So...NATO is expanding...

[Marduk]

Again, your blatant hypocrisy is on display. First, you go on and on abot nations having no allies and geo-politics being cut-throat and only intended for pure opportunism. When I point out that my view actually derives from a view not unlike that, you suddenly start to claim we have to be careful and never rock the boat.

No, "sufficient paranoia" does not constitute a valid interest.

Basically, when Turkey acts with cold opportunism, we have to accept it. We're not allowed to do it ourselves, though.

Yes, we are, and that's what NATO is doing right now with keeping Turkey in and tolerating some level of assholery from it.

Anyway -- my stance is that you can judhe a power by its actions, and those of Turkey are hostile. So treat it as a hostile power. You pretend as if Turkey is going to be our friend if we just play nice, while it's clear that they will only be a "friend" as long as it serves them. So push them out so you have armour between yourself and their eventual attack... or keep them in, and they'll get to stab you in the unprotected soft body-parts at a moment of their choosing.

I do not expect friendship from Turkey, playing nice even less so, only usefulness.
As long as it can remain useful, it is, well, useful to keep it in NATO.

Don't you see how insane it is to keep a clear enemy within your alliance?

What clear enemy? I find it hilarious that you turn Turkey's low key assholery into Turkey being a clear enemy and a real threat, while you discount Russia's outright war in Europe and nuclear saber rattling as just an annoyance that will collapse by itself.
You know what, once that actually happens we can probably focus on Turkey, as that is a different world situation, because if there's no Russia the whole Black Sea basin military calculus becomes less important. But until then...
Yes, it has to happen first, your faith into this totally happening for sure is not a valid substitute.

Turkey has lied to NATO about its non-objection, and then publicly stabbed NATO in the back to serve its own ends.

Not NATO. Sweden and Finland. NATO didn't lose anything from their deception. It is a fast and loose play, but its hardly the worst thing they did to NATO that yet was tolerated anyway, so if there were red lines to be crossed, that would have been the case years ago,

Turkey has manipulated NATO powers with their migrant-blackmail, and has openly declared it'll do so again if they think it fitting.

Turkey has actively threatened NATO politicians (e.g. Geert Wilders) and has actively sought to persecute and endanger their lives.

That's frankly a better argument to rein Turkey in hard than the current kerfuffle, especially the first one being of just sufficient and overt scale for notice, but that opportunity has passed.

Turkey has access to NATO plans, but is also in bed with NATO's enemies.

Which of NATO's enemies?

These are the facts. Turkey should not be in NATO. If you truly cannot grasp this, then all further debate is pointless, and only the eventual conflict (sadly fought on Turkish terms) will make clear how foolish it was to keep them in NATO instead of treating them as the enemy that they were all along.

What does NATO gain out of Turkey not being in NATO? We know what it loses, the second largest army in NATO and control of transit between Black and Mediterranean seas.

 

[King Arts]

The current century summed up in a single sentence.

Skallagrim, you are from the Netherlands. Dutch. How is Turkey a threat to you? Like I can understand a Greek, or a Bulgarian, or a Serb. Or people that were occupied by the Ottoman Empire. But like your neighbors are Germany, and Belgium. Like historically you had to watch out for Germany but that's not the case now. Like a cold pragmatic approach to your nation is just to shrug your shoulders. I mean it'd be like someone from Japan worrying about the threat of Iran. It's separated by dozens of nations and you aren't competeing for influence or resources. So what is with this fixation on Turkey?

 

[Skallagrim]

No, "sufficient paranoia" does not constitute a valid interest.

It's not paranoia, it's observation and deduction. The fact that you don't see what Turkey is really like is your problem.

Yes, we are, and that's what NATO is doing right now with keeping Turkey in and tolerating some level of assholery from it.

"We are allow ourselves to be pushed around, and that how we're proving that we're really standing our ground!"

What kind ass-backward logic is that?

I do not expect friendship from Turkey, playing nice even less so, only usefulness.
As long as it can remain useful, it is, well, useful to keep it in NATO.

It isn't useful to keep an enemy in a position where he can strike at you. That's the illusion of usefulness. When push comes to shove, Turkey will not help us. They've already proven that often enough. So what you get is nothing, and what you risk is a lot.

You mistake Turkey's promises for actual help. You are keeping them in because of a illusion (that Turkey would supposedly be "useful" in a crisis), while putting NATO at real risk (that Turkey stabs us in the back instead).

You know what, once that actually happens we can probably focus on Turkey, as that is a different world situation, because if there's no Russia the whole Black Sea basin military calculus becomes less important. But until then...

