China willing to consider Turkish membership of security bloc

[Attila the Hun]

India never stabbed Russia in the back, unlike turkey. A virus needs to completely isolated to die

I hope you and your family die. for peace in the world.

 

[TaiShang]

If that was the case like you've described. The transition process of the military and defense bureaucracy alone would take at least a decade. Economic shift? Okay. Political shift? That's okay as well. But the entire defense structure of the country is based on NATO doctrines, combined arms warfare. Even our equipment, including those we design on our own needs are performance-oriented to deter its Russian counterparts. To be the opposite in this situation, militarily it is going to be a nightmare that the national security cannot afford. Think of the NATO pipelines all over the country for example where military grade fuel is provided 7/24 with the best way in the world. Starting logistics from scratch to a point God knows where and how.

On a security-bloc basis, unfortunately it is nearly impossible to happen.

I agree. That's really a very tall order. So far, so many systems and platforms and doctrines have been established across the Atlantic to which Turkey is an essential part.

So long as the Atlantic alliance has a secularizing effect on Turkey (probably it is the other way round since 1951), I guess that would be good for the country. Turkey would loose nothing by becoming a good trade partner with China and other Asian countries.

1) It is not an alternative to NATO (see point2), but since it has some commercial and industrial (enerdy related) part to it, it covers some aspects of the EU so it is closer to the EU than to NATO somehow..

I know it is not. But, it is closest being a security-oriented bloc than being an economy-oriented bloc. The economy aspect mostly falls on bilateralism and, in the future, on the OBOR.

But, I still do not agree that the SCO is closer to the EU. All the energy ties that China has with Russia and the Central Asia are bilateral. The SCO ensures security and communication. But all the negotiations and pricing are bilateral. The SCO is nowhere close being an EU. It is at most a very loose security organization.

2) Turkey suffers from: Terrorism (bombings in the cities, airport attacks..etc), Separatism (the PKK kurdish separatist movement),and Extremism (the Gulen extremist movement behind the latest failed putsch) , this point alone makes Turkey eligible to SOC's anti-terrorism, anti-separatism, and anti-extremism stand..

The problem is Turkey shares no border. The (core) SCO is all geographically attached. Nonetheless, this point of yours also indicates the security aspect of the SCO, which, and I agree with you, would account for the practical aspect of Turkey's participation.

Still, whereas Turkey suffers from all three dangers that are mentioned in the SCO Constitution, there is a strong sense and understanding that Turkish foreign policy do contribute to some of those evils. This is probably where there is greater chance for one or more of the SCO members would veto Turkey's potential membership. The SCO is consensus based; so nothing moves without full consent.

This brings us to the question of whether Turkey would prove to be an asset or liability for the SCO. This is up to individual SCO members to decide. I personally do not think that Turkey at this point would be a geopolitical asset.

3) The best leaders of this world are the ones who can make quick sound decisions and adjust them according to future events and environ variables.. So if the Middle Eastern leadership was like your thoughts about them , they won't negotiate projects and procurements for 10's of years.. in fact they were too slow to make major decisions in the past..which left most of their countries a bit behind others..

To me the regression or lack of progress is not due to slow-decision making. It is due to unpredictability and radical U-turns. Especially in regional geopolitics, Middle East (Turkey included only recently, before their foreign policy was more prudent) countries tend to take hasty radical steps, like Saudi-led involvement in Yemen.

I am also surprised how devastating the Arab Spring has become in the Levant (not the Gulf, of course) while similar external plots elsewhere mostly failed. I guess this is due to lack of a regional superpower. There are too many weak equals, so, the region is dictated by outside actors.

 

[Attila the Hun]

Only solution is Turanian Union.
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Kirghizstan
Azerbaijan

What more do we need?
Potentially Russian Tatar states in the future..
Other allies of us could join too.

All being cousins would make this Union work.

 

[Max]

Only solution is Turanian Union.
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Kirghizstan
Azerbaijan

What more do we need?
Potentially Russian Tatar states in the future..
Other allies of us could join too.

All being cousins would make this Union work.

there is already one, add tatars if you can.. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are extra here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Cooperation_Organization

 

[HAIDER]

I think it is inwise for Turkey to koin SCO

They should remain as part of Nato and work as a bridge betweem two future blocks of Nato and SCO.

