They were a pretty critical member during the cold war even with their downside.
They supported Article 5 when it was invoked after 9/11.Strategically they are in an important place, hard to dispute that. But at the same time why should they even be involved if they don't align with our goals.
I mean what is to say they even uphold their article 5 obligations if it comes to that?
They supported Article 5 when it was invoked after 9/11.
Not sure they would now with Erdogan in charge...
Kicking them out of NATO would ensure that scenario. Kicking them out would place them firmly in the Russia/China camp.The second part is the problem. We don't know where they stand and therefore we can't trust them.
I mean there is no other NATO member that we have these kinds of questions about. But Erdogan . . . if we had to use Article V against Putin how do we know he'd help and do we realistically even know that he wouldn't turn on us and help Putin?
A Turkey we could count on is a massive strategic ally. But if you can't count on them what's the point?
Kicking them out of NATO would ensure that scenario. Kicking them out would place them firmly in the Russia/China camp.
If having them in becomes untenable then they might need to be kicked out.
Erdogan views himself, and Turkey as more of a power broker than Russia.Kicking them out of NATO would ensure that scenario. Kicking them out would place them firmly in the Russia/China camp.
If having them in becomes untenable then they might need to be kicked out.
It is horrifying to see Russia target civilians, but their terror campaign signifies they cannot take out hard targets. While they blow up a shopping mall, arms are pouring across the Polish and Romanian borders.
This isn't really directed at you, I am only replying to you because you seem pretty knowledgeable. Why can't we just form a new organization called the No Autocracy Treaty Organization, with the acronym, "NATO+", and admit Ukraine and everyone else deemed a friend to democracy and foe to autocracy. NATO could then run joint exercises with NATO+, and NATO+ would not be constrained by the tyranny of the minority.They were a pretty critical member during the cold war even with their downside.
Of course.
Agree. He is the change factor of Turkish policy.They supported Article 5 when it was invoked after 9/11.
Not sure they would now with Erdogan in charge...
Morbid question. With all of these dead Russians being left behind, or worse, executed Ukrainians, will the wolves, bears, packs of dogs, and such in Ukraine develop a taste for human flesh?https://www.businessinsider.com/ukr...lite-russian-unit-after-14-hour-battle-2022-6
- Ukraine's army says it defeated an "elite" unit of Russian soldiers.
- The Ukrainian army's 80th assault brigade said Russian soldiers retreated in defeat, "leaving in the forest the bodies of the dead."
- The Ukrainians said they fought for more than 14 hours before pulling off a "mass artillery strike."
I'd argue Turkey inhabits a more strategically important location. I want Finland in as well.Maybe but at the same time I am concerned about keeping them in while they potentially block two strategically important allies. . . one of whom likely equals their strategic importance or comes close that we can in fact count on.
Like if they are going to block Finland I say kick them out. Finland is just as strategically important as they are in the general sense and if Article V had to be used we could count on Finland.
From my viewpoint something like that would put Hungary (not much of a loss) and Turkey (much bigger loss) into the "autocrat" camp. Even with the headaches they provide it's better, overall, to have them in than out. While Hungary isn't supplying any military aid (not much of a loss IMO) they haven't really inhibited the NATO response. Same kind of goes for Turkey even they're more problematic.This isn't really directed at you, I am only replying to you because you seem pretty knowledgeable. Why can't we just form a new organization called the No Autocracy Treaty Organization, with the acronym, "NATO+", and admit Ukraine and everyone else deemed a friend to democracy and foe to autocracy. NATO could then run joint exercises with NATO+, and NATO+ would not be constrained by the tyranny of the minority.
Appreciate the thoughtful response.From my viewpoint something like that would put Hungary (not much of a loss) and Turkey (much bigger loss) into the "autocrat" camp. Even with the headaches they provide it's better, overall, to have them in than out. While Hungary isn't supplying any military aid (not much of a loss IMO) they haven't really inhibited the NATO response. Same kind of goes for Turkey even they're more problematic.
Right now NATO is able to support Ukraine effectively even though Hungary/Turkey aren't participating. If they were out they'd be much more problematic.
If it gets to the point where their membership becomes untenable well then they have to go....
