What's new

How Long will Turkey Stay In NATO for?

NATO's relevance is less in danger now than it's ever been since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Western Europe will stay in NATO, the security benefits it provides are unmatched by any lesser organization.

Actually on the contrary the relevance of NATO has diminished since the collapse of the soviet Union, Once antagonists Germany and France are major partners with Russia regards to Economy and multilateral relations, The only Western European nation still holds somewhat of political antagonism is the UK but that too more due to it's close US alliance that for security matters.. More over Most Western European and Scandinavian nations are averse to open conflict..The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is more of a ex Soviet Eastern European Anti Russian Alliance these days

I could see the beginnings of a secondary Eastern European defence bloc, possibly including the United States as well though. This would include permanent military installations in Eastern Europe. This wouldn't replace NATO, but be in addition to NATO (similar to the CSDP for the EU). It would be another option that could be called on in anycase.

I could see this a very possibility though, Except the core of it being Poland and the former Soviet Baltic states not Ukraine, The US will not waste it's resources in a already lost case, Crimea is gone and so has the Black Sea, Georgia in limbo.. No smart US policy maker will touch that region with a barge pole
 
The question now arises is the status of NATO, If it's current form suits the status quo, The theater has moved from the North Atlantic to Eastern Europe, How relevant would it be with increasing reluctance of it's original members of Western Europe in getting entangled in a conflict in the East ?
I wish NATO had been much more reluctant. :(
 
I wish NATO had been much more reluctant. :(

Well regards to Ukraine, NATO just made token gestures, Just to make the world take notice.. They were never gonna get entangled there, Even though the Poles were more than enthusiastic to.. But in the end they got what they wanted at the expense of Ukraine.. So like i mentioned before the real winner were the Poles and the three Baltic states
 
Only half of Europe feels threatened by Russia. The rest (Greece, France, Germany, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Italy etc) are good friends with her.
1. Every single country on your list passed strict sanctions AGAINST Russia and so ya, I think you are a bit misguided in your assessment on that. :azn:

2. My comments were confined to Turkey only.

Well regards to Ukraine, NATO just made token gestures, Just to make the world take notice.. They were never gonna get entangled there, Even though the Poles were more than enthusiastic to.. But in the end they got what they wanted at the expense of Ukraine.. So like i mentioned before the real winner were the Poles and the three Baltic states
You misunderstood my post. I was referring to NATO involvement in countries like Libya.
 
What is the point of including Ukraine in a security bloc when America has already said there is no chance of a military response to Russia after Crimea?
I didn't flesh it out enough, it was just off the top of my head considering what they are pushing for and their own initiatives. It is by no means certain but but a possibility.

If the US was not in it I could see the Eastern European countries accepting Ukraine for strategic depth and common interest.

Even if the US was not part of the bloc It would definitely be rendering military assistance as it is today to the countries of Eastern Europe.

As it is today, I'd say a Eastern Europe with US backing (even if not explicit troop assistance) has a good chance at repelling a Russian attack given time.

It might be prudent for Poland and the Baltics. Poland has 1 more option for defending the baltics (for its strategic depth) and is secure in keeping NATO with the knowledge that even if Western Europe was hesitant to go to war for the Baltics, they wouldn't be for Poland, so it would be a trump card.

For the Baltics it would be an alliance that doesn't leave them in doubt for some of the members' commitment.

It might include elements of Northern Europe as well, such as Sweden and Finland.
 
I didn't flesh it out enough, it was just off the top of my head considering what they are pushing for and their own initiatives. It is by no means certain but but a possibility.

If the US was not in it I could see the Eastern European countries accepting Ukraine for strategic depth and common interest.

Even if the US was not part of the bloc It would definitely be rendering military assistance as it is today to the countries of Eastern Europe.

As it is today, I'd say a Eastern Europe with US backing (even if not explicit troop assistance) has a good chance at repelling a Russian attack given time.