Tirkey can always have access to better technology by staying witu NATO and I am not sure if they will not be seen with suspicopus eyes if theu joined both blocks of Nato and SCO

Turkey will remain in NATO, F35 squadrons on there way.

 

[Attila the Hun]

there is already one, add tatars if you can.. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are extra here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Cooperation_Organization

 

[Neptune]

I see your point though I could agree on the very last part only. And I honestly don't know where to start but anyways yeah.

With respect disagree. It's a political choice with economic imperatives. The military aspect is by far the easiest to re-configure.

Just like you said bro, it is a political choice with economical imperatives. The only things that bine the military at that assumption are defense budget planning and foreign policy implementation which could be the easiest when compared to other issues. The rest are by far the hardest and probably the impossible issues to be "re-configured". From a military perspective the only thing that could be done is to modify and modernize the security mechanisms established before in Cold War to today's modern warfare environment and threat definition of TAF, which is something already written on the book; Armed Forces 2033 Vision and Turkish Naval Strategy.

The relatively "easiest" part for example is itself complex and interconnected to NATO structure on various means. I will try to explain what I know most about, this way perhaps I could demonstrate the complicity of even one small aspect of military's so called reconfiguration that would show how funny that assumption would be, all due respect.

Global Security Environment:

According to our strategy, "globalization facilitates interaction on security issues. A local crisis quickly becomes regional and stimulates rivalry among global and regional actors." And that makes any country vulnerable to a crisis especially when the threat is on the SLOCs (sea lines of comms) which is the main deal nowadays. Security of these routes is dependent between the countries where collective security and cooperation is vital. In this case, NATO is the undisputed top player in the world with leaving a huge gap to its nearest counterpart in this topic. It has been conducting maritime security operations in peacetime for over decades that it even shaped a culture among sailors let alone gaining a profession in collective security. I think no detailed explanation is required in this topic.

Secondly, I doubt there are any collective major doctrines in Asia, at least not any I heard of. Maybe a bilateral doctrine between PRC and Pakistan regarding CPEC, but nothing more foreseeable in the future that'll also be powerful. I will emphasize only on two main issues addressed on doctrine. Because from my vision, these are the key areas where the success of collective defense can be measured.

Maritime Security Operations according to NATO doctrine (Allied Maritime Strategy):

1- Providing support for maritime situational awareness:

We collectively share data in various regions on a designated basis. But mostly Indian Ocean/HOA and the Mediterranean Sea are the places where we have maritime situational awareness beyond our national capabilities thanks to Operations Ocean Shield and Active Endavior. We can relay these data to our independently deployed ship's RSP (surface pic) in Persian Gulf/Aden. Even a prior establishment of such a work will take a decade to get matured, by that time who knows where MARCOM will stand at.

2- Maritime Interdiction and Non-combatant EVAC Operations:

These two situations are what the 21st Century navies deal with most of their times. For further info on the dynamics of these issues you can check the manuals EXTAC 1010 and EXTAC 1012 (or 1011, can't recall the exact number). If I am not wrong they are supposed to be unclassified documents, so probably you can find them somewhere on web. I advice you to take a short look at them before continuing reading.
On these situations its likely that every national navy has its own concept, CSTO probably has a complete Russian copy of the rules in these areas, whereas NATO on the hand prepares such documents with US-led staff officers that plan their rules based on a potential situation where what country can contribute what force, not writing what US does alone. This maximes the performance in the field. To get a Chinese-Russian led bloc to achieve that? One must be kidding, it is not impossible but it will never be able to mach the standards the alliance will keep and upgrade.

No country or pact can provide such strategic options to its allies. Yesterday or the day before if I am not wrong, Erdogan reaffirmed Turkey's commitment to NATO to clean up confusions after his statements regarding EU.

That was just the DZKK Naval Strategy's Global Security Environment's Maritime Security Operations' part's MIF and noncombatant EVAC aspects. Probably one of the smallest aspect in a naval perspective with a very short summarization. Please, put importance on the underlined part.

Now think this in a force that probably ranks up in top 10 in the world by the number of equipment and personnel supported by a massive large Gendarmerie force that leaves more and more complicity as Russian idol is far different than ours in the name of anything. From logistics to military custody. Include air force and army. These were the smallest aspects where NATO is involved. From the quality of the seatbelt in a helicopter to the rifle magazine and barell rails you produce, NATO has set you a standard that you have to abide. It does not keep you at a certain level of quality only. But also it will give you a potential of unmatched logistics support.

