F-35 production question...

Apologies, yes I do. Still, access denied...
To bases yes, but not airspace. Moreover, several damaged aircraft diverted to Turkish airbases where repairs were facilitated before they were quietly allowed to go on their way.

Slightly disingenuous. Yes, and edited/removed because I did not feel it reflected the case...before you quoted it in the present discussion.
Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes here. You wrote the phrase I quoted; you then said:

...I would be happy to see where I stated 'anyone with any significant service in NATO removed or replaced‘...I did not ‘state’ any such thing!!...

To which I highlighted that you had stated exactly that.

Moreover, while the original post was edited as I stated earlier, at the time of posting this, those comments remain as highlighted below:

Well, perhaps the massive purge of pro-Western personnel in Turkeys Armed forces was perhaps, 'a tad negative’ in my view. It has completely transformed Turkey's position in NATO
Exclusive: Turkey purges NATO military envoys after failed coup | Reuters
Turkey’s Post-Coup Purge and Erdogan’s Private Army

Around 400 Turkish military envoys to NATO were dismissed in the months after the coup attempt. Turkish military analysts have estimated between March and September 2016 a 38 percent reduction in the number of generals and 8 percent shrinkage in the officer ranks in the Turkish Armed Forces.
How post-coup purges depleted Turkey's military

Hundreds of senior Turkish military officials posted at NATO centers across Europe ordered to return home. Most who did then disappeared into Turkish jails. The Turkish army once a secular balance against Islamism now completely changed under Erdogan with all officers,up to Lt-Col having spent their entire careers under Erdogan. Anyone with any significant service in NATO removed or replaced.

Turkey joined NATO member in 1952 and was considered an important strategic ally because of its large army, geographic location and its top level’s commitment to the West and it ideals. It has however not been an easy relationship. There have been many policy disagreements and with the massive recent democratic setbacks Turkey’s present relationship is now hugely more complex, difficult, and, increasingly fragile.

A danger now posed by Turkey, in it’s new form, is that NATO decisions are consensual. A Turkey that is rapidly moving towards close military relations with Russia, but is within NATO, can seriously effect any NATO responses to Russian actions, and Russian action have not been absent.
https://www.nato.int/cps/ra/natohq/topics_50090.htm
Turkey's ever-closer ties with Russia leave US lacking key ally on Syria
So how is that disingenuous?

...My views are completely immaterial, simply expressed here along with your, and others.
I would suggest that the views of most people count. All I can say is that I'm seeking to balance what can sometimes appear to be a somewhat one-sided monologue of links to various websites. I'm attempting to do that by offering personal experience of working with the Turks and other nations in an often complex and certainly dynamic coalition environment.

I'm not denying they can be a difficult nation to work with; many nations are. However, they live in a uniquely difficult 'neighbourhood' and the issues are certainly not as binary as you portray.

Regards,
MM
 
Incirlik Air Base in Turkey provided strike aircraft all through the Iraq war and as far as I can tell, are still providing strikes against ISIL in the are. Turkey's refusal to allow the 4th Infantry Division (15,000+ troops, not the 66,000 quoted) led to the using of the 173rd Airborne to drop into northern Iraq (Operation Norther Delay).
 
Incirlik Air Base in Turkey provided strike aircraft all through the Iraq war...
If you're talking about GW2, there were no combat missions flown from Turkish bases iso the invasion.

However, assets were able to transit Turkish airspace from elsewhere.

Regards,
MM
 
Interesting as everything I've read shows that strikes were flown from there but then you were in the AO at the time so I will bow to you knowledge sir.
 
Interesting as everything I've read shows that strikes were flown from there but then you were in the AO at the time so I will bow to you knowledge sir.
You may be conflating info regarding GW1 and the subsequent No Fly Zone ops between 91-03.

Regards,
MM
 
I knew about those, especially since I talked to F-15 crews from the Oregon ANG who were coming back from working the No Fly Zone on a couple of rotaions. I saw sources referring to their use in GW2 and beyond including drone work out of there. I'll try and find that source again.
 
Are Turkey and Greece the only NATO members to have engaged in combat with another NATO member since joining NATO?
Undoubtedly, however without NATO membership you probably ought to ask how much worse those conflicts would have been - you also need to ask whether, in the absence of NATO membership, some other patron would have appeared and offered support to either side...

Alliances such as NATO aren't just about securing advantages, they are about denying them to an enemy. Greece and Turkey might be a pain in the arse, and doubtless many NATO SG's have quietly wished they'd just piss off, but a Greece or Turkey - or both - in the Russian or Chinese sphere of influence, closing off the eastern Med, would a pain in the arse of a somewhat larger magnitude...
 
