The Assange one is a long and very controversial one, also touching speech and national security.
And then there is the wide ranging, ongoing argument about US 1A vs European hate speech regulations.
https://law2.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law Review/62-2VanBlarcum.pdf
WikiLeaks was involved in publishing classified military information of the USA, an act that is illegal in I believe all NATO countries. Wikileaks is active in the USA. The USA has started an investigation into this organisation, which Assange at that time headed. Geert Wilders has said that Erdogan is a murderous dictator, something that is illegal in Turkey, but decidely not in the rest of NATO. Wilders has not interfered with the Turkish government in any way.
I think that you can grasp how these cases are decidely different. (And for the record, I think Assange shouldn't be prosecuted for leaking the information.) But again, I ask you: when did the USA or any other NATO country try to have an elected politician from another NATO country arrested for saying something impolite about (for example) the US President? When? Name me that example.
As for the squabbling of bureaucrats about the application of statutes... I can hardly imagine a more bloodless topic. I doubt anyone involves has had to sleep in underground bunkers for the past 18 years.
Reminder than NATO is a military alliance, not a social club, or a "values alliance" that EU is trying to be. That's the argument you are making here, that Turkey doesn't belong in the EU.
I haven't argued that. Once again, you drag something else into the debate to -- so it strongly appears -- distract from matters that you'd prefer
not to talk too much about. Such as the fact that when aasked for examples of other NATO countries acting as Turkey does, you come up with completely off-the-mark comparisons and can't actually offer any of the supposed "many examples" you said you had. (Didn't you say that half of the NATO countries had acted just as bad as Turkey? Where's the proof of that?)
Sorry, but i'm just not a big believer in your fortune telling talent.
I don't share your certainty that they will make their move, and that this move is going to be so catastrophic, successful, and aimed at anything i'd give a damn about to take such extreme measures at preventing it. For all we know Erdogan may decide that it's easiest to build his sultanate at the expense of Syria or Iran, in which case some parts of NATO will cheer for him.
Ambitions are nothing without means to realize them. Erdogan's ambitions are a guess at best and we can argue about their direction and extent all day and get nowhere in the process, but the means Turkey has are something measurable, and they are nowhere near as great as those required to be this kind of grand threat you are picturing them to be if wielded by Erdogan's ambitions.
Your reasoning is just "I DON'T BELIEVE IT, I WON'T BELIEVE IT".
Which is fine, except that when it does subsequently happen, there's a pretty harsh penalty for having been wrong. An underlying issue is that -- as I'll point out below -- your analysis of various relevant factors is very flawed.
That is particularly well-illustrated here:
This guy is now creating butthurt on Kremlin because he's being a scrooge to his big pal Vova.
China? Generous with economic support? To a country that needs it on a real scale, not the equivalent of glass baubles and a can of food? Get real.
Here's what you don't get: China doesn't
want Russia to be strong. China knows what I also know, and what you don't get -- that Russia is fucked. A properly-supported Russia that can find its footing is bad for China, because it'll be pretty independent from China. And just as you say: Russia (
if properly in order, which you
don't say or even seem to realise!) can be very powerful. It has been in the past.
But a weakened Russia, propped up by China just enough to be a useful vassal, but dependent enough to never disobey? That's the Chinese dream. And that's the main reason to be limited in their support for Russia. They aren't making a half-way equal ally, they are making a highly dependent client state.
Turkey, as you point out, is considerably weaker than Russia, ceteris paribus. Supporting them will therefore be much less of an issue for China, also because they don't share a border. Turkey can safely be left far more independt, so long as China gets access to the choke-points that Turkey either already controls, or is in a good geo-strategic position to seize. This offer will be attracive to Turkey as well, as I've pointed out already.
Turkey already has considerable man-power. They lack funding. China can provide this (and matériel) in exchange for the access they desire... and, conversely, for that access to be denied to NATO. In short, as you have already admitted yourself: Turkey can only be "trusted" until they get a better offer. I have outlined that offer here, and I have explained why it would be attractive to the parties involved.
First, you claimed Turkey could be trusted. Then, you claimed Turkey was just an a-moral power-player and that all nations act the same. When faced with evidence of Turkey's...
unusual pattern of behaviour, you claimed that Turky could at least be trusted until a better offer was made, but that you could imagine no such offer. Now I outline such an offer, and the rationale behind it, and you... well, you just go "NYEHHH!"
What will your next tune be? What will your argument shift to become
this time?
I remind you that I have been consistent through-out, whereas you have already changed your argument repeatedly.
As expected, all you have is a nice B movie plot here.
As expected, you have no arguments.
The difference is that Germany in 1939 was an economic and technological superpower, which implies certain level of means of warmongering. It had half the GDP of USA, with similar level of GDP per capita, or in other words double the GDP of France.
Turkey... is not in a position anywhere near that. It is a country with an economy in danger of a disaster, GDP per capita similar to freaking Romania, and enough technological prowess to dunk on such serious players as Syria.
Turkey has the military build-up, the highly indoctrinated/driven population, the strong support for irridentism and the clear ambitions in that direction (see also: recent actions regarding Armenia, in cahoots with Azerbaijan). China has the money to bank-roll the ambitions, and the industry to provide a lot of material support.
The match-up of interests, as I've explained, is obvious.
It seems to me that this is a key part of your fears and it is one that I cannot take seriously at face value without more supporting argument. Riven though NATO nations may be by internal politics, I don't see them as becoming so paralyzed that they will stand still for a hostile takeover of the damn Suez Canal. And if they don't stand still I don't see an attempted Turkish hostile takeover as having a chance in hell. Come to think of it, even if they did, an Israeli-Arab alliance would probably spring up and suffice.
Above, I have given some more detail on the motivations for Turkey and China.
As far as the weakness of NATO and the West in general is concerned: the USA is over thirty thousand
billion dollars down the hole now -- debt funded in part by that great "friend", China. Biden
started his term in office by just creating another thousand billion dollars out of thin air and he hasn't let up since. The EU is economically in even worse condition, basically chained to a fiscal time-bomb in Southern Europe. And then look at the social discontent and the political division. Look at the race riots in the USA and tsunami of refugees that swept over the EU.
Does that promise a stable future, in your opinion? I can tell you: not in my view. I'm pretty damn sure we're in for a disaster. For the forseeable future, the West will not be in a good position to exert its influence abroad. Indeed, that influence has been waning for some time, as domestic problems mount. China has only increased its power projection in the Pacific, while that of the West has steadily declined, bit by bit. The neo-con wars have ended in humiliating failure. And not because the base military strength wasn't there, but because the political will (or skill?) to act decisively was lacking.
You mention Israel, too. Consider the possibility that quite soon, for the first time in a
long period, Israel may have to do without the staggering amount of backing and funding it has thus far always received (and considered its due!) from the USA. That wil... change things.