Sorry gents but noone here can say the otherwise or someone showing up and saying Russia and China with CSTO will reach to that point one day. No they wont because of a lot of reasons which alone is a thread topic on itself.

Weapons and platforms don't have enemies or friends. The 'finger in the trigger' decides which way it is pointing.

Actually they do. As I have told earlier. Bearing in mind certain situations, most of the time each Russian-Chinese military equipment/platform is designed to outmatch a specific American-European equipment/platform and likewise the Americans. On a broader perspective they are designed to neutralize one aspect of enemy force with another mean. Example: USA mastered at aviation and Russia is the god of anti-air systems. Don't you think there's no connection meh?

For Turkey, what we buy is from NATO and what technology we transfer is from NATO as well. If not, they are from countries who made their equipment with the help from US/Europe. Only exceptions are leased, captured equipment and the equipment bought to deter neighboring threat (i.e Kornet-E procurement). You see a pattern here? Let's just assume that we totally changed our policy, military will suffer from this part as well. First it will try to plan to deter new threats effectively and as a person who was supposed to be a commissioned officer by today, I can clearly say that we will have to buy a lot of new equipment from Russia-China just to meet the criteras of reliability of platforms and the effectiveness of equipment regardless of the current state of inventory. This will spark Turkey into a major economic crisis itself that is not affordable. And this type of procurement can't be funded by anyone, even US or Gulf States.

Not just that, majority of equipment meets a common NATO criteria so to an extent they share similar specifics on performance. So liability of the equipment determines the time period allocated for military personnel to be suspended temporarily and locked down in his quarters until a further notice by the captain to maintain crew performance. You see it even goes as deep as the Code of Conduct.

Warfare doctrine is fundamentally the same - designed to prevail. All you do is redesignate the new enemy here > <

Warfare doctrines are never the same as they are. The bulk of conventional doctrine stays the same but major changes happen each year according to the updated situation of the neighborhood and rival procurements. That, time to time changes the bulk as well. Not to even mention about unconditional warfare doctrine and the emerging new areas hybrid and unmanned systems.

Don't forget at the moment major Turkish/NATO architecture in Anatolia is designed to counter Rusian threat. Once that threat converts to friendly that logistics you talk of woulf by and large become redundant.

Actually its not. Russian part of the defense structure might be like 30% only. Fairly enough for the rest of the argument.

SCO membership also would reconnect Turkey with it's Central Asian 'cousins' like Turkmen, Kazaks, Uzbeks etc

If Turkey had any option that was fairly alternative and leaned towards Turkic states. We would have jumped on it a hundred times regardless of who runs the government. So that's why Turkey is trying to build up his own school from scratch. This started showing up its fruits in Azerbaijan. They use the same camo that Turkish military uses, the same field comms system by Aselsan, same optics and same radios that are connectable to each other. And by the time hopefully it will increase more and expand to other Turkic states.

I agree. That's really a very tall order. So far, so many systems and platforms and doctrines have been established across the Atlantic to which Turkey is an essential part.

So long as the Atlantic alliance has a secularizing effect on Turkey (probably it is the other way round since 1951), I guess that would be good for the country. Turkey would loose nothing by becoming a good trade partner with China and other Asian countries.

I agree. Defense and politics might be a lot harder to change. Within Europe its clear that Turkey is not wanted (they can F themselves btw). But in outside continents, Turkey acts like so. We just can't end a "Westernization Process (!)" that didn't start with Atatürk in 1923, but rather centuries ago commenced by the Ottoman sultans. But indeed, refraining an economic bloc with Asia will cost Turkey a lot. We need to expand Asia and S. America economically.

 

[DJ_Viper]

1) It is not an alternative to NATO (see point2), but since it has some commercial and industrial (enerdy related) part to it, it covers some aspects of the EU so it is closer to the EU than to NATO somehow..

2) Turkey suffers from: Terrorism (bombings in the cities, airport attacks..etc), Separatism (the PKK kurdish separatist movement),and Extremism (the Gulen extremist movement behind the latest failed putsch) , this point alone makes Turkey eligible to SOC's anti-terrorism, anti-separatism, and anti-extremism stand..

3) The best leaders of this world are the ones who can make quick sound decisions and adjust them according to future events and environ variables.. So if the Middle Eastern leadership was like your thoughts about them , they won't negotiate projects and procurements for 10's of years.. in fact they were too slow to make major decisions in the past..which left most of their countries a bit behind others..