You'll only be willing to act when it's probably too late. That's not very helpful.

Not NATO. Sweden and Finland. NATO didn't lose anything from their deception. It is a fast and loose play, but its hardly the worst thing they did to NATO that yet was tolerated anyway, so if there were red lines to be crossed, that would have been the case years ago,

1. They made those assurances of "no objections" to all if NATO (behind closed doors) and then went back on it and made trouble anyway (for all the world to see). Deliberately. While there's a tense stand-off with Russia. At that moment, our "friends" in Turkey decide to sow division and paint NATO as weak and disordered. Your willingness to down-play that is astounding.

2. The argument "they did way worse before!" only supports my point. There is no time limit on punishing such misbehavour. The transgressions only stack up, each one adding more evidence that I am right. I agree with you insofar as your comment can be read to say "we should have kicked them out years ago", but I add the adage "better late than never".

Which of NATO's enemies?

The very Russian dictatorship that you continue to see as a big threat, for starters. Turkey refuses to close ranks with NATO, and wants to profit from a position as middle-man. Fine, but if you can't and won't commit, you don't belong in NATO.

What does NATO gain out of Turkey not being in NATO? We know what it loses, the second largest army in NATO and control of transit between Black and Mediterranean seas.

That's not what NATO loses, because we don't have that. Again, you mistake an illusion for reality. Turkey controls the Straits, and they will happily close access to other NATO countries if they for a second believe it serves their interests. For instance, if a conflict with Russia escalates? You can count on Turkey holding NATO over the barrel, demanding all kinds of extrortions for the privilege of access. That's the exact behaviour Turky has demonstrated again and again, so you can;t dismiss that as "paranoia" -- it's 100% based on ample past experience.

So control of the straits? Nope, we don't lose that, because we don't have it. We act there by Turkey's leave alone.

Same for that great army of theirs. It's theirs. And they won't fight for us. They never have. To them, NATO is a box of free goodies, and the obligations they have to NATO are just words on paper. That's the reality.

So what do we lose? We lose nothing. We lose an illusion.

What do we gain? The removal of a knife pressed against our unguarded back. That's what we gain. And that's worth it.

Skallagrim, you are from the Netherlands. Dutch. How is Turkey a threat to you? Like I can understand a Greek, or a Bulgarian, or a Serb. Or people that were occupied by the Ottoman Empire. But like your neighbors are Germany, and Belgium. Like historically you had to watch out for Germany but that's not the case now. Like a cold pragmatic approach to your nation is just to shrug your shoulders. I mean it'd be like someone from Japan worrying about the threat of Iran. It's separated by dozens of nations and you aren't competeing for influence or resources. So what is with this fixation on Turkey?

This is a civilisational matter. Am I to be so small that I cannot look beyond my own country, my own province, my own village, my own front door? Is that supposed to be virtuous or intelligent?

The true war of not just the rest of this century but the next few centuries is going to be between the West (its core being North America and Europe) and the East (meaning, functionally, China). The world is set to be divided in two parts, against each other. Like Rome and Persia, a rivalry that encompasses the known world and which lasts for several ages.

If we allow lesser foes like Turkey to run rough-shod over us already, we'll be that much weaker in the long term. And the fear that some have about Turkey "going over to the enemy" is nonsense, because they'll do that anyway.

 

[Bacle]

Seems like maybe it's time for someone to remove Edry and help a more reasonable ruler take charge.

Because there have to be some non-neo-Ottoman's in Turkey's gov/military who we could place in charge after removing Erdy.

 

[Marduk]

It's not paranoia, it's observation and deduction. The fact that you don't see what Turkey is really like is your problem.



"We are allow ourselves to be pushed around, and that how we're proving that we're really standing our ground!"

What kind ass-backward logic is that?

And what did Turkey get from this pushing around other than stuff it has a reasonable expectation of as a NATO member?

It isn't useful to keep an enemy in a position where he can strike at you. That's the illusion of usefulness. When push comes to shove, Turkey will not help us. They've already proven that often enough. So what you get is nothing, and what you risk is a lot.

It is currently helping against Russia (see: keeping the straits closed to Russian warships, Bayraktars, Black Sea naval cooperation and so on), so this premise is just plainly wrong.
Turkey would be in a better position to strike at NATO without having to maintain duties as a member, and being free to pursue closer relations with Iran or Russia. The S-400/F-35 debacle is an example, from USA this time, of where the true red lines are and what happens if Turkey pushes them too hard.

