Turkey - a real turkey?

MissingOTC

War Hero
The diplomatic fallout would be huge. Signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and members of NATO trying to stop another member of NATO from becoming a nuclear-armed state, especially if that came with Russian assistance. which Turkey has form for using. Also,take into account Sultan Erdogan's apparent ambition - https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...that-turkey-cant-have-nuclear-weapons.295059/

Yeah, agree, but the issue is as the US/Europe push Turkey further and further away, the Turks have less to lose, and of course the US/Europe too.

Can the US/NATO do without Turkish bases and restricted access to the Black Sea? Probably, but it will be a pain. Turkish forces, by their sheer size, contribute much to NATO at a staffing and troop level. Important when the rest of NATO forces (including ours) seems to be getting smaller and smaller.
As will losing excellent basing facilities on the doorstep of the Mid East and Iran. Turkey getting nukes and becoming a Russian ally.

Of course it's a price we in the west can pay, but we have to decide is it worth it? I am still unsure what the Turks have done that is unacceptable to us that some other NATO countries or US allies have not done. Maybe I am ignorant here.
 
I am still unsure what the Turks have done that is unacceptable to us that some other NATO countries or US allies have not done. Maybe I am ignorant here.

They control the migrant flow towards Europe from Syria and are getting a firm base in Libya where they will also be able to control the flow of migrants from Africa.

With those two levers they can blackmail and eventually destroy european unity which, with the destruction of NATO, has always been Russia's aim.
 

MissingOTC

War Hero
They control the migrant flow towards Europe from Syria and are getting a firm base in Libya where they will also be able to control the flow of migrants from Africa.

With those two levers they can blackmail and eventually destroy european unity which, with the destruction of NATO, has always been Russia's aim.

So you know migrants also go directly by boat to Italy and Greece right?

You also are aware much of the migrant flow from Libya comes from areas controlled by a gangster supported by such evil countries as *checks notes* UAE and France?

France has been letting migrants flow (by boat) over the channel, so please tell me about your plans for kicking them out of NATO.

Please do not tell me the Russian need Turkey to undermine Europe when factual evidence exists (by the UK and EU) of the Russian successfully doing this by trying to subvert our democracy.

So I ask again, what is Turkey doing that some of our other "allies" are not?
 
Please do not tell me the Russian need Turkey to undermine Europe when factual evidence exists (by the UK and EU) of the Russian successfully doing this by trying to subvert our democracy?

Of course Russia doesn't need Turkey, in the sense that the relationship is absolutely vital to their foreign policy. But to turn your question back at you, do you seriously think that a country with as sophisticated an intelligence machine as Russia would put all its eggs in one basket by relying purely on cyber ops and mis-information?

Turkey has long been underestimated as a critical player in the Eurasian affairs. For Russia to flip her from being a Western ally, from the Ataturk reforms onward, to even being a semi-stooge would represent a significant achievement in the never-ending Great Game.
 
So you know migrants also go directly by boat to Italy and Greece right?

You also are aware much of the migrant flow from Libya comes from areas controlled by a gangster supported by such evil countries as *checks notes* UAE and France?

France has been letting migrants flow (by boat) over the channel, so please tell me about your plans for kicking them out of NATO.

Please do not tell me the Russian need Turkey to undermine Europe when factual evidence exists (by the UK and EU) of the Russian successfully doing this by trying to subvert our democracy.

So I ask again, what is Turkey doing that some of our other "allies" are not?

The migrants try to reach Europe by boat if authorized by the various militias and gangs that control the launching areas in Libya or when authorized, or even incited when not pushed by the Turkish authorities.

Migrants are the trump card in Erdogan’s sleeve. He has already received billions from the EU to stop them from coming in Europe and he has been playing with this lever for years, threatening Europe with waves of migrants on several occasions.

In 2020 : Turkish President Erdogan threatens Europe with 'millions' of migrants

In 2016 : Erdogan Threatens to Let Migrant Flood Into Europe Resume (Published 2016)

You must have missed several episodes regarding France and the UAE in Libya. France has pulled out for a long time now and the UAE has recently announced it was now focusing on diplomacy rather than « by with through » military actions.

UAE Steps Back From Wars as Biden Reasserts Mideast Role

You conveniently forget all about TUR use of islamist mercenaries, including IS « veterans » that have committed many war crimes and atrocities in Syria, Armenia and Libya and that, once imprted into an area, sow the seeds of permanent jihad and foster chronic instability

The Problem with Turkey’s Proxy Militias Isn’t Just Military

Or the illegal drilling in Cyprus’ waters

Turkey's illegal drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean: Council adopts framework for sanctions

Or his support to the Muslim Brotherhood and expansionist plans in the Eastern Med

Turkey is looking to redraw the Mediterranean map

Turkey is a nefarious actor led by an autocrat, not a reliable NATO ally
 
Two sides of the same coin, depending on which side of the Aegean you're writing from.