It might be prudent for Poland and the Baltics. Poland has 1 more option for defending the baltics (for its strategic depth) and is secure in keeping NATO with the knowledge that even if Western Europe was hesitant to go to war for the Baltics, they wouldn't be for Poland, so it would be a trump card.

For the Baltics it would be an alliance that doesn't leave them in doubt for some of the members' commitment.

It might include elements of Northern Europe as well, such as Sweden and Finland.

Insightful, though I'm not sure such a thing would pan out in the current geopolitical scene. Many countries in Eastern Europe might prefer to have stable relations with Russia, and might not want to risk joining such an alliance for fear of hurting relations with Russia.
 
I think Russia is a threat to Europe in some ways however those ways would more be an external threat which are demonstrated on the t.v and in the parliaments. The refugee crisis is an internal threat which everyday peoples lives are affected in some ways (europeans). There is a balance and as the Europeans become increasingly far-right in their approach and their voting patterns, the relationship with the refugees and the gatekeeper (Turkey and their role in this conflict) will change over time. As far as I see it Russia while a threat is still consider European where as the Refugees are considered outsiders.
 
They now need us more than ever.There is only few countries in nato can stand against Russia and one of them is Turkey.England Turkey and France are the reall backbones of the nato in europe.
 
The "Sultan" lives in his own "glory" old days. That's why Turks are at odds with everyone, allies included. Russia need step up and do the world some good by slap on its ugly Gollum face.
 
The "Sultan" lives in his own "glory" old days. That's why Turks are at odds with everyone, allies included. Russia need step up and do the world some good by slap on its ugly Gollum face.
Go on to childish dreams.:omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:Russia has its own big problems with europe.Also Russia and Europe will have big problems about their population in the future.Their population dont increase as they need to keep their power.Russia gave up to work with west and found new allies.Honeymoons ended.EU and Russia will become more agressive in their interlands.This means new conflicts of interests.
Without USA and Turkey there is no power in West said anything to Russia yet.They saw what Russians did in Ukraine.In reality EU started the war and didnt keep the Ukraine.This shows their real power.Money , weapons and technology are not enough to EU when they are in defence position against a big power like Russia. They need willpower also which they dont have.They have only Nato with USA but China is coming.They are the real big threat to USA.USA will form a defence pact with japanase,koreans and other countries which feels themselves in danger.EU will become more alone and they will need to keep their security themselves.Thats why I said they need us more than ever.
Europe cant create a security profile without Turkey( not OTTOMAN EMPİRE:no::no::no:).Ukraine and Syria conflicts showed this reality.Sometimes reality hurts really big doesnt it?
 
Go on to childish dreams.:omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:Russia has its own big problems with europe.Also Russia and Europe will have big problems about their population in the future.Their population dont increase as they need to keep their power.Russia gave up to work with west and found new allies.Honeymoons ended.EU and Russia will become more agressive in their interlands.This means new conflicts of interests.
Without USA and Turkey there is no power in West said anything to Russia yet.They saw what Russians did in Ukraine.In reality EU started the war and didnt keep the Ukraine.This shows their real power.Money , weapons and technology are not enough to EU when they are in defence position against a big power like Russia. They need willpower also which they dont have.They have only Nato with USA but China is coming.They are the real big threat to USA.USA will form a defence pact with japanase,koreans and other countries which feels themselves in danger.EU will become more alone and they will need to keep their security themselves.Thats why I said they need us more than ever.
Europe cant create a security profile without Turkey( not OTTOMAN EMPİRE:no::no::no:).Ukraine and Syria conflicts showed this reality.Sometimes reality hurts really big doesnt it?
An old Chinese saying "Rather a Barbarian on the dragon throne than a peasant." In This sense the peasant is the muslim Turks and the Barbarians are the Slavs
 
Turkey in NATO is a Cold War hangover from when they bordered the USSR. There's no reason for it to remain.