You mistake Turkey's promises for actual help. You are keeping them in because of a illusion (that Turkey would supposedly be "useful" in a crisis), while putting NATO at real risk (that Turkey stabs us in the back instead).

Turkey to block passage of Russian warships in Black Sea; Moscow disputes access claims- Republic World

www.republicworld.com

Where Turkey Stands on the Russia-Ukraine War

Russia’s outsize impact on Turkish interests means Ankara is sticking to a middle ground on the war in Ukraine.

www.cfr.org

U.S. thanks Turkey for helping Ukraine over Russian invasion

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken thanked Turkey for its role in helping Ukraine amid the invasion by Russia during a call on Wednesday with his counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu, the State Department said in a statement.

www.reuters.com

So far Turkey is fulfilling its duties as an alliance member to a satisfactory level, in the crisis that is, rather than some imaginary crisis, better than some others, and its not just my opinion. So yeah, i just don't feel like making judgement on the basis of what is happening in your fantasy world, rather than the real world.

You'll only be willing to act when it's probably too late. That's not very helpful.

WTF do you mean by "too late". This isn't a movie plot.

1. They made those assurances of "no objections" to all if NATO (behind closed doors) and then went back on it and made trouble anyway (for all the world to see). Deliberately. While there's a tense stand-off with Russia.

You lost me at "behind closed doors". This is plain court politics. As far as things that are beyond the pale in NATO go, this is just tuesday.

At that moment, our "friends" in Turkey decide to sow division and paint NATO as weak and disordered. Your willingness to down-play that is astounding.

Back to previous point, so do we kick out France and Germany too? Because they are doing more of that right now.

2. The argument "they did way worse before!" only supports my point. There is no time limit on punishing such misbehavour. The transgressions only stack up, each one adding more evidence that I am right. I agree with you insofar as your comment can be read to say "we should have kicked them out years ago", but I add the adage "better late than never".

A whole lot of NATO countries has some sort of transgressions on its account. But life goes on and we have to deal with it, or else NATO would be at least half smaller.

The very Russian dictatorship that you continue to see as a big threat, for starters. Turkey refuses to close ranks with NATO, and wants to profit from a position as middle-man. Fine, but if you can't and won't commit, you don't belong in NATO.

As above, what you are suggesting here is cutting out nearly half of NATO.

That's not what NATO loses, because we don't have that. Again, you mistake an illusion for reality. Turkey controls the Straits, and they will happily close access to other NATO countries if they for a second believe it serves their interests. For instance, if a conflict with Russia escalates? You can count on Turkey holding NATO over the barrel, demanding all kinds of extrortions for the privilege of access. That's the exact behaviour Turky has demonstrated again and again, so you can;t dismiss that as "paranoia" -- it's 100% based on ample past experience.

But so far is conflicting with current experience. Dickery over the question of NATO expansion is not exactly that major on account of regarding merely potential future members.

So control of the straits? Nope, we don't lose that, because we don't have it. We act there by Turkey's leave alone.

Back to reality with you...

Turkey to block passage of Russian warships in Black Sea; Moscow disputes access claims- Republic World

www.republicworld.com

Same for that great army of theirs. It's theirs. And they won't fight for us. They never have. To them, NATO is a box of free goodies, and the obligations they have to NATO are just words on paper. That's the reality.

If they don't then they get kicked out. That's the idea, they are as hooked on NATO goodies as Germany is on Russian energy resources.

What do we gain? The removal of a knife pressed against our unguarded back. That's what we gain. And that's worth it.

No, we don't gain that, we gain certainty that the knife will be used by enemies, rather than merely having doubt.
We gain that if someone can lobby through a NATO land-air-sea campaign to take and occupy Istanbul and nearby areas. Do you even realize what that entails? You can't do that, and no politician currently on the stage can do that. Anything less than that just makes the situation worse than merely having a question mark on Turkey's allegiances.

 

[Skallagrim]

No, we don't gain that, we gain certainty that the knife will be used by enemies, rather than merely having doubt.

I'll ignore your endless repetition of falsehoods about "half of NATO" supposedly being as bad as Turkey, because I don't recall Macron ever trying to have Dutch politician extradited to Turkey for thoughtcrime (by Turkish standards), nor do I recall the USA theatening to flood the EU with millions of Mexicans if the EU didn't give the USA billions of euros. It's very strange, but those are things Turkey does.