'The United States has spoken up about actions that violate international law in the Eastern Mediterranean that includes Turkey’s actions against Greece, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Wednesday.

“We have looked with real concern over the last year and of course more recently, at some of the actions taken in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly by Turkey, in terms of various claims and it is very important that the US stands up and engages in advancing stability sovereignty and territorial integrity of all parties in Eastern Mediterranean and insists that any disputes that arise will be resolved peacefully, diplomatically, not militarily, not through provocative actions,” he said testifying before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday. “We have called out actions, including by Turkey, that violate international law or commitments as NATO ally and that includes provocative actions against Greece like violations of airspace,” he added.'


Blinken: US has called out Turkey for actions against Greece | eKathimerini.com

'The United States on Wednesday welcomed recent efforts to tamp down tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, voicing optimism that the status quo can lead to a resolution of ongoing disputes.

'Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. has watched with concern the actions taken in the Eastern Mediterranean, stressing that energy and territorial disputes be resolved "peacefully, diplomatically, not military and certainly not through provocative actions. Now I think one of the positive developments has been in recent weeks a significant diminution in the temperature on those issues with Turkey engaged with the European Union and others to try to move forward in a more productive way," he said. "So we're very supportive of that, and we'll continue to try to help things advance in that direction."

'The comments come as Turkey and Greece prepare for a second round of exploratory talks this year aimed at finding solutions to disputes regarding the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean seas.'


US welcomes efforts to ease tensions in Eastern Mediterranean
 

MissingOTC

War Hero
Of course Russia doesn't need Turkey, in the sense that the relationship is absolutely vital to their foreign policy. But to turn your question back at you, do you seriously think that a country with as sophisticated an intelligence machine as Russia would put all its eggs in one basket by relying purely on cyber ops and mis-information?

Turkey has long been underestimated as a critical player in the Eurasian affairs. For Russia to flip her from being a Western ally, from the Ataturk reforms onward, to even being a semi-stooge would represent a significant achievement in the never-ending Great Game.

Yes, this. 100% I am not saying Russia has no interest in Turkey, but (as you rightly put it) Russia has many other options. If Russia really does want to flip Turkey, it seems US/European policy is actually helping them do it!
 

MissingOTC

War Hero
The migrants try to reach Europe by boat if authorized by the various militias and gangs that control the launching areas in Libya or when authorized, or even incited when not pushed by the Turkish authorities.

Migrants are the trump card in Erdogan’s sleeve. He has already received billions from the EU to stop them from coming in Europe and he has been playing with this lever for years, threatening Europe with waves of migrants on several occasions.

In 2020 : Turkish President Erdogan threatens Europe with 'millions' of migrants

In 2016 : Erdogan Threatens to Let Migrant Flood Into Europe Resume (Published 2016)

You must have missed several episodes regarding France and the UAE in Libya. France has pulled out for a long time now and the UAE has recently announced it was now focusing on diplomacy rather than « by with through » military actions.

UAE Steps Back From Wars as Biden Reasserts Mideast Role

You conveniently forget all about TUR use of islamist mercenaries, including IS « veterans » that have committed many war crimes and atrocities in Syria, Armenia and Libya and that, once imprted into an area, sow the seeds of permanent jihad and foster chronic instability

The Problem with Turkey’s Proxy Militias Isn’t Just Military

Or the illegal drilling in Cyprus’ waters

Turkey's illegal drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean: Council adopts framework for sanctions

Or his support to the Muslim Brotherhood and expansionist plans in the Eastern Med

Turkey is looking to redraw the Mediterranean map

Turkey is a nefarious actor led by an autocrat, not a reliable NATO ally

So while France and UAE were in Libya I take it they were there purely for innocent reasons? No express intention in helping to overthrow a UN recognised government? Not nefarious at all I imagine?

