"Nato´s Turkey Paradox" Topic

"When NATO leaders gather in Ankara in July, they will be meeting in the capital of one of the alliance's most strategically important and politically contested members. The 2026 NATO summit will take place in Turkey at a moment when the United States is sending increasingly uncertain signals about its long-term role in European security, including a planned drawdown of US forces from Germany that has intensified European debates about burden sharing. At the same time, Turkey brings capabilities that few allies can dismiss. It fields the alliance's second-largest army, and its geography places it at the intersection of the Black Sea, the eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Caucasus.

This setting captures NATO's enduring Turkey paradox. Turkey is militarily valuable, geographically essential, and regionally influential, especially when the alliance faces crises along its southern and eastern flanks. At the same time, its domestic politics, independent foreign policy, disputes with Greece and Cyprus, strong disagreement with US support for the Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria, purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system, and frequent clashes with European governments have made it one of NATO's most difficult allies to manage.

This paradox has existed since Turkey entered the alliance in 1952, but it is becoming more relevant as NATO faces a more uncertain strategic environment. If Washington becomes less predictable and Europe is forced to carry more of its own defense burden, Turkey's role inside NATO will become more visible. Greater visibility, however, will not automatically produce greater trust. Turkey's future role in NATO will likely follow a pattern that has shaped the alliance for decades: When threat perceptions rise, allies rediscover Turkey's strategic value; when threat perceptions decline, concerns about Turkey's identity, reliability, and political direction regain force…"

link

Armand

Turkey may be too big for europe to do anything about, and they are continuing to expand both in foreign policy and hardware.

A resurrection of the Ottoman Empire?

Turkey rebuilding their empire under the protection of NATO is scarier than anything that the US can threaten.

Thanks

Armand

I saw a few stories in the various hot spots Turkey is supplying and pushing more into influencing others. Makes an interesting dilemma if a nato country sends troops or aid workers to a place turkish arms get used against them. If they kick Turkey out they have a strong potential enemy on their border.

The Turks do have the 2d largest military in NATO … But the less secular and more islamic they get could be a problem. Based on the current situation, with Russia being a red paper bear". Do the Turks really need to hold that portions of NATO's flank ? However, them still being NATO may keeps them from going full tilt islamists … maybe …

Better Turkey with NATO than with Russia…

Armand

Of course … but it seems the Turks may be a little more challenging to work with like all islamists. However, I don't think the Turks have any serious intentions to be leaving NATO. At least anytime soon. I could be wrong ?

You're asking the wrong question. You need to ask yourself, why does Turkey need NATO?
Turkey has set a course for restoring the Ottoman Empire.

Their ambitions extend even further—to creating a "Greater Turan."

Turkey needs NATO to fulfill its ambitious plans.
And NATO is actively helping Turkey – it recently gave Syria to Turkey, and is now fighting against Russia and Iran – Turkey's traditional adversaries…
Yes… And it is not the Islamists who are using Turkey – it is Türkiye who is using the Islamists… How many Turkish divisions can be assembled in Europe from Muslim migrants?

"Turkey needs NATO to fulfill its ambitious plans…"

Agree….

And NATO needs Turkey because Russia…

Armand

(smile)

Armand

The bigger question:

If Iran enters Turkey from the rear, do you think Greece would help?

😉

You need to ask yourself, why does Turkey need NATO?

Again the more islamic they get the less they believe the "infidels", i.e. most of NATO.

How can Russia become the Turks new "patron" with the massive losses Russia has suffered in Ukraine ? Most of the Turks equipment is US/NATO … Another consideration …

Turkey has set a course for restoring the Ottoman Empire.

Well if they seriously believe that and wish to embark on such an ill-conceived quest. Like Russia trying to get its former imperial empire back … The Turks will fail, even if some of the other islamists join and support those ambitions.

Again in both cases neither of those former empires have a very big chance of bringing back their former empiric glories, of the past, IMO.

If Iran enters Turkey from the rear, do you think Greece would help?

Understand that comment is a bit of hyperbole … However, I think it comes down to who hates who more. IMO Iran is a clear and present danger to both the Turks and the Greeks. And pretty much a threat to everyone else in that region and more.

Iran is the biggest threat to worldwide stability at this time based on their economic resources, the Persian Gulf and their quest to initiate their version of the End Times.

They are the immediate short-ranged near threat currently. You engage the target that is the biggest threat at that second, minute, hour, etc.

Legion my friend. It's an old joke. Check the web for it. Innuendo my friend.😉

Things weren't happy and sunny in the Ottoman Empire. Insurrections were constant, and Türkiye's rule was hard enough that some of Türkiye's subject peoples actually welcomed their Spanish, English and French "liberators". At least for the first few days.