But no. Your falsehoods there are to obvious to require detailed rebuttal; anyone who would believe such blatant lies is unworthy of consideration anyway. Instead, I'll focus on the above quote, because that's the core of your misconception; your utter and fatal delusion. You think that if we keep Turkey in, there is some "doubt" that they might betray us. You think that by casting them out, we'll simply replace uncertainty with certainty -- ceteris paribus -- and that's worse.

The truth is the opposite. There can be no doubt that they'll betray us. If you really think Turkey isn't going to betray us, I have a bridge to sell you, endlessly gullible fellow that you are.

What I'm telling you is that a knife to the back at an unexpected moment is much worse than a knife to full plate armour across the chest, when you know it's coming. All things are not equal. My proposal is to remove the knife from where it can stab us in the back, and to put on some God-damned armour. That brings a stark certainty, yes, but it puts us in a position where we avoid getting a dagger to the proverbial kidneys.

You seem completely 100% dedicated to not understanding that an attack from within is an unacceptable risk, so I doubt you'll get it this time, but I'm sure time will eventually teach you this lesson. But by then, the attack will have happened, and we'll be at war with them on their terms. (And that's what "too late" means, mr. Chamberlain.)

 

[Marduk]

I'll ignore your endless repetition of falsehoods about "half of NATO" supposedly being as bad as Turkey, because I don't recall Macron ever trying to have Dutch politician extradited to Turkey for thoughtcrime (by Turkish standards), nor do I recall the USA theatening to flood the EU with millions of Mexicans if the EU didn't give the USA billions of euros. It's very strange, but those are things Turkey does.

There were plenty of extradition controversies between USA and various European members.
As for migrants, i remind you of the behavior of Germany and most left wing governments in the same crisis. Except they didn't ask for billions of euros to not do the stupid shit, they just did the stupid shit with no option to bribe or argue them out of it, which is even worse.

But no. Your falsehoods there are to obvious to require detailed rebuttal; anyone who would believe such blatant lies is unworthy of consideration anyway. Instead, I'll focus on the above quote, because that's the core of your misconception; your utter and fatal delusion. You think that if we keep Turkey in, there is some "doubt" that they might betray us. You think that by casting them out, we'll simply replace uncertainty with certainty -- ceteris paribus -- and that's worse.

The truth is the opposite. There can be no doubt that they'll betray us. If you really think Turkey isn't going to betray us, I have a bridge to sell you, endlessly gullible fellow that you are.

As you said, Turkey is opportunistic.
Turkey may well betray NATO only if someone can offer it a better deal than NATO.
But at this moment or in near future, who can hope to achieve that?
Russia is in a pretty screwed position right now, China is still far away, and Iran is pretty much a third world country.
Obviously if NATO cancels the deal, that automatically makes the next best thing the deal of choice for Turkey, even if much inferior, removing all doubt and chance.

What I'm telling you is that a knife to the back at an unexpected moment is much worse than a knife to full plate armour across the chest, when you know it's coming. All things are not equal. My proposal is to remove the knife from where it can stab us in the back, and to put on some God-damned armour. That brings a stark certainty, yes, but it puts us in a position where we avoid getting a dagger to the proverbial kidneys.

Can you lay off the analogies right now and explain what the hell can Turkey do that warrants such paranoia? You know, within its capabilities, not just hypothetical ambitions.

You seem completely 100% dedicated to not understanding that an attack from within is an unacceptable risk, so I doubt you'll get it this time, but I'm sure time will eventually teach you this lesson. But by then, the attack will have happened, and we'll be at war with them on their terms. (And that's what "too late" means, mr. Chamberlain.)

Again, you are making this sound like some B movie plot not unlike Red Dawn, not a realistic, real world military policy issue. You need a reminder that this closeness works both ways, its unlikely Erdogan would go very far with his stunts as long as there are US military bases in Turkey, he may play stupid games against Greece or Sweden, but he does respect the strength of US military.

 

[Skallagrim]

There were plenty of extradition controversies between USA and various European members.

The case here is that Turkey launched a lawsuit, a formal investigation and another criminal complaint against Dutch politicians (most prominently the noted Islam-critical Geert Wilders). With the purpose of ensuring that if Erdogan's targets were ever in a country with an extradition with Turkey, they could be handed over to Turkey, where their crimes would be punishable with several years in prison. The crimes in question? Insulting Erdogan. That's it. Something 100% legal in the Netherlands, where Wilders made his remarks. (Most notably, by the way, after Erdogan extrajudicially executed a lot of people following an astro-turf "coup attempt".)