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS. Turkey still has it's role in NATO as a gateway/useful ally for us in the middle east and most importantly as a bulwark against Russia's increasing provocations and as Moscow keeps reasserting itself in the black sea,Baltics, eastern Europe. Plus Russia's recent patrols close to European powers like U.K,France shores still shows it can still be a major threat to us, which is something Putin is eager to show off with these patrols/bombers. Their presence in the Mediterranean also serves as a potential counter to our military base /presence in Cyprus and Gibraltar. So Turkey is still very much useful as it also controls the Bosphurus. For the moment Russia’s maritime access to the Mediterranean is largely controlled by NATO countries and their allies (i.e. 1. Bosphorus by Turkey and Dardanelles; 2. Suez canal, 3. Strait of Gibraltar by Britain. Russia is trying to challenge and change this by maintaining and expanding its base in Tartus in Syria and securing its foothold in the region, from where they can expand their influence in not only the region but also towards European shores/doors. We always have to look at things from the big picture mate.

Good article for you to read

Russian Build-up Focuses Concerns Around The Black Sea
By Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty -
February 25, 2016

32.jpg


Nowhere in the world has Russia reconfigured the balance of power over the last decade as effectively as it has in the strategic Black Sea region.

The militarization of the breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia following the war with Georgia in 2008 and the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, in conjunction with an aggressive military modernization that is now bringing new capabilities online, have given Russia powerful new tools to wield influence in the former Soviet Union and to exert pressure against NATO and the European Union.

Russia plans to spend $2.4 billion on the Black Sea Fleet by 2020, including the most modern surface ships and submarines, as well as integrated air-defense and amphibious-landing capacities. By the time the upgrade is completed, the Interfax news agency reported on February 16, the fleet will be able to strike 200 targets with Kalibr cruise missiles in a single salvo.

“The threat to the Caucasus, the Middle East, and to Europe as a result of Russian aggression against Georgia [in 2008] and Ukraine in 2014 and the overturning of the European status quo and the ensuing militarization of the entire area are matters of the utmost concern to [Western] security planners,” says Stephen Blank, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and a longtime expert on security issues.

Littoral Danger
Moscow’s domination of the Black Sea casts a shadow over the littoral states. The pro-Western economic and political course of both Ukraine and Georgia has been stymied, and their ability to develop independently of Russia is seriously compromised. Earlier this month, Georgia announced plans to build a $2.5 billion cargo port at Batumi in hopes of creating a trade link between China and Europe. But whether that project will attract investors or function smoothly is now at least partially under Moscow’s control. Mere sabre rattling can be enough to make investors pull out.

The military doctrine adopted in July 2015 asserts Russia’s policy of resisting attempts “to overturn legitimate governments” in its region. “In effect, Moscow reserves for itself the right and obligation to defend governments that are amenable to Russian influence, even against the democratic choices of their own populations,” says Black Sea Rising, a new report by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

Combined with the Kremlin’s active use of hybrid warfare and “little green men” actions, the Black Sea military buildup is worrisome in capitals from Moldova to Azerbaijan.

In addition, Russia’s new muscle in the region has NATO members Romania and Bulgaria concerned as well. “These trends have allowed Russia to essentially make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for NATO to get into the Black Sea to defend NATO allies and partners without substantial losses of ships, planes, and men,” analyst Blank says.

Judy Dempsey, editor in chief of Carnegie Europe’s newsletter Strategic Europe, says Romania is “acutely aware of the situation” and has been working with NATO to create a rapid-deployment capacity in the Black Sea that is similar to what NATO already has planned for the Baltic region and Poland.

Through the use of political and economic pressure on Sofia and Bucharest, Russia is able to sow public doubts about the unity and resolve of the European Union and NATO.

Syria and the Mediterranean
In a speech at the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol, Ukraine, in 2007, then-commander of the Russian Navy Admiral Vladimir Masorin said: “The operational zone of the fleet extends across the Black Sea and the Mediterranean all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. It is at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and here we must reestablish the permanent presence of the Russian Navy
.”:agree:

Just over a year after the Crimean annexation, the Black Sea Fleet has already been turned from a “green-water” to a “blue-water” force, one capable of carrying out extensive operations in open waters. It has played an essential role in facilitating Russia’s military action in Syria.