So what you are saying is they are "unreliable" for the following reasons

1) Drilling in waters in the Eastern Med they consider Turkish
2) Backing a UN recognised government in Libya
3) Letting migrants into the Europe

Kind of making my point for me here, going by your criteria than shall we clamp down on

France

Who have

1) Illegally sought resources in several parts of the world
2) Backed an illegal force in Libya and several African nations
3) Let migrants on boats into Calais

Italy

1) Illegally sought resources in several parts of the world
2) Backed illegal forces in Libya
3) Accepted migrants into Italy than let them into other parts of Europe

Let's now look at our "allies" in the UAE/Saudi

1) Backed elements actively hostile to Western Forces in Iraq and Syria
2) Caused the greatest human famine of this century in Yemen
3) Backed illegal forces in Libya
4) Butchered a journalist in one of their embassies


Let me know who is a trustworthy and democratic ally and who is "nefarious", as I am confused.....
 
Let me know who is a trustworthy and democratic ally and who is "nefarious", as I am confused.....

Quite easy really; France and Italy are allies of the UK as signatories to the 1949 Washington Treaty. Would you like to point out the treaty obligation that allies the UK with the UAE and KSA?
 
So while France and UAE were in Libya I take it they were there purely for innocent reasons? No express intention in helping to overthrow a UN recognised government? Not nefarious at all I imagine?

So what you are saying is they are "unreliable" for the following reasons

1) Drilling in waters in the Eastern Med they consider Turkish
2) Backing a UN recognised government in Libya
3) Letting migrants into the Europe

Kind of making my point for me here, going by your criteria than shall we clamp down on

France

Who have

1) Illegally sought resources in several parts of the world
2) Backed an illegal force in Libya and several African nations
3) Let migrants on boats into Calais

Italy

1) Illegally sought resources in several parts of the world
2) Backed illegal forces in Libya
3) Accepted migrants into Italy than let them into other parts of Europe

Let's now look at our "allies" in the UAE/Saudi

1) Backed elements actively hostile to Western Forces in Iraq and Syria
2) Caused the greatest human famine of this century in Yemen
3) Backed illegal forces in Libya
4) Butchered a journalist in one of their embassies


Let me know who is a trustworthy and democratic ally and who is "nefarious", as I am confused.....
You are severely confused
 

MissingOTC

War Hero
Quite easy really; France and Italy are allies of the UK as signatories to the 1949 Washington Treaty. Would you like to point out the treaty obligation that allies the UK with the UAE and KSA?

Turkey also a signatory no?
 
Great comeback.
why-is-yawning-contagious01.jpg
 
Turkey also a signatory no?

Not that you pointed the finger at Turkey in your 768 to which I was replying, but at least it shows that you do know who signed the Washington Treaty (though not as an original signatory). Now, back to that question about Alliance obligations to the UAE and KSA that you were going to find ...
 

MissingOTC

War Hero
Not that you pointed the finger at Turkey in your 768 to which I was replying, but at least it shows that you do know who signed the Washington Treaty (though not as an original signatory). Now, back to that question about Alliance obligations to the UAE and KSA that you were going to find ...

I never mentioned alliance obligations, just that we consider these countries as political and military allies (by most definations) yet we hold them to very different standards to the Turks. A fair comment no?
 
I never mentioned alliance obligations, just that we consider these countries as political and military allies (by most definations) yet we hold them to very different standards to the Turks. A fair comment no?
No. Treaty allies and partners of convenience are two very different animals.
 

MissingOTC

War Hero
No. Treaty allies and partners of convenience are two very different animals.

So you really think the history between the UK and Saudi Arabia is a partnership of convenience relative to how the UK treats a treaty ally (Turkey)? Unsure of the point you are making here, be great to get some clarity. My point is simple, we have double standards regarding our relationships with allies/partners (whatever pigeon hole you want to put the in).
 
Now that's unusual, in fact, pretty much unprecedented. The Secretary-General of NATO criticising one of the Allies.

'NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Monday he has “serious concerns” over actions by member state Turkey, but insisted the alliance was an important platform for resolving disputes involving Ankara.

“I have expressed my serious concerns and we all know there are serious differences and some issues, ranging from the eastern Mediterranean, the Turkish decision to buy the Russian air defense system S-400 or related to democratic rights in Turkey,” Stoltenberg told lawmakers from the European Parliament.

“But I believe NATO at least can provide an important platform for discussing these issues, raising these issues and having serious debates and discussions about different concerns.”

'Turkey has drawn the ire of some of its allies in the 30-nation grouping over its stance in a maritime territorial dispute with fellow NATO member Greece and its role in the conflicts in Syria, Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh.'


NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admits ‘serious concerns’ over Turkey

As SecGen, you'd expect he was familiar with the wording of NATO's founding treaty.

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 8

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

 
Turkey being in-charge of HKIA in Kabul always seemed to be there for their own benefit and not really NATO. Read this article and its not so much supporting NATO but what they can do for "our Afghan brother and sisters" ($$$).
 

Latest Threads

Top