Oh, Erdogan also egged on his followers in the Netherlands to "defend" Turkey against such politicians, with the evident subtext of "slay these infidels". Wilders has lived under 24/7 guard since 2004. He sleeps in military bunkers, to prevent assassination by an Islamic radical. (There have been several murder plots against him, including by Turks, subsequent to Erdogan's rejoinders.)

Now. Name me some other examples of "extradition controversies" between NATO members of this sort. Go on. Name me some examples of a NATO leader very strongly implying that his countrymen living in another NATO country should kill a certain politician in that country. Name me some examples of NATO leaders trying to get politicians from other NATO members extradited for exercising their legal free speech in their own countries, with the aim of putting them in prison for several years in said leader's country.

If you can do that, I'll be impressed. But I know of no examples like that. Other "extradition controversies" between NATO members tend to be of a far different, more sedate type. And if you can't name any other examples like that, then maybe it's time to admit that Turkey is, uh... not a normal, dutiful, respectable NATO member.

Turkey may well betray NATO only if someone can offer it a better deal than NATO.
But at this moment or in near future, who can hope to achieve that?

Again, your argument seems to be "let's wait for them to make their move, instead of, you know... preventing that".

I don't see the logic there. It's Chamberlain reasoning, and it has historically been catastrophic. Why can't you see that? It's so frustrating that you're so willfully blind to all the evidence of history, so set on repeating mistakes that have been made so often before. Don't you understand how infuriatingly dense you're being?

Can you lay off the analogies right now and explain what the hell can Turkey do that warrants such paranoia? You know, within its capabilities, not just hypothetical ambitions.

You poison the debate by automatically rejecting all ambitions as "hypothetical". The fact is that Turkey has been building up its army quite considerably, and has been indoctrinating the populace with neo-imperialist ideas. Which, I can tell you, has been astaundingly effective. The way Turks over here talk about Erdogan... it's the way the German-American Bund spoke about Hitler.

I've already outlined the problems that I think the West will face. I have also outlined previously why I expect Russia to run into massive problems -- and that's already happening now. In the coming years and decades, it there will be a power vacuüm as Russia proves unable to keep up its own doomed imperialism and faces a ludicrously damaged economy. The West will not be in a position to act, since we're also bankrupt and facing increasing domestic upheavals and political partisanship (to the point that meaningful co-operation between factions has already become next-to-impossible).

In the face of this, Turkey has an opportunity to exploit the weakness of the areas surrounding it. What it would need for that is some economic support. The West isn't going to provide it. But you know who will?

And all that, in exchange for... a little influence. A little access. So that strategic choke-points like the Suez can be, instead of Anglo-French as they once were... Turko-Chinese, instead.

That offer will be infinitely attractive to Turkey, because it offers what they really want, and all from a comfortably distant patron. Far more attractive than what NATO will be able to offer at that stage. And with far fewer burdensome... constraints.

Our enemies thank you for your hestitancy in taking action, Marduk. Truly, it'll be thanks to people like you, that such developments will become possible.

(Considering your attitudes thus far, you'll probably claim this is "unrealistic", too. We'll hear what tune you sing when it actually happens, huh?)

Again, you are making this sound like some B movie plot not unlike Red Dawn, not a realistic, real world military policy issue.

To you, Churchill must have sounded like he was living in a film, too.

But he was right about the threat. He was right to reject appeasement. His chance to prevent even worse came, by some metrics, just in time. But if people -- people like you -- had listened earlier, then Hitler could have been stopped before he ever had a chance to march into Czechia. Hell, he could have been stopped before the Anschluss.

 

[Marduk]

The case here is that Turkey launched a lawsuit, a formal investigation and another criminal complaint against Dutch politicians (most prominently the noted Islam-critical Geert Wilders). With the purpose of ensuring that if Erdogan's targets were ever in a country with an extradition with Turkey, they could be handed over to Turkey, where their crimes would be punishable with several years in prison. The crimes in question? Insulting Erdogan. That's it. Something 100% legal in the Netherlands, where Wilders made his remarks. (Most notably, by the way, after Erdogan extrajudicially executed a lot of people following an astro-turf "coup attempt".)

Oh, Erdogan also egged on his followers in the Netherlands to "defend" Turkey against such politicians, with the evident subtext of "slay these infidels". Wilders has lived under 24/7 guard since 2004. He sleeps in military bunkers, to prevent assassination by an Islamic radical. (There have been several murder plots against him, including by Turks, subsequent to Erdogan's rejoinders.)