Sir, India and Pakistan in their own capacity suffer from religious based terrorism conducted in various ways. The end result, is the loss of human life sadly. So why would you bring this up without researching facts?

 

[The SC]

Sir, India and Pakistan in their own capacity suffer from religious based terrorism conducted in various ways. The end result, is the loss of human life sadly. So why would you bring this up without researching facts?

What facts? about Pakistan and India?
This thread is about Turkey.. you should keep focus on the thread, India (suffering from terrorism is in a very low extent to what Pakistan was suffering from as far as terrorism, separatism and extremism are concerned you can find dozens if not hundreds of threads dealing with that issue, So please do your own search and keep focused on the thread before making suggestions..

 

[DJ_Viper]

What facts? about Pakistan and India?
This thread is about Turkey.. you should keep focus on the thread, India (suffering from terrorism is in a very low extent to what Pakistan was suffering from as far as terrorism, separatism and extremism are concerned you can find dozens if not hundreds of threads dealing with that issue, So please do your own search and keep focused on the thread before making suggestions..

Sir, I am focused on the thread. You are posting bullshi_t and you for your personal reasons, don't want to account for it. You are bit_ching about Turkey and how bad it is, while the article and other members have clearly stated that India and Pakistan also have a membership status although limited may be. So, if those two countries with each of them having religious terrorism related issues can sit on it, why can't Turkey?

If you want to make stuff up, that's fine. But do state so that the following line is what I am "making up". It my or may not exist in real life. And on the facts (the first part of your statement, that was a joke right?). The entire globe knows both India and Pakistan have a terrorism problem, Pakistan is fighting the Talibans, etc, and India has an entire government that supports murders of its minorities. The media shows it every few weeks. But that's a different topic all together so I won't comment on it further.

@HAKIKAT @PaklovesTurkiye : Can you guys please review the above conversation and tell me if I was wrong in addressing this post?

 

[alarabi]

Only solution is Turanian Union.
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Kirghizstan
Azerbaijan

What more do we need?
Potentially Russian Tatar states in the future..
Other allies of us could join too.

All being cousins would make this Union work.

What about East Turkestan (Uyghur)? Is there any place for them on the list?

 

[S10]

What about East Turkestan (Uyghur)? Is there any place for them on the list?

You're playing with fire boy.

 

[Attila the Hun]

What about East Turkestan (Uyghur)? Is there any place for them on the list?

Why not?

@Joe Shearer
Thanks for the negative rating and nothing for the "Turks should be isolated and die" comment. Pathetic.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why not?

@Joe Shearer
Thanks for the negative rating and nothing for the "Turks should be isolated and die" comment. Pathetic.

I did not notice how that earlier remark might be construed. He DID NOT say Turks should be isolated and die. He was talking about a virus being isolated and dying, and I interpreted his reference to the virus as the thought of disloyalty to an ally.

The fair thing would be to ask him what he meant, and then build on that. Meanwhile I am removing your negative rating, until the matter is resolved to our common satisfaction.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Sir, I am focused on the thread. You are posting bullshi_t and you for your personal reasons, don't want to account for it. You are bit_ching about Turkey and how bad it is, while the article and other members have clearly stated that India and Pakistan also have a membership status although limited may be. So, if those two countries with each of them having religious terrorism related issues can sit on it, why can't Turkey?

If you want to make stuff up, that's fine. But do state so that the following line is what I am "making up". It my or may not exist in real life. And on the facts (the first part of your statement, that was a joke right?). The entire globe knows both India and Pakistan have a terrorism problem, Pakistan is fighting the Talibans, etc, and India has an entire government that supports murders of its minorities. The media shows it every few weeks. But that's a different topic all together so I won't comment on it further.

@HAKIKAT @PaklovesTurkiye : Can you guys please review the above conversation and tell me if I was wrong in addressing this post?

I didn't understand what he was trying to imply but I got you. I agree with you. Pakistan and India will get full membership soon, I read somewhere.

On topic, Turkey after failed coup attempt is a different one...Its a new Turkiye. Inclusion of Turkey into SCO will make SCO more influential especially regarding ME as Turks do have considerable influence in ME.

@Sinopakfriend @Shotgunner51 can write and summarize quite well why and how Turkiye is important for SCO.

Chinese do realize how significant strategic importance Turkiye holds in her region.