An interesting map. I'm sure the 'Stans will be oh so happy to welcome back Turkish rule. If Türkiye thinks the Kurds are a major problem, how will they manage all the other peoples who will continue to resist after "re-integration" with the new Empire. Has Erdogan been drinking from Xi's water bottle? Perhaps Erdogan will make If I Could Turn Back Time (sung by men of course, not Cher) as the Türkiye national anthem?

Innuendo or hyperbole … I get it … 😏😎

Well if Cher doesn't sing it … it won't be the same …

Well if Cher doesn't sing it … it won't be the same …

Can you imagine an old mullah, dressed the way Cher was, belting out that song? Having created that mental image I'm going to go and throw up somewhere, now.

35thOVI, Iran has already fought Turkey in Syria (in the recent proxy war). Now it could enter the conflict if the Turks (represented by Azerbaijan) attempted to seize Armenia. But since Armenia is now seeking to join the Western camp, the Persians might perhaps abandon their defense of Armenia. Just like the Russians. Will NATO act against Turkey?
By the way, the Turks are laying claim to Crimea and the southern part of Ukraine (the former territories of the Crimean Khanate) – will Europe resist this?)))

Legion 4, you've misunderstood – an alliance between Russia and Turkey is impossible. Turkey is laying claim not only to the part of Asia that Russia considers its traditional zone of control and security, but also to Russian territories populated by Muslim peoples. This threatens another Russo-Turkish war in the long run.

Dal Gavan, the answers to your questions about Syria. The Turks will simply bring radical jihadists to power in these countries… And they will now have nowhere to go except under Turkish influence. The seizure of territories is not necessary – Türkiye will simply create its own "European Union" (Turan).

If you have to explain them

Replace Greece with grease.

The seizure of territories is not necessary

I disagree, mate. "Owning" the land is an ego boost, one that I doubt Erdogan and his supporters want to forsake. As for how they'll go about it? I won't try to guess, but radical jihadists are too unpredictable and hard to control for long. If he went down that road I think it would be an enabler, only, with a massive cleanup of the radicals (and their friends, relatives and general neighbourhood) planned for when Türkiye achieves its aims.

What is it with modern national "leaders" wanting to turn back time to the "Glory Years"? It appears Xi wants to reinstate, if not expand, the old Tang empire. Putin seemingly wants to reinstate at least some of the USSR's borders and "client states". Meanwhile Israel is clearing out the West Bank (and possibly looking longingly at parts of the east bank) while the world is distracted by the US-Iranian kerfuffle and the fighting in Lebanon. And they're not the only ones.

Can you imagine an old mullah, dressed the way Cher was, belting out that song? Having created that mental image I'm going to go and throw up somewhere, now.

OMG !! You are right !!! 😨😱🤢🤮

you've misunderstood – an alliance between Russia and Turkey is impossible. Turkey is laying claim not only to the part of Asia that Russia considers its traditional zone of control and security, but also to Russian territories populated by Muslim peoples. This threatens another Russo-Turkish war in the long run.

I'm well aware of all of that … And I think Russia and the Turks should have at it …

Dal Gavan, you forgot to mention that the US intends to make both Americas its backyard again))) And the EU is actively expanding into the former USSR (under a plausible pretext, of course))))
It's simple. History develops in a spiral. So-called "globalization," followed by yet another division of the world into zones of influence. For example: the empire of Alexander the Great, then its collapse; first Rome, then the collapse of the Roman Empire, and so on…
Globalization has its beneficiaries, and the division of the world has its own.
And someone always feels left out and wronged.

Legion 4, will the US and the EU be willing to implement NATO's Article 5? Erdogan would be happy)))

Cuprum: "And they're not the only ones." I'm not writing a dissertation, mate, just a short post on a discussion board.

The difference between that and the Russian/Soviet presence is that the EU is being invited, mate. As you well know. At least the EU is keeping Austria, Germany and France from invading each other, and other neighbours.

Really? I remember the clashes between Greece and Turkey, I remember the conflict in Yugoslavia, I remember the EU's attack on Libya. I remember the open and explicit support for the unconstitutional coup in Ukraine. Threats and sanctions against Hungary, Georgia… Perhaps there are others I've forgotten…
Where there is no EU or NATO, there are no conflicts… for example, in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

Greece and Türkiye aren't one of the countries I mentioned, and Türkiye isn't part of the EU. Plus Cyprus is another good illustration of what happens when a former colony is decolonised too quickly (India/Pakistan being the other big failure). Libya was a reaction to Ghaddafi's sponsoring of terrorist groups, such as the IRA, PIRA, CCC, RZ and Brigate Rosa (who were also sponsored by the USSR, you may recall?).

As for no conflicts in the former Soviet Republics, I think Russia's actions in Chechnya and Ossietia may have been noticed. Besides, have you looked at Armenia and Azerbaijan over the last few years- no conflicts? Georgia probably thinks that sanctions are easier to live with than Russia's invasion, wouldn't you say, even at the cost of losing Ossetia?

the unconstitutional coup in Ukraine

Coups are only unconstitutional if they fail. If they work then they are restoring the constitution. That song's so old that even Dame Nellie Melba knew it.