Now. Name me some other examples of "extradition controversies" between NATO members of this sort. Go on. Name me some examples of a NATO leader very strongly implying that his countrymen living in another NATO country should kill a certain politician in that country. Name me some examples of NATO leaders trying to get politicians from other NATO members extradited for exercising their legal free speech in their own countries, with the aim of putting them in prison for several years in said leader's country.

If you can do that, I'll be impressed. But I know of no examples like that. Other "extradition controversies" between NATO members tend to be of a far different, more sedate type. And if you can't name any other examples like that, then maybe it's time to admit that Turkey is, uh... not a normal, dutiful, respectable NATO member.

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%20Review/62-2VanBlarcum.pdf

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.

Again, your argument seems to be "let's wait for them to make their move, instead of, you know... preventing 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.

I don't see the logic there. It's Chamberlain reasoning, and it has historically been catastrophic. Why can't you see that? It's so frustrating that you're so willfully blind to all the evidence of history, so set on repeating mistakes that have been made so often before. Don't you understand how infuriatingly dense you're being?

No, i can't "see" that, and you need to make a better argument than you "seeing" things.

You poison the debate by automatically rejecting all ambitions as "hypothetical".

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.

The fact is that Turkey has been building up its army quite considerably, and has been indoctrinating the populace with neo-imperialist ideas. Which, I can tell you, has been astaundingly effective. The way Turks over here talk about Erdogan... it's the way the German-American Bund spoke about Hitler.

Russia has a bigger, more modern army, but that's still not an army to conquer the world. Look at Turkey's performance in their little special operation in Syria. Not exactly shock&awe inspiring.

I've already outlined the problems that I think the West will face. I have also outlined previously why I expect Russia to run into massive problems -- and that's already happening now. In the coming years and decades, it there will be a power vacuüm as Russia proves unable to keep up its own doomed imperialism and faces a ludicrously damaged economy. The West will not be in a position to act, since we're also bankrupt and facing increasing domestic upheavals and political partisanship (to the point that meaningful co-operation between factions has already become next-to-impossible).

Russia has its massive resource revenue to float up their failed economy with so even in miserable state, it can float them up for quite some time.
Turkey has jack shit.

In the face of this, Turkey has an opportunity to exploit the weakness of the areas surrounding it. What it would need for that is some economic support. The West isn't going to provide it. But you know who will?

And all that, in exchange for... a little influence. A little access. So that strategic choke-points like the Suez can be, instead of Anglo-French as they once were... Turko-Chinese, instead.

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.
Also Turkey does not have the kind of navy to control the Mediterranean Sea, while China needs theirs a long way from there.

That offer will be infinitely attractive to Turkey, because it offers what they really want, and all from a comfortably distant patron. Far more attractive than what NATO will be able to offer at that stage. And with far fewer burdensome... constraints.

Our enemies thank you for your hestitancy in taking action, Marduk. Truly, it'll be thanks to people like you, that such developments will become possible.

(Considering your attitudes thus far, you'll probably claim this is "unrealistic", too. We'll hear what tune you sing when it actually happens, huh?)

As expected, all you have is a nice B movie plot here. But nothing beyond that.

To you, Churchill must have sounded like he was living in a film, too.

But he was right about the threat. He was right to reject appeasement. His chance to prevent even worse came, by some metrics, just in time. But if people -- people like you -- had listened earlier, then Hitler could have been stopped before he ever had a chance to march into Czechia. Hell, he could have been stopped before the Anschluss.

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.

 

[WolfBear]

I say that first we cast Turkey out of NATO, because an enemy within the walls is a mortal peril. Then we continue the stategy of letting Russia bleed itself to death, prompting it to collapse into gangsterism and chaos as the current regime ultimately fails. As soon as Russia is in turmoil and unable to act coherently -- eliminate Turkey. By any means necessary. Remove their power completely. If their control of the Straits is an issue (and it is!), then the correct solution is to take the Straits back. Make Istanbul Constantinople again.

This would require much more ethnic cleansing in the 2020s than it would have back in the 1920s, no?

 

[strunkenwhite]

And all that, in exchange for... a little influence. A little access. So that strategic choke-points like the Suez can be, instead of Anglo-French as they once were... Turko-Chinese, instead.

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.

 

[Skallagrim]

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.

 

[strunkenwhite]

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.

I am accepting for the sake of argument that Turkey and China have such ambitions.

Western economies look shaky at the moment, sure. Political division, sure. Race riots? Compare 2020 to 1968, or the 1960s in general, or 1992. That storm has passed, and left less damage (literal and metaphorical) than we've recovered handily from before.

