Turkey - Geopolitical & Geostrategic.

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member

Whaatt..Sultan Erdo still want US Fighters ?? :eek: How about his claim that TFX will satisfied all Turkey Fighters need ?

Joking asside I put on this thread, since it's coming from Greek source and I always reserve doubt on any Greece sources on Turkey matter and vice versa (Just like I put doubt on Indian sources on Pakistan and vice versa). However this if it's true can be 'potentially' the last test on Turkey relationship with US, with all that happening in Syria and S-400 - F-35 drama.

On paper it is reasonable thing to do with F-16 practically create back bone of Turkish AF. As also Turkey has it's own F-16 facilities, they can do all the upgrades locally, or even licensing newly build Blk 70. If US refuse Turkey on new Blk 70, it is last straw on their 'aliance' relationship. As practically US now even considering F-35 and F-16 upgrade program to Greece.

Unless US really want to break up with Turkey, I don't know how they are going to refuse this.
As you said, a compensation for the $1,4 billion can be an upgrade to Block 70 level or the delivery of brandnew F-16Vs.
|“We made a $1,4 billion payment. What will become of that?” Erdogan said. “We did not — and do not — earn this money easily. Either they will give us our planes or they will give us the money.”|

 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
I'm aware that both countries have common concerns and interests and are taking the necessary steps to improve relations which were previously strained but I was unaware of any "alliance" per see.
Not the type of alliances we see normally in the west, where they're made for the betterment of countries and safeguarding national interests.
I'm talking about alliances between not the countries as whole, but their un-democratic leaderships that wish to see each other staying in power. Erdogan and Putin are good for one another. In their own eyes.


The way I see it, unless it is completely forced to [from its perpective], there will be no Turkish realignnent from the U S, the West and NATO.
Hopefully, but then what do we make of Turkey buying strategic systems from Russia? i.e the S-400 which is not only an air defense system but part of an early warning and tracking network. Or them genuinely considering Russian aircraft?

This harms America's:
1. Posture in front of other not so reliable allies, or those who are okay with buying from everyone (e.g Saudi Arabia buying Chinese drones).
2. Reputation as a superpower capable of ensuring security and stability for all its allies.
3. Leverage against Turkey to fall in line.


In yiur view are countries like Saudi, Qatar, Jordan and the U A E. any more stable than Turkey and the other countries you mentioned given their shorter history as nation states, style of government, as well as other factors?

According your oersonal definition and in the context of this dicussion, how long is "temporary"?
Sorry, I don't know about these countries, other than Jordan - it is unstable and could have a repeat of its civil war at some point if it doesn't change course.
Temporary can be anything. Some countries are mostly aided in keeping stability. For others, it's a daily struggle against internal and external entities trying to overthrow them.

Yeah, it's not years, sometimes not even decades. But it doesn't necessarily have to mean a coup. The instability itself is a result of tyrranical regimes naturally putting themselves on a collision course with other usually more powerful entities, which is obviously a lot more difficult to live with than having relative peace.

North Korea, Cuba, Iran, haven't had a major coup attempt or war in many decades. Sure seems like they're permanent, right? Well they survive, but they cannot prosper like that.

Turkey can have prosperity if fully aligned with the west. It's the wealthiest, most stable, and most peaceful group on this planet. Any deviation will hinder its ability to prosper.

The US and the whole west should show Turkey and everyone in that sphere, that you can't play for both teams. Pick a side and stick with it.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I will throw this grenade out, how stable will the USA be 2-8 years out? Given some of the recent events and on going stupidity on a range of polarizing issues, I have my doubts.
 
Not the type of alliances we see normally in the west, where they're made for the betterment of countries and safeguarding national interests.
I'm talking about alliances between not the countries as whole, but their un-democratic leaderships that wish to see each other staying in power. Erdogan and Putin are good for one another. In their own eyes.



Hopefully, but then what do we make of Turkey buying strategic systems from Russia? i.e the S-400 which is not only an air defense system but part of an early warning and tracking network. Or them genuinely considering Russian aircraft?

This harms America's:
1. Posture in front of other not so reliable allies, or those who are okay with buying from everyone (e.g Saudi Arabia buying Chinese drones).
2. Reputation as a superpower capable of ensuring security and stability for all its allies.
3. Leverage against Turkey to fall in line.



Sorry, I don't know about these countries, other than Jordan - it is unstable and could have a repeat of its civil war at some point if it doesn't change course.
Temporary can be anything. Some countries are mostly aided in keeping stability. For others, it's a daily struggle against internal and external entities trying to overthrow them.

Yeah, it's not years, sometimes not even decades. But it doesn't necessarily have to mean a coup. The instability itself is a result of tyrranical regimes naturally putting themselves on a collision course with other usually more powerful entities, which is obviously a lot more difficult to live with than having relative peace.

North Korea, Cuba, Iran, haven't had a major coup attempt or war in many decades. Sure seems like they're permanent, right? Well they survive, but they cannot prosper like that.

Turkey can have prosperity if fully aligned with the west. It's the wealthiest, most stable, and most peaceful group on this planet. Any deviation will hinder its ability to prosper.

