They could populate these areas with Syrian refugees and establish a government or local councils who are loyal to Turkey. Maybe even have Turkmen leadership and call it an independent Turkmen State that they could annex in the future.

They were NOT hitting anyone in Turkey, they were needlessly violating Turkish airspace.
Weren't they needlessly violating Swedish and Norwegian air space? :P

f what you said was true, they should have hit targets within Turkey. Your comment is completely wrong here.
But didn't you say that they bombed refugee camps?

Just like in Ukraine, the Russians pushed for terror tactics by hitting civilian targets and launching a brutal air campaign that saw scores of civilians being killed. They did this to demoralize insurgent forces and force them to stop.
But you do know that insurgents hide among civilians. And they've been doing it in many wars.

Greece and Turkey are like cat and dog. Turkey is continuously violating Greece air space, so they are taking a stab.
Exactly. And what we hate is NATO leadership's constant slap in the hand of Turkey. They've always been like "We urge NATO members to refrain from...blah blah blah" or "You guys talk to each other".

Even when Erdogan threatens with war in official statements and public speeches...they just say "Greece and Turkey are both valuable NATO members and they should avoid provocations" etc.
 
They could populate these areas with Syrian refugees and establish a government or local councils who are loyal to Turkey. Maybe even have Turkmen leadership and call it an independent Turkmen State that they could annex in the future.


Weren't they needlessly violating Swedish and Norwegian air space? :P


But didn't you say that they bombed refugee camps?


But you do know that insurgents hide among civilians. And they've been doing it in many wars.


Exactly. And what we hate is NATO leadership's constant slap in the hand of Turkey. They've always been like "We urge NATO members to refrain from...blah blah blah" or "You guys talk to each other".

Even when Erdogan threatens with war in official statements and public speeches...they just say "Greece and Turkey are both valuable NATO members and they should avoid provocations" etc.
They're not gonna annex it. They know what will happen if they do. They already have a puppet government in Northern Syria called the Syrian Interim Government, backed by the Turkish armed and trained Syrian National Army.

They're mainly Arab, with Turkmen being the second largest minority.

The Russians did violate Swedish and Norwegian airspace, but Syria is a warzone, so the situation isn't exactly the same.

Also, I said they hit refugee camps WITHIN SYRIA not Turkey.

Whether or not terrorist hide among civilians is irrelevant. You don't bomb refugee camps filled with women and children.

This is a war crime. The Russians are literally using this same logic in Ukraine.

Greece and Turkey threaten each other all the damn time. It's not news, especially since it's currently election season.
 

Back
Top Bottom