Come on, mate. You know there's no white or black hats in global politics, regardless of the propaganda fairy tales. Just shades of grey, many smeared with baby brown, which seem to change more quickly than a chameleon can keep up with. Russia isn't an evil empire, but nor is the US or EU. Unless you've picked sides and see everything in black and white. But that's pretty common on TMP.

Legion 4, will the US and the EU be willing to implement NATO's Article 5? Erdogan would be happy)))

Would depend … would Russia attack Turkey? Then the Turks being NATO could pull the Art. 5 card. However, the Turks have the second largest military in NATO. Russia's military has suffered severe attrition in Ukraine. Russia may have to wait a decade or more. Before they would have enough assets to actually go to war with anyone. Especially a member of NATO …

Of course this is all academic, the probability is almost 0 for that conflict to occur …

FWIW … most older Greeks that I know still are not fond of Turks.

Dal Gavan, don't make me laugh… Gaddafi gave Sarkozy money for his election campaign. Sometimes it's easier to kill a creditor than to repay him)))
The EU is the successor to the European Community… It doesn't matter what color a cat is, what matters is whether it catches mice.
Hasn't the West sponsored terrorists? All the time. With your help, jihadists have come to power in many countries – most recently, Syria and Libya; ISIS is a creation of the US.

Chechnya is part of Russia and has never been an independent state.
There are many latent ethnic conflicts in Europe. Will the Spanish fight against the Basques if they start an armed uprising? And with ethnic cleansing, too? Something tells me it's a certainty)))

I was writing about Asia, not the Caucasus. The Caucasus has a centuries-old tradition of continuous interethnic conflict, and there's also a tradition of blood feuds… It's a highly unstable region, where everyone is ready to fight each other. And when the USSR collapsed, most of the Caucasian peoples rushed to slaughter each other with great zeal. The Russians had only one option: to separate peoples who hated each other, even if they had previously been part of a single Soviet republic. In the USSR, the territories of republics within a single state were carved up based on logistical and other economic considerations, not on the hundreds of small states that had been reconsidered in the past. The Russians leave – and the slaughter begins…
Would you like the Georgians to exterminate the Ossetians and Abkhazians? Or the Ossetians and Abkhazians to exterminate the Georgians? Or are you prepared to send your troops to restore order the next time they clash? Like Armenia and Azerbaijan recently?

But I completely agree with your last point. ALL states behave like street gangs, regardless of their internal structure. Everything for themselves, laws and rules for others. Unless, of course, you're strong enough to force others to agree with it…

Legion 4, as soon as the Greeks have the opportunity to kick the Turks out of Cyprus, they'll try. Just like the Turks… This is a centuries-old conflict. It hasn't gone away, it's just dormant and waiting for the right opportunity… And there are many such conflicts all over the world… I think even in the US. The state only needs to show weakness and everything will explode.

Dal Gavan, I'll supplement my previous post with a map of the Caucasus in the 19th century. These are the states (khanates and principalities) that, one way or another, became part of Russia. These are essentially tribal territories. And all these "Liechtensteins" and "Monacos" (I mean the sizes) were constantly at war with each other (simply because of the scarcity of these lands, which are nothing but mountains, a raiding economy flourished here – they were doomed to constant war).
The Russians united these territories, creating several relatively large republics. But as soon as the Russians leave, the Caucasians immediately recall their old grievances, and a redistribution of the scraps of land that, at one time or another, passed from one tribe to another begins…

as soon as the Greeks have the opportunity to kick the Turks out of Cyprus, they'll try. Just like the Turks… This is a centuries-old conflict. It hasn't gone away, it's just dormant and waiting for the right opportunity… And there are many such conflicts all over the world

Yes but I don't think Greeks have the assets, training, etc. to push the Turks off Cyprus. At least not anytime soon …

And all these "Liechtensteins" and "Monacos" (I mean the sizes) were constantly at war with each other

Just like most of the rest of the world, which provided a convenient excuse for colonising powers to enter "and restore order".

I don't know enough about the other former Russian Asian states to make a definitive comment, Cuprum. There are historical examples of conflict, but I get an impression (a guess?) that they're pretty settled and prosperous. A nice change from the Soviet years?

ALL states behave like street gangs, regardless of their internal structure.

I think street gangs would have more ethics and honesty than pollies. Plus they only want to control their local area, not the world.

Well at least street gangs, criminals, etc. are more overt than many politicians. We easier see their endgames. Those elected and appointed to gov'ts from the local, state and federal level many times promise "a chicken in every pot" … And in the short and/or long run the voter gets neither …

Dal Gavan, the problem isn't the pretext for conquest. The problem is that these conflicts have flared up again.