US considering permanent cutbacks at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey

Doesn't quite cover all I mentioned but it does talk about the strikes launched from there. Wiki goes more in depth...but it's Wiki so not always the best source.
https://master.elementdev.io


It does appear we are preparing an alternate to Incirlik.

I do appreciate the perspectives you gents are offering. But to be quite honest NATO as a whole is a great concept but more of a hassle then it can worth at times. The United States is going to have to work with those that can participate, regardless of their popularity in the world. Or just be prepared to go it alone.
 
If NATO was just used for it's original purpose, the mutual defense of the members, there wouldn't a lot of problem. But it's been used to rally forces for a variety of political purposes.
 
If NATO was just used for it's original purpose, the mutual defense of the members, there wouldn't a lot of problem. But it's been used to rally forces for a variety of political purposes.
From an American perspective, the problem with NATO is that most of the membership has enjoyed the peace dividend for far to long. Getting all members to cough up the money and stop being so damn skint is pretty problematic. The Russians are back and the Heritage report I read was pretty blunt and brutal. NATO is not meant to be a three man show but that is what it is. If you were Donald and had a business centric view od the world, of course you are going to tell Westen Europeans to go kick rocks.
 
Agreed that the US has subsidized NATO for most of it's life but it's also true that its us (the US) who also call for NATO involvement for other than defense of a member involvements.
 
Agreed that the US has subsidized NATO for most of it's life but it's also true that its us (the US) who also call for NATO involvement for other than defense of a member involvements.
Yes but now we are back to the original purpose of NATO, which is the defense of Europe against Russia.

The problem is that Western Europe is prosperous, and has the money to spend. They don’t want to, and the American public just sees the dollars that are wasted to preserve their welfare states as money that could be used here on the home front. The attitude of taking a financial hit, to maintain a free and stable Europe is dead. They are viewed as economic competitors, who are just skint. They want to ride the gravy train, at our expense and still run their mouths.

It is maddening, the alliance is important to counter Russia. But we have our own issues on the homefront that are more important to our wallets. Trump however is just the vocalization of a long held and growing beef. His departure won’t really change attitudes on either continent.
 
It was not, and I need to read what I post more carefully, and certainly owe and offer you an apology.
No worries and no hard feelings...it's really easy to transpose conversations conducted across several threads as I have often demonstrated myself!

I think it's really just a matter of balance. Turkey are undoubtedly difficult partners and I genuinely share some of your concerns regarding their access to F-35 if they're allowed to take them home. Equally, even in the age of Erdogan, I'd say it''s better to have them inside our tent pissing out than outside pissing in...to quote Mother Theresa! :)

Regards,
MM
 
Yes but now we are back to the original purpose of NATO, which is the defense of Europe against Russia.

The problem is that Western Europe is prosperous, and has the money to spend. . . . American public just sees the dollars that are wasted to preserve their welfare states as money that could be used here on the home front. The attitude of taking a financial hit, to maintain a free and stable Europe is dead. They are viewed as economic competitors, who are just skint. They want to ride the gravy train, at our expense and still run their mouths . . . .
Now! . . . make-up your mind! ;) .
 
Yes but now we are back to the original purpose of NATO, which is the defense of Europe against Russia.

. . . . the American public just sees the dollars that are wasted to preserve their welfare states as money that could be used here on the home front. The attitude of taking a financial hit, to maintain a free and stable Europe is dead. They are viewed as economic competitors, who are just skint. They want to ride the gravy train, at our expense and still run their mouths.

It is maddening, the alliance is important to counter Russia. But we have our own issues on the home-front that are more important to our wallets. Trump however is just the vocalization of a long held and growing beef. His departure won’t really change attitudes on either continent.
We all (know why) the USA was so against the old system of European “Colonies”, and the “unfair” advantages they brought to trade and the prosperity of those European countries.

It could be suggested, that the USA might re-evaluate its commitment to the (cost of the) defence of Europe, as the price necessary to maintain a presence within one of the USA’s most prosperous, sophisticated and compatible trading partners.

Many were relieved and overjoyed when the Warsaw Pact countries - and, the three Baltic States - were allowed to state their preferences and applied to join NATO (and the increasingly confused EU).

The traumatic wholesale (unresolved) changes to their nations’, countries, mindsets, economies, industries, societies, politics, can not - should STILL not - be underestimated !!

The “Peace Dividend” was a fcuking disaster!

I rejoice in the advent of “Cold War 2”.

It has thrown into focus, the real world dangers that Europe has always been subject to, and threatened by.

The USA should be aware that it is not a game of chequers that is been played. It has always been a game of chess.

Without the US committed to, and presence within, NATO; and, specifically without the US committed to, and presence within Europe; it is not inconceivable that the WHOLE of Europe could (eventually) fall under the greater influence of Russia :( .
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top