It's looking like we're entering a quasi "cold war" and don't need to be shoving countries fully into the Russia/China sphere. Especially Turkey. Hungary would be left hanging in the middle of a bunch of NATO countries if Ukraine gains membership. Untenable position which I'd think Orban for all his bluster would want to avoid.
Geo politics is complicated. I think we have to consider the long game which we've never been very good at.
Yep...he's a major problem.Agree. He is the change factor of Turkish policy.
Is the goal of the NATO alliance to deter attacks on members, or something else?Strategically they are in an important place, hard to dispute that. But at the same time why should they even be involved if they don't align with our goals.
Article 5 has been invoked once, and all members agreed. So, history is to say.I mean what is to say they even uphold their article 5 obligations if it comes to that?
I sense a new horror film series being created.Morbid question. With all of these dead Russians being left behind, or worse, executed Ukrainians, will the wolves, bears, packs of dogs, and such in Ukraine develop a taste for human flesh?
Is the goal of the NATO alliance to deter attacks on members, or something else?
Article 5 has been invoked once, and all members agreed. So, history is to say.
Do you envision NATO+ just does whatever the US says, or do members have a say as in NATO?This isn't really directed at you, I am only replying to you because you seem pretty knowledgeable. Why can't we just form a new organization called the No Autocracy Treaty Organization, with the acronym, "NATO+", and admit Ukraine and everyone else deemed a friend to democracy and foe to autocracy. NATO could then run joint exercises with NATO+, and NATO+ would not be constrained by the tyranny of the minority.
Do you envision NATO+ just does whatever the US says, or do members have a say as in NATO?
Would NATO+ make decisions unanimously, mere majority, super majority?
Would 1.3 million Estonians have the same decision making weight as 330 million Americans?
So…No I think he specifically said being a friend to democracy. Being a friend to democracy doesn't mean you just roll over and accept what the US wants.
NATO needs to explore ways to squeeze Turkey even further. At the same time, individual NATO members can tighten their military relationships with Sweden and Finland anyway.Turkey has always tried to play on both sides. They should have never been admitted to NATO.
Turkey is not a reliable ally. Period.There are unwritten goals about the preservation of democracy in there.
But even if the goal is just to deter attacks, do you feel confident that modern day Turkey would live up to it's Article V obligations against Putin? Because if the answer is no, then they shouldn't be a part of the alliance . . . especially if they are potentially blocking out strategically important allies who we are confident that can be counted on.
Times change.They were a pretty critical member during the cold war even with their downside.
Ukraine became a Nato enhanced opportunity member in 2020 and a US Joint partner in September 2021. They don't want the US to influence politicians or be involved militarily, whether a democracy or not. The 2014 conflict started when the elected pro-russian guy got kicked out of the country. The people in the Donbas and Crimea, mostly Russians, were very much against this turn of events.This isn't really directed at you, I am only replying to you because you seem pretty knowledgeable. Why can't we just form a new organization called the No Autocracy Treaty Organization, with the acronym, "NATO+", and admit Ukraine and everyone else deemed a friend to democracy and foe to autocracy. NATO could then run joint exercises with NATO+, and NATO+ would not be constrained by the tyranny of the minority.
They weren't led by Edrogan then. The two problems with Hungary and Turkey are their autocratic leaders.Times change.
Still doesn’t justify Russia’s actions in 2014 or 2022. Russia was not attacked or threatened with attack.Ukraine became a Nato enhanced opportunity member in 2020 and a US Joint partner in September 2021. They don't want the US to influence politicians or be involved militarily, whether a democracy or not. The 2014 conflict started when the elected pro-russian guy got kicked out of the country. The people in the Donbas and Crimea, mostly Russians, were very much against this turn of events.
True. Still think they're a country we'd rather have in than out even with the headaches.Times change.
Turkey and Russia have have not been historical allies. If Turkey wants to be strategically aligned with Russia then I hope they enjoy that.Kicking them out of NATO would ensure that scenario. Kicking them out would place them firmly in the Russia/China camp.
If having them in becomes untenable then they might need to be kicked out.
Perhaps, but it’s not a slam dunk.True. Still think they're a country we'd rather have in than out even with the headaches.
GET IN MY BELLY!
Perhaps not.True. Still think they're a country we'd rather have in than out even with the headaches.