Without this preparation, “they might have been able to airlift things into Syria and do some sealift, but nothing on the scale of what they have been able to do,” says analyst Blank. In addition, Blank says, after Russia completes the upgrade of its military base at Tartus, Syria, its dominance of the Black Sea will enable Moscow “to sustain a much larger force in the Mediterranean” over the long term.

The CEPA report notes that the Black Sea is already “the main logistical platform” for Russian actions in the Middle East, already enabling Moscow to maintain 10 ships in the eastern Mediterranean.

And Then There Was Turkey
Russia’s buildup in the Black Sea occurred during a time of good relations between Moscow and the other major regional power, Turkey. The warm personal relationship between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, meant that Turkey was largely silent as Russia pushed forward in the region.

“We went into Syria without understanding that we were entering into a conflict with Turkey,” says Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. “It seems clear that Putin was sure that the Turks would be amenable and somehow we’d divide things up with Erdogan. This was a fundamental mistake.”

But Russia’s action in Syria has now brought the two countries to the brink of open conflict. On November 24, Turkey shot down a Russian military jet that Ankara said had entered Turkish airspace from Syria. The two countries have had virtually no diplomatic contacts since then.

With both countries prominently present in the Black Sea, the possibilities for more dangerous incidents are high, analysts say.

NATO officials are “very worried” about the possibility of a Turkish-Russian incident in the Black Sea, says Carnegie analyst Dempsey.

“In retrospect it is quite remarkable that there haven’t been accidents given so many different aircraft in the skies over Syria and, now, in parts of the Black Sea,” she adds.



Read more: Russian Build-up Focuses Concerns Around The Black Sea | at DefenceTalk

:pop:
 
Last edited:
I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS. Turkey still has it's role in NATO as a gateway/useful ally for us in the middle east and most importantly as a bulwark against Russia's increasing provocations and as Moscow keeps reasserting itself in the black sea,Baltics, eastern Europe. Plus Russia's recent patrols close to European powers like U.K,France shores still shows it can still be a major threat to us, which is something Putin is eager to show off with these patrols/bombers. Their presence in the Mediterranean also serves as a potential counter to our military base /presence in Cyprus and Gibraltar. So Turkey is still very much useful as it also controls the Bosphurus. For the moment Russia’s maritime access to the Mediterranean is largely controlled by NATO countries and their allies (i.e. 1. Bosphorus by Turkey and Dardanelles; 2. Suez canal, 3. Strait of Gibraltar by Britain. Russia is trying to challenge and change this by maintaining and expanding its base in Tartus in Syria and securing its foothold in the region, from where they can expand their influence in not only the region but also towards European shores/doors. We always have to look at things from the big picture mate.

Good article for you to read

Russian Build-up Focuses Concerns Around The Black Sea
By Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty -
February 25, 2016

32.jpg


Nowhere in the world has Russia reconfigured the balance of power over the last decade as effectively as it has in the strategic Black Sea region.

The militarization of the breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia following the war with Georgia in 2008 and the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, in conjunction with an aggressive military modernization that is now bringing new capabilities online, have given Russia powerful new tools to wield influence in the former Soviet Union and to exert pressure against NATO and the European Union.

Russia plans to spend $2.4 billion on the Black Sea Fleet by 2020, including the most modern surface ships and submarines, as well as integrated air-defense and amphibious-landing capacities. By the time the upgrade is completed, the Interfax news agency reported on February 16, the fleet will be able to strike 200 targets with Kalibr cruise missiles in a single salvo.

“The threat to the Caucasus, the Middle East, and to Europe as a result of Russian aggression against Georgia [in 2008] and Ukraine in 2014 and the overturning of the European status quo and the ensuing militarization of the entire area are matters of the utmost concern to [Western] security planners,” says Stephen Blank, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and a longtime expert on security issues.

