Is Turkey the natural ally of the West

[A.P. Richelieu]

Russia is Syria and China Ally only


How ?
Turkey destroyed Russian Jet in Past,
Even it was ready to fight with Russia, but NATO did not help him,

Now Turkey invaded Syria, purchases S-400,
Turkey want, Russia should be out of Syria,

Turkey with other NATO countries, US and Some Arab countries supporting ISIS, Nusra Front (Al Qaeda)want to conquer Syria only for PIPELINE,

Russia, Iran helping Syria to eliminate Proxies of West and Arabs for PIPELINE too

https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/pipelineistan-conspiracy-war-syria-has-never-been-about-gas

Are You smoking something?
NATO immediately showed its support for the Turkish reaction to the violation of Turkish Air Space by Russia.
Russia wisely backed down and applied a tourist boycott, until Ergogan started to grovel.

 

[jaibi]

Everything alright?

Everybody knows Anatolia is Panipat of Eurasia.

Iranians are just denying the Turks the soft power projection which carries a military gain.

Syria is the Afghanistan I prefer as far away from Pakistan as it physically possible.

There is no winner in this apart from academics

 

[StormBreaker]

Here's what I think.

Firstly, you have to realize that the area you are calling Turkey but has been under quite a few names, classically Anatolia is a region naturally suited for conflict. It is a natural pathway between Asia and Europe. Thus, it would be contested and if you look at history, you'd see it is to be the case. However, the Turkish civilization has never been keen on just being a bridge: they wanted to be a power and throughout history, they've reasonably accomplished the goal. But still, Real deal is to see how it adjusts itself in the sandwich of USA and Russia.

That tendency has never died down. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and emergence of the current iteration of Turkey; they weren't keen on just being a pawn. They wanted to be a power but at the time, Turkey was in a bit of a unique position. You see, the decolonialization period saw the infusion of regional-religious-ethnic nationalism: the rise of PanArabism and Pan-Islamism. Turkey was a forward looking nation, joining it were two other key players, Pakistan and Iran. That's why they aligned with the West and regionally cooperated because they couldn't ride the same surge. Turkey's foreign policy was in contrast to the world; it recognized Israel and tried a more tactful solution to the problem. The reason may have seemed counterproductive at the time; why was Turkey alienating culturally closer allies for a potential rival in the region for allies who are not working for their complete interests? The answer was simple, Turkey wanted to pursue an independent course of action.

Secondly, you have to take into account what the world has become geopolitically. There are clear cut dominating powers under a fascade of appropriated power to various nations of the world. However, that's not the case, if you stand against any regionally aligned nation, you'd bring in the big bosses of the game. Disturb Israel's interests, have the US on your back. Take out Syrian targets and have Russia knocking at your door. Back a militia and have either one of the sectarian/ethnically divided power curb you. Therefore, every move would have ended up making things harder for the Turks no matter what action they pursued. In that scenario, they've done the ballsiest move: they went for their interests over all others and ended up disturbing everyone. I think this move does two things, first of all, it keeps Turkey aligned internally under the status quo leadership structure because of an external pressure. Additionally, it taps into the strenght of the Turkish national character and that's pride (due to their ability to pursue independent actions).

Third, being a very neutral assessor of the situation, I wouldn't call it a bad move. You see, in order to appease everyone in this situation and play it ultra tactfully would be hard at this moment in time. The world is experiecning a right wing reflux: Russia, USA and some of the West is being ruled by strongmen. The Turkish government is used to dealing with a more tactful opponent but tact breaks down with such a leadership if you're not coming on strong since the start. Strength talks here. That's why Turkey seems to pursue a shift of cooperation between smaller regional powers instead of the big players. This is a brilliant move because the major powers of the world back regional powers in one way or another and cannot afford to destablize regional status quo. Therefore, smaller cooperative and economic ties may play out well in the end. Instead of having one big supplier who monopolizes things, why not have many smaller suppliers and thus have versatility? I think Turkey is feeling confident enough in its ability to handle things and is exercising this change in strategy to see how far they can push it.

Fourthly, look at this way as well. Which nation was the best military power in the NATO alliance? The USA. Which one after that? The UK. Ever since 2016 these two have de facto left NATO or at least are perceived to be relatively independent now. Which nation should take up the mantle? Germany but their history and continuous strategy has been the exact opposite of becoming a military power; plus, France is weary of a stronger Germany. What threatens Europe? Russia. Whoever faces the Russians and proves to the world that they can hold the giant at bay would automatically take a central role to Europe's future. If Turkey can play an independent policy and antagonize Russia while engaging in a military operation (let's face it this has become a proxy war more than a civil war) and tricking the Americans to support them on Turkey's rather than the US's term. Then Turkey would be in a position to reorient the direction in which Europe is headed. If Turkey pulls this off, they may take an important powerful position, which I believe is their intent all this while.

Hence, I believe that the situation should be monitored to see what's going to happen. I hope whatever does that the region experiences peace after a very long time.

Regards!

Why is this GEM OF A POST buried deep in an insignificant thread ?????

This deserves more appreciation than it has !!!

All this time, i had these similar ideas in mind about Turkey’s nature historically, how it played post Ottoman, and how it is finally re-orienting its Foreign Policies according to its regional significance and importance as well as its future prospects with neighboring similarly powerful/Strategic countries like Iran And Pakistan.

Do you think Turkey requires Nukes as a Means of deterrence in near future ? I do think there should be as a means to keep France and NATO’s future possible threat in check as well as Russia’s.

@cabatli_53 Kindly checkout the post of Jaibi

 

[jaibi]

That's Turkey's best play if they don't pursue nuclear armament. They'd probably take centre role in the NATO military affairs and assuage France's insecurities by making them central players to defense as they'd be the key holders of nuclear weapons against a possible confrontation against Russia. With that France would come to a mutual understanding with Turkey and Turkey would get its deterrence. Moreover, it'd give the US a leeway in by installing nukes in Turkey but retaining control in order to always be tied in to keep Russia in check and balance out France as well. In such a situation Turkey would hold all of the cards.

Why is this GEM OF A POST buried deep in an insignificant thread ?????

This deserves more appreciation than it has !!!

All this time, i had these similar ideas in mind about Turkey’s nature historically, how it played post Ottoman, and how it is finally re-orienting its Foreign Policies according to its regional significance and importance as well as its future prospects with neighboring similarly powerful/Strategic countries like Iran And Pakistan.

Do you think Turkey requires Nukes as a Means of deterrence in near future ? I do think there should be as a means to keep France and NATO’s future possible threat in check as well as Russia’s.

@cabatli_53 Kindly checkout the post of Jaibi

 

[StormBreaker]

That's Turkey's best play if they don't pursue nuclear armament. They'd probably take centre role in the NATO military affairs and assuage France's insecurities by making them central players to defense as they'd be the key holders of nuclear weapons against a possible confrontation against Russia. With that France would come to a mutual understanding with Turkey and Turkey would get its deterrence. Moreover, it'd give the US a leeway in by installing nukes in Turkey but retaining control in order to always be tied in to keep Russia in check and balance out France as well. In such a situation Turkey would hold all of the cards.

Sir,

Would it cost NATO a lot if they remove Turkey from the list ? Your suggestion is based on Turkey being a NATO member forever, atleast until some sort of big conflict you are mentioning of, to host USA nukes and to keep Russia in check. Don’t you think that Russia might try to come in terms with Turkey, to withdraw from Syria by pushing Erdogan to force USA and its assets out of their lands ? In a hypothetical scenario of WW3, Turkish grounds used to launch nukes on Russia will result in Russia WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT launching nukes on Turkey and then USA. ?

Can NATO afford to lose Turkey or can Turkey Afford to lose NATO ?

This is where things get complicated really !!! Taking sides, have their own MAJOR PROS and MAJOR cons. But the thing is that they are MAJOR. Every small step will disturb Turkey’s peace and Strategic shifts. They don’t want to be in multiple boats but they have no major option left but to stay the way they were but they don’t like that NOW.

One thing is for certain. The current strategic importance Turkey has in NATO, if Turkey exits, The importance will be crowned or distributed to someone else like Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Romania but all are insignificant and weak. Proxies in Syria towards turks will intensify, israel will also play its part in disturbing Turks.

Otoh, Russia is not a trustworthy ally, Turkey would be wise to not rely on Russia, it would be better alone then be an ally with Russia.

 

[jaibi]

That's precisely the precarious balance of power that has to be played and that's why I said let's see how it goes.