Even reduced to a shadow of itself, NATO, spearheaded by the USN and USAF, would be amply able to smother a revanchist attempt to recover Suez for the Ottomans, with the aid of local ground forces. The picture you paint is one of an enfeebled West rather than a determinedly isolationist one, and even an enfeebled West can defeat Turkish adventurism a thousand kilometers from its homeland.

Neoconservatives were humiliated in the past two decades, agreed. Yet here we are gleefully aiding Ukraine. I believe the biggest reason the help for Ukraine is mere aid and not, say, a NATO no-fly zone against the Russian air force is that Russia has lots of nuclear weapons, which Turkey does not.

As for the aid given by the US to Israel (and Egypt while we're counting), it may be huge for them but it's a pittance for the US to be perfectly frank. It is not a change in economic fortunes but a change in political ones that will see any reduction in assistance there. What do you foretell in that respect?

 

[Skallagrim]

I am accepting for the sake of argument that Turkey and China have such ambitions.

Western economies look shaky at the moment, sure. Political division, sure. Race riots? Compare 2020 to 1968, or the 1960s in general, or 1992. That storm has passed, and left less damage (literal and metaphorical) than we've recovered handily from before.

Even reduced to a shadow of itself, NATO, spearheaded by the USN and USAF, would be amply able to smother a revanchist attempt to recover Suez for the Ottomans, with the aid of local ground forces. The picture you paint is one of an enfeebled West rather than a determinedly isolationist one, and even an enfeebled West can defeat Turkish adventurism a thousand kilometers from its homeland.

Neoconservatives were humiliated in the past two decades, agreed. Yet here we are gleefully aiding Ukraine. I believe the biggest reason the help for Ukraine is mere aid and not, say, a NATO no-fly zone against the Russian air force is that Russia has lots of nuclear weapons, which Turkey does not.

As for the aid given by the US to Israel (and Egypt while we're counting), it may be huge for them but it's a pittance for the US to be perfectly frank. It is not a change in economic fortunes but a change in political ones that will see any reduction in assistance there. What do you foretell in that respect?

Since the question is now veering off towards another -- but related -- topic, I refer you to this thread, where my most recent post gives an outline of what I expect.

 

[strunkenwhite]

Since the question is now veering off towards another -- but related -- topic, I refer you to this thread, where my most recent post gives an outline of what I expect.

I am prepared to grant for the sake of argument that it's plausible Turkey might manage to take the Suez Canal in a world where Europe and North America are preoccupied by apocalyptic civil wars. But I don't really see the relevance since if the West preemptively beat up Turkey prior to such civil wars I don't see why Turkey would stay down. Therefore I was assuming the absence of that final paroxysm, the likelihood of which I agree is best suited for the other thread, for the purpose of our discussion.

 

[Marduk]

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.

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?)

Don't you have google?

Looking back: De Gaulle tells American Forces to leave France

On March 7, 1966, General Charles De Gaulle, the French President, informed the United States government the all foreign troops must leave France. That was the end result of a number of agendas which

www.mildenhall.af.mil

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Cherbourg_incident

So yeah, things do sometimes get spicy between NATO members.

No, you are missing a point. This is very related. NATO was never supposed to be an "alliance of nice liberal countries and only that". Consider the political situation in Turkey at the time period when it was admitted, and what kind of internal events and policies did that membership survive (Greece too by the way). You are trying to make an argument that Turkey doesn't belong in NATO because it breaches certain internal political standards of NATO membership... While such standards de facto never existed and some people are just implying them out of thin air.

Your reasoning is just "I DON'T BELIEVE IT, I WON'T BELIEVE IT".

Sorry, fortune tellers just don't have a great track record.

That is particularly well-illustrated here:


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.

So now you are agreeing with my point even more certainly than i'd be willing to go, claiming China will not let Russia stop being a meaningful pain in the ass to NATO/USA. And as long as that remains the case, keeping the status quo with Turkey has value.

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.

Supporting how, with what, and for what? Unlike Russia, Turkey does not have a border with China, and has little to offer to China (Russia still has miltech and resources). Not to mention certain political discomfort on both sides regarding the Uyghur question.

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.

Chokepoints for what? China does not have resources to secure for itself even routes leading to these chokepoints in the first place, and Turkey doesn't exactly rule the waves either.

Suez? If Turkey fucks with that, it will be dealing with local first world naval powers, including France, and that's if UK and USA don't intervene on top of that, it would be fucking suicidal of them to try, even if China would graciously donated a third of its own navy to Turkey, which it will never do.

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.

It would be a plan built on matchsticks. Which would get broken the moment western powers see it happening. As i said, Chinese Navy just can't do much in that area, its too far away for them. China isn't also some giant Saudi Arabia in terms of throwing giant sums of free money on the off chance that the people they bankroll will probably fuck with USA somehow sometime in the future, they have their own navy to expand, they would be crazy to sponsor opportunist Erdogan's one just so that he can say "so long suckers, thanks for the port infrastructure and ships" at the end. Yeah, opportunism works both ways.

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!"

Where did i claim that it can be trusted? Sod off with your narrative crafting and other attempts at character attack or rhetorical points. I do not like these games and will reply in kind.
I stand by the point that "no such offer exists" and your hypothetical offers belong in a B movie plot, and even that is generous, most mainstream experts would probably assign these scenarios to a shovelware videogame.
I asked for serious scenario, not a test of your imagination.

As expected, you have no arguments.

As i just outlined, your scenario is fucking ridiculous on account of the politics and geography of it, nevermind the naval strategy aspect.

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.

But not the geography and the trust. They love to bribe shitpoor countries for resources and military bases, but the caliber of money cannons needed to impress Turkey would be completely different... and as such would also draw notice from USA as that scale of support is impossible to hide nor do quickly. Not to mention why would China spend so much to control Black Sea which doesn't exactly mean much for it, unlike for Russia. Basically for China it would be a big investment with lots of risk and little return. They are not in a position to do that now, and they can get far better bang for their buck elsewhere.
As for Armenia and Azerbaijan are concerned, shitting in Russia's sandbox is well within the red lines as far as NATO goes. Perhaps even encouraged behind the scenes.

The match-up of interests, as I've explained, is obvious.

And as i've explained, wild and inefficient from the perspective of China.

 

[Marduk]

Guess what, as i've predicted, some sort of compromise between Sweden and Turkey is already being implemented.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-06-13/nato-chief-says-sweden-has-taken-important-steps-to-meet-turkeys-demands

 

[Husky_Khan]

Turkey is also making some.more arms deals with it's NATO Partners as well. Half dozen Bayraktar Drones to Lithuania are being discussed.



They're also apparently nearly doubling the amount of Boxers IFVs they have, newer variants as well as complimenting their existing force of PxH2000's from Germania with French Caesar SPG's.

 

[WolfBear]

The whole discussion here is about Sweden wanting to join NATO while giving "soft" support to Kurds. Meanwhile Turks want a deal where Sweden stops the latter before doing the former. So don't play coy here, you know what this is about now, even in the unlikely scenario you didn't.

And care to explain to me whose interests should be paramount in the NATO alliance if not its member states?

What about resettling the socialist Kurds en masse (well, those of them who would actually want to emigrate) in Latin America? :

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/large-scale-muslim-settlement-in-latin-america-in-the-20th-and-21st-centuries.8433/

This would give them a new homeland (albeit not their own state) and solve Turkey's problem with them. And Latin America has historically been very friendly towards socialism.

BTW, what I find interesting is that NATO's position relative to Russia is strongest in the north (Baltic membership and now Finnish/Swedish membership) and weakest in the south (Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, with Ukraine not being in NATO, and Turkey being a huge pain in NATO's ass). This is similar to the Soviet Union's greatest strength during Operation Barbarossa being in the south rather than in the north.

 

[Marduk]

What about resettling the socialist Kurds en masse (well, those of them who would actually want to emigrate) in Latin America? :

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/large-scale-muslim-settlement-in-latin-america-in-the-20th-and-21st-centuries.8433/

This would give them a new homeland (albeit not their own state) and solve Turkey's problem with them. And Latin America has historically been very friendly towards socialism.

But why would either of the parties agree to this plan? Most of the socialist Latin America is poorer than Turkey and the local socialists are quite insistent on being the ones in charge of the party. Kurds would be coming there, to a foreign land they don't care about, with no power, no weapons, no domestic support, and no hope of getting any wealthier out of the deal.

BTW, what I find interesting is that NATO's position relative to Russia is strongest in the north (Baltic membership and now Finnish/Swedish membership) and weakest in the south (Russia's aggression towards Ukraine, with Ukraine not being in NATO, and Turkey being a huge pain in NATO's ass). This is similar to the Soviet Union's greatest strength during Operation Barbarossa being in the south rather than in the north.

The question is, how much Russia cares? Its not like in the era of nuclear saber rattling and cultural malaise of the west NATO is just suddenly going to send divisions either way with dunno, suddenly found devotion to the Blood God protecting them from both the fear and somehow also the reality of nuclear warfare.