Littoral Danger
Moscow’s domination of the Black Sea casts a shadow over the littoral states. The pro-Western economic and political course of both Ukraine and Georgia has been stymied, and their ability to develop independently of Russia is seriously compromised. Earlier this month, Georgia announced plans to build a $2.5 billion cargo port at Batumi in hopes of creating a trade link between China and Europe. But whether that project will attract investors or function smoothly is now at least partially under Moscow’s control. Mere sabre rattling can be enough to make investors pull out.

The military doctrine adopted in July 2015 asserts Russia’s policy of resisting attempts “to overturn legitimate governments” in its region. “In effect, Moscow reserves for itself the right and obligation to defend governments that are amenable to Russian influence, even against the democratic choices of their own populations,” says Black Sea Rising, a new report by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

Combined with the Kremlin’s active use of hybrid warfare and “little green men” actions, the Black Sea military buildup is worrisome in capitals from Moldova to Azerbaijan.

In addition, Russia’s new muscle in the region has NATO members Romania and Bulgaria concerned as well. “These trends have allowed Russia to essentially make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for NATO to get into the Black Sea to defend NATO allies and partners without substantial losses of ships, planes, and men,” analyst Blank says.

Judy Dempsey, editor in chief of Carnegie Europe’s newsletter Strategic Europe, says Romania is “acutely aware of the situation” and has been working with NATO to create a rapid-deployment capacity in the Black Sea that is similar to what NATO already has planned for the Baltic region and Poland.

Through the use of political and economic pressure on Sofia and Bucharest, Russia is able to sow public doubts about the unity and resolve of the European Union and NATO.

Syria and the Mediterranean
In a speech at the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol, Ukraine, in 2007, then-commander of the Russian Navy Admiral Vladimir Masorin said: “The operational zone of the fleet extends across the Black Sea and the Mediterranean all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. It is at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, and here we must reestablish the permanent presence of the Russian Navy
.”:agree:

Just over a year after the Crimean annexation, the Black Sea Fleet has already been turned from a “green-water” to a “blue-water” force, one capable of carrying out extensive operations in open waters. It has played an essential role in facilitating Russia’s military action in Syria.

Without this preparation, “they might have been able to airlift things into Syria and do some sealift, but nothing on the scale of what they have been able to do,” says analyst Blank. In addition, Blank says, after Russia completes the upgrade of its military base at Tartus, Syria, its dominance of the Black Sea will enable Moscow “to sustain a much larger force in the Mediterranean” over the long term.

The CEPA report notes that the Black Sea is already “the main logistical platform” for Russian actions in the Middle East, already enabling Moscow to maintain 10 ships in the eastern Mediterranean.

And Then There Was Turkey
Russia’s buildup in the Black Sea occurred during a time of good relations between Moscow and the other major regional power, Turkey. The warm personal relationship between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, meant that Turkey was largely silent as Russia pushed forward in the region.

“We went into Syria without understanding that we were entering into a conflict with Turkey,” says Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. “It seems clear that Putin was sure that the Turks would be amenable and somehow we’d divide things up with Erdogan. This was a fundamental mistake.”

But Russia’s action in Syria has now brought the two countries to the brink of open conflict. On November 24, Turkey shot down a Russian military jet that Ankara said had entered Turkish airspace from Syria. The two countries have had virtually no diplomatic contacts since then.

With both countries prominently present in the Black Sea, the possibilities for more dangerous incidents are high, analysts say.

NATO officials are “very worried” about the possibility of a Turkish-Russian incident in the Black Sea, says Carnegie analyst Dempsey.

“In retrospect it is quite remarkable that there haven’t been accidents given so many different aircraft in the skies over Syria and, now, in parts of the Black Sea,” she adds.



Read more: Russian Build-up Focuses Concerns Around The Black Sea | at DefenceTalk

:pop:

Really, how about Turkey stabbing in allies back by supporting ISIS, which has sworn to destroy west, simply as long as ISIS are killing Kurds in addition to other genocide.

Remember last year, the ISIS siege against Kobani, Turks tanks just sit idly while US airplanes pounding ISIS. Do you call that an ally?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom