There are several problems with this analysis.
1. Germany and France and Russia are at least rivals;if not enemy.
I don't see how Germany and France are rivals or threats to Turkey. Both the countries despite their reservations on Turks joining EU, they are close military allies and share numerous strategic cooperation agreements. Those agreements are of the nature that only close partners can come to in terms with.
Russia can be a rival because it stands on the opposite of what Turkey's current government calls its policies as. Syria issue is the biggest example.
While the FSA extremists are attacking Turkey and forcing it into an unwanted war, their ruling party is still pushing the country into what the FSA exactly wants.
Think about it; before the Syrian civil war, Turkey held joint military exercises with Syria to show solidarity and peace. Why the heck would the two countries go into war if there was not a third element trying to ruin their foreign relations?
2. I am amazed by the love story made up by the author about south Korea and turkey.
Actually, the OP has a point. Koreans have opened up a lot to cooperating with Turkey on numerous weapons platforms. This has enabled Turkey to speed up many defence developments that they plan to take up in order to go self-reliant with ToT and mutual exchange of know-how.
What's more, Koreans are committed to a free and fair system of governance and are in sync with what Turkey's ideology stands for, as well as the fact that ROK is not a major power to dictate terms to Turkey and both share their alliance with USA.
So I'd say it was a master-stroke by the Turkish government to choose a partner with good technical know-how and at the same time someone who is friendly and not dominating instead.
Turkey was used by NATO masters as soldiers in the Korean war. Turkey had no choice buy to be drafted to the war, as ordered.
Man you better come up with some serious stuff.
Turks are a part of NATO. An agreement is there between the members.
While I may personally not agree to what NATO does at times, they are an alliance. Which means in case a bigger threat attacks Turkey and Turks are alone, they can invoke the joint military act which will compel entire NATO armed forces to fight alongside Turkey.
So how are they subservient to some imaginary masters?
3. How about Bosnia, Albania, and Kosovo and hamas and Al Qaeda? They are bette friends compared to many others.
You've got to be smoking something strong.
AQ? Hamas? Friends?
Are you an AQ supporter?
Turkey is the most sensible and rational country in entire Middle East and the most progressive because they KNOW how to distinguish personal beliefs from a governing system and at the same time make faith a part of national culture. AQ and Hamas will end up creating terrorism in a peaceful country like Turkey and turn a wonderful country into a hellhole in no time.
Look what AQ's hands in Afghanistan did and what they are doing in Pakistan today. There's chaos, instability, attacks, insecurity, bankruptcy everywhere where they go. Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan's northern regions.. what more proof do you want?
As for Bosnia Albania and Kosovo.. what can they offer Turkey that NATO can't?
In foreign relations there is no religion involved above interests. You need to understand that.
If that was the case, the world would not be having globalized relations among different countries and instead would have had their own nests of interest among similar countries.
These countries would be a liability for Turks instead.
Friendly ties are okay but when it comes to interest, all this 'brotherhood' just becomes hogwash.