Are they thriving? Some are, yes, relatively. But their economies have deteriorated, becoming resource-based. Previously (under the USSR), these were industrially developed republics producing high-tech products.
However, all former Soviet republics have deteriorated, including Russia. Some more than others.

PDF link

Dal Gavan, the problem isn't the pretext for conquest. The problem is that these conflicts have flared up again.

That wasn't my point, mate. In the 300 years prior to WWII the "West" had gone through the same problems that Russia went through, for the same reasons. For example, Northern Ireland is little different to the border between Croatia and Serbia- and even has the religious element as one of the drivers. Then there's the perpetual clashes in the Central and South Americas, Africa and SE Asia. As for the Middle East- Türkiye's old empire….

Russia's problems aren't unique. However, most of the the colonising powers haven't changed their minds and decided to reconquer their liberated vassals. Influence them, meddle in their politics, occasionally give them a smack by missile or bomb, yes. Storm across the borders? Unusual, even in Africa, because the rest of the world will support the former vassal state- as is happening in Ukraine.

Hmm… The problem is that in Ukraine, Russia is fighting the West. The current war is merely a reflection of your actions (yes, that's rude in Russian, as always). For some reason, no one wants to take into account the events that have followed one another over the past forty years. The Russians are now stopping NATO's advance to the East. This is the main reason for the long conflict, which has now reached a hot phase.
Ukraine is just a battlefield.
For example, in 2008 it was Georgia. As soon as the issue of Georgia's accession to NATO was forgotten, all tension disappeared. And the Russians could then have captured all of Georgia without any difficulty, since its army had already been defeated, and Russian troops were standing near the Georgian capital. But their goal was different.
Remember, the Russians spent eight years negotiating the return of the rebellious republics to Ukraine (several rounds of the Minsk agreements). But on the condition that Ukraine become a federal state (which automatically made its accession to NATO unlikely). It wasn't the Russians, but Ukraine and the West that rejected this solution… They didn't need a neutral state, but an anti-Russian one—a springboard for a future war against Russia.

The problem is that in Ukraine, Russia is fighting the West.

And the problem in Angola, Rhodesia (as it was), Burma, Borneo, Malaysia, etc, was that the West was fighting the USSR. So what's changed since 1919?

But on the condition that Ukraine become a federal state

Why should Ukraine accede to that demand? There's a number of disadvantages to having a federation, including risk of areas demanding independence on the basis they are a recognised separate state.

As for the NATO bogeyman, I can't swear that it's correct, but I believe NATO wasn't interested in invading/isolating Russia, it was more interested in defence against a Russian resurgence. The Balkan countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia were really worried, and still are, that Russia may be getting ready to expand. It's unfortunate that some idiot decisions of placement of weapons, and disregarding the agreement not to admit immediate neighbours of Russia into NATO have only helped the spread and belief that NATO/The West are preparing an invasion.

If NATO had at least listened to Russia's request to join NATO itself, would we still be talking about this subject?

Dal Gavan, none of these conflicts took place near the borders of the United States or the USSR. But as soon as it came to Cuba, the reaction was completely different…

Yes, that's true. But why should these regions submit to a government they didn't elect and had no desire to obey? A government that has effectively seized power in the country by force? A government made up of nationalists who openly proclaim the oppression of Russian speakers? A government that encouraged the murder of dissenters?

There was a time when Russia was hosting a NATO military base on its territory, and Putin actively promoted this idea, sparking massive protests against him within Russia. But then this organization openly began to justify Russian fears with its anti-Russian stance…

NATO base in the city where Lenin was born:

link

link

"NATO is in talks with Russia to establish the site for shipping items like armored cars or medical equipment through Ulyanovsk, a city about 500 miles southeast of Moscow that is best known as Lenin's birthplace.

The Russian government, concerned about instability in Afghanistan, supports the idea. But protests in Ulyanovsk began last month and have drawn some of the opposition leaders who rose to prominence during protests in Moscow last winter. While they are unlikely to thwart the plans, the protests pose a new quandary for Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who is not usually on the defensive when it comes to standing up to NATO.

Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Left Front movement and a prominent figure in the Moscow protests, led the Ulyanovsk march on Saturday and was detained by the police. Gennady A. Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party, told protesters that the site would be "a betrayal of Russia's national interests."

The protest organizers said about 5,000 people showed up, though the police put the number at about 1,000. "The irony of the situation is that Putin is faced with the logical consequences of his own virulent campaign rhetoric" criticizing the opposition for ties with the West, Stephen Weil, a researcher with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in an article this month".

You yourselves have deliberately created an enemy out of Russia.

You yourselves have deliberately created an enemy out of Russia.

Not us, mate. The "West". As usual our pollies just sat back and nodded their heads like a demented grandfather.