Sir,

Would it cost NATO a lot if they remove Turkey from the list ? Your suggestion is based on Turkey being a NATO member forever, atleast until some sort of big conflict you are mentioning of, to host USA nukes and to keep Russia in check. Don’t you think that Russia might try to come in terms with Turkey, to withdraw from Syria by pushing Erdogan to force USA and its assets out of their lands ? In a hypothetical scenario of WW3, Turkish grounds used to launch nukes on Russia will result in Russia WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT launching nukes on Turkey and then USA. ?

Can NATO afford to lose Turkey or can Turkey Afford to lose NATO ?

This is where things get complicated really !!! Taking sides, have their own MAJOR PROS and MAJOR cons. But the thing is that they are MAJOR. Every small step will disturb Turkey’s peace and Strategic shifts. They don’t want to be in multiple boats but they have no major option left but to stay the way they were but they don’t like that NOW.

One thing is for certain. The current strategic importance Turkey has in NATO, if Turkey exits, The importance will be crowned or distributed to someone else like Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Romania but all are insignificant and weak. Proxies in Syria towards turks will intensify, israel will also play its part in disturbing Turks.

Otoh, Russia is not a trustworthy ally, Turkey would be wise to not rely on Russia, it would be better alone then be an ally with Russia.

 

[vi-va]

Are You smoking something?
NATO immediately showed its support for the Turkish reaction to the violation of Turkish Air Space by Russia.
Russia wisely backed down and applied a tourist boycott, until Ergogan started to grovel.

Gosh, you didn't knew NATO took patriot out of Turkey the same time? This is a very strong signal to Russia and Turkey that NATO did NOT endorse Erdogan's adventure.

 

[El Sidd]

Everything alright?

That 40 Turkish soldier deaths have me quite disturbed along with the Hanau attacks.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Gosh, you didn't knew NATO took patriot out of Turkey the same time? This is a very strong signal to Russia and Turkey that NATO did NOT endorse Erdogan's adventure.

Nice try, presenting fake news,
The US pulled the Patriots out BEFORE Turkey shot down the Russian Jet.
It certainly does not support Turkey attacking its allies in the fight against ISIS,
but when Russia violates the territory of a NATO member it is very different.

 

[beijingwalker]

It's always quite clear that the west uses Turkey as canon fodder against Russia, they have no regards of Turkey's safety and national interest, if Nato did go to war with Russia, Turkey will be first to burn and be destroyed and then Turkey's part contributing to Nato is fullfilled and over, the west won't miss it .
The best chance for Turkey to stay alive is no wars against Russia ever, that's the basic survival tact when being sandwiched between two giants.

 

[vi-va]

Nice try, presenting fake news,
The US pulled the Patriots out BEFORE Turkey shot down the Russian Jet.
It certainly does not support Turkey attacking its allies in the fight against ISIS,
but when Russia violates the territory of a NATO member it is very different.

View attachment 610199 View attachment 610200

Turkey shoot Russian jet on 24 November 2015.

The pull out was initiated despite a recent appeal by Turkey to its NATO allies on Oct. 8, days after Russian jets violated Turkey’s airspace near Syria.

It's a warning from NATO to Turkey, NATO do NOT want to get involved in this conflict. There is no endorsement for free to support Turkey in this regards.

NATO estimated the tension will increase, this is warning to Turkey, and a strong signal to Russia that NATO do not support Turkey invasion to Syria.

https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/u...t-missiles-from-turkey-at-critical-time-89643

• October 09 2015 15:21:00

US starts to pull Patriot missiles from Turkey at critical time
HATAY - Doğan News Agency

DHA Photo

The U.S. has started to pull its Patriot missiles stationed in Turkey, despite a recent appeal from Ankara to its NATO allies to keep the air and missile defense units at a delicate time on the border with Syria.

Patriot missiles were initially deployed at the Gaziantep 5th Armored Brigade Command in southeastern Turkey after the country appealed to its NATO allies to guard against rockets from Syria.

On Aug. 15, German Federal Ministry of Defense announced that it would end its contribution to the anti-missile mission in Turkey.

The announcement was followed by a statement from the U.S. on Aug. 16 saying it had informed the Turkish government that the mission, due to end in October, would not be renewed.

The U.S.’s withdrawal of the anti-missile systems started as the Patriots were brought to the Port of İskenderun awaiting ships that would return them to U.S. soil.

The pull out was initiated despite a recent appeal by Turkey to its NATO allies on Oct. 8, days after Russian jets violated Turkey’s airspace near Syria.

The move raised questions about NATO’s strategy in Turkey, as it contradicted with the statements of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg that the alliance was prepared to send ground forces to defend its member state.

 

[jaibi]

You'd hate me for this but, I must ask, why so?

That 40 Turkish soldier deaths have me quite disturbed along with the Hanau attacks.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Turkey shoot Russian jet on 24 November 2015.

The pull out was initiated despite a recent appeal by Turkey to its NATO allies on Oct. 8, days after Russian jets violated Turkey’s airspace near Syria.

It's a warning from NATO to Turkey, NATO do NOT want to get involved in this conflict. There is no endorsement for free to support Turkey in this regards.

NATO estimated the tension will increase, this is warning to Turkey, and a strong signal to Russia that NATO do not support Turkey invasion to Syria.

https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/u...t-missiles-from-turkey-at-critical-time-89643

• October 09 2015 15:21:00

US starts to pull Patriot missiles from Turkey at critical time
HATAY - Doğan News Agency

DHA Photo

The U.S. has started to pull its Patriot missiles stationed in Turkey, despite a recent appeal from Ankara to its NATO allies to keep the air and missile defense units at a delicate time on the border with Syria.

Patriot missiles were initially deployed at the Gaziantep 5th Armored Brigade Command in southeastern Turkey after the country appealed to its NATO allies to guard against rockets from Syria.

On Aug. 15, German Federal Ministry of Defense announced that it would end its contribution to the anti-missile mission in Turkey.

The announcement was followed by a statement from the U.S. on Aug. 16 saying it had informed the Turkish government that the mission, due to end in October, would not be renewed.

The U.S.’s withdrawal of the anti-missile systems started as the Patriots were brought to the Port of İskenderun awaiting ships that would return them to U.S. soil.

The pull out was initiated despite a recent appeal by Turkey to its NATO allies on Oct. 8, days after Russian jets violated Turkey’s airspace near Syria.

The move raised questions about NATO’s strategy in Turkey, as it contradicted with the statements of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg that the alliance was prepared to send ground forces to defend its member state.

And as your article says, this was decided way before the Russians started to violate the borders.
And No, it does not raise any question.
NATO made strong statements in support of Turkey, and Russia decided not to escalate.
Turkey did not NEED anything else.
Patriot is anyway primarily used against missiles, not aircrafts.

It's always quite clear that the west uses Turkey as canon fodder against Russia, they have no regards of Turkey's safety and national interest, if Nato did go to war with Russia, Turkey will be first to burn and be destroyed and then Turkey's part contributing to Nato is fullfilled and over, the west won't miss it .
The best chance for Turkey to stay alive is no wars against Russia ever, that's the basic survival tact when being sandwiched between two giants.

Turkey joined NATO because the Soviet demanded to have a base on their territory to control the port to the Mediterranean Sea.
Frankly I cannot recall that Turkey contributed to any NATO missions.
Maybe they did, but not in a high profile role.

 

[El Sidd]

You'd hate me for this but, I must ask, why so?

Historically they have had good ties like a cousin with my tribe.

Before interacting with them in Germany, i had dealt with them through business to and from Karachi and same story with me father his father his father.

 

[JackTheRipper]

Are You smoking something?
NATO immediately showed its support for the Turkish reaction to the violation of Turkish Air Space by Russia.
Russia wisely backed down and applied a tourist boycott, until Ergogan started to grovel.

Few days ago Syria/Russia killed approximately 40 Turk soldiers,
(Turkey is supporting ISIS & Nusra Front (Al Qaeda) & some other groups with new name)

Then Erdogan asked help from NATO,
In reality Erdogan wants to drag NATO in Syria by blackmailing via Refugees,

But NATO only condemns attacks on Turk Soldiers,

Why ? Because Russia is there..
Even america is going out of Syria,
Why ? Because it is impossible for them to gain their goals, reason is Russia is there..
NATO & US is now only wants to use their proxies, but it too looks them impossible to gain their objectives..

NATO & US can drag Turkey to their wars,
But Turkey can not drag them in his war,
Why ? Because NATO members like UK, FRANCE and US is strong than Turkey military wise and economically,
and other reason is Turkey is Muslim country, they do not trust on Turkey and Erdogan is Blackmailer and more stupid even than Trump..