The US and the whole west should show Turkey and everyone in that sphere, that you can't play for both teams. Pick a side and stick with it.
I think whether you do or you don’t wish to continue the alliance, you can’t steal their money. If you don’t wish to sell them what they’ve paid for, you return their money. Iran sued the USA over their money that they paid for F14s. . The world court was close to a decision a few years back, and we came to a settlement and paid them. The USA claims to be honest. Let’s do one or the other.

Art
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Turkey can have prosperity if fully aligned with the west. It's the wealthiest, most stable, and most peaceful group on this planet. Any deviation will hinder its ability to prosper.
Turkey can prosper by changing a number of policies but to all intents and purposes it's still aligned to the West and developing better ties with certain countries doesn't mean that Turkey is realigning itself. Turkey like other countries has to put its interests first, doesn't mean it's betraying the West or turning its back on its commitnents to NATO.

Note I'm not looking at this from the perspective of
U.S. but fron from the perspective that everyone has their own core interests to watch out for.

About the West being the most "peaceful", highly subjective, depends who one asks.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #286
I will throw this grenade out, how stable will the USA be 2-8 years out? Given some of the recent events and on going stupidity on a range of polarizing issues, I have my doubts.
Is that a grenade or a Claymore? That's a valid point because mid terms are next year and the Trump has already signalled that he will run in 2024. His acolytes with the Republican Party have control of the Party at the moment and if they gain further control of the Party in 2022 by the election of more acolytes,and gain control of both Houses, then the Biden White House will be a lame duck Administration.

But would Trump or his acolytes actually black ball Turkey? Trump prefers autocrats like Putin and Erdoğan because they are all similar in nature. If Erdoğan acquires more Russian arms he will cause himself more problems with the US, and they may just pull the pin. To quote the great ancient philosopher, Dirty Harry McCallaghan, "a man's got to know his limitations." That's what Erdoğan has to learn.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Turkey like other countries has to put its interests first, doesn't mean it's betraying the West or turning its back on its commitnents to NATO.
Personally, I see more harm done to Turkey than good in buying the S-400, especially considering the abundance of similar systems on the market.

I think whether you do or you don’t wish to continue the alliance, you can’t steal their money. If you don’t wish to sell them what they’ve paid for, you return their money.
That was my point - give them back their money, don't give them F-16 upgrades.

They feel the pressure coming mostly from the aging manned aircraft fleet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Personally, I see more harm done to Turkey than good in buying the S-400,
Personally, I get why there is fuss about the sale but there are also various other factors to take in and its highly speculative to suggest that Turkey is religning itself, merely or mainly on the basis it has bought the Russian system and that it is seeking closer ties with Russia [both countries and not just the U.S. have interests to safeguard]. What happens in the coming months will tell us a lot. It's a matter of Turkey ensuring it continues to meet its commitments to NATO, whilst also striking a fine balance in handling other issues.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I see more harm done to Turkey than good in buying the S-400, especially considering the abundance of similar systems on the market.
Abundance?? Care to elaborate on what other systems are available for Turkey to purchase that have the capabilities of the S-400?
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Abundance?? Care to elaborate on what other systems are available for Turkey to purchase that have the capabilities of the S-400?
Yes. Ready to buy, as a package, are different types of Patriot, possibly variations of Aegis ashore, SAMP-T, David's Sling, Barak 8, and more options like mixing different available missiles, radars, and C2.
 

Vivendi

Active Member
Yes. Ready to buy, as a package, are different types of Patriot, possibly variations of Aegis ashore, SAMP-T, David's Sling, Barak 8, and more options like mixing different available missiles, radars, and C2.
Looking at the technical specs only, you are right -- a number of options exist.

However, involve politics and the number of options narrow considerably. For whatever reason Erdogan was not willing to purchase Western. Rumor has it that being chased by F-16 during the coup attempt was a motivating factor, pushing Erdogan towards a non-western but still capable system. I can think of only one system that meet those requirements... I may be wrong of course.

S-400 missile system: What is it and why does Turkey want it? | World | Breaking news and perspectives from around the globe | DW | 12.07.2019
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Looking at the technical specs only, you are right -- a number of options exist.

However, involve politics and the number of options narrow considerably. For whatever reason Erdogan was not willing to purchase Western. Rumor has it that being chased by F-16 during the coup attempt was a motivating factor, pushing Erdogan towards a non-western but still capable system. I can think of only one system that meet those requirements... I may be wrong of course.

S-400 missile system: What is it and why does Turkey want it? | World | Breaking news and perspectives from around the globe | DW | 12.07.2019
It goes before the coup as well. Initially Turkey was looking at purchasing Chinese SAMs. At that tender Russia presented the S-300VM instead of the S-400.
 
Yes. Ready to buy, as a package, are different types of Patriot, possibly variations of Aegis ashore, SAMP-T, David's Sling, Barak 8, and more options like mixing different available missiles, radars, and C2.
Well they tried to buy the Patriot before but it didn't eventuate.


But from what I have read the Patriot does not really match the capability of the S-400 anyway, eg the info in this article suggest the S-400 has greater range, can track more targets, hit faster moving targets etc (there seems to be a typo saying can hit targets moving at 17km/hr, that must be 17km/second(?);


David's Sling is an interesting option. I didn't think Turkey and Israel traded Arms much but a quick bit of research proved me wrong. Suspect the Devil is in the detail in a lot of these deals. Countries often seem to have "export" versions with more basic capacity and "advanced" versions which they don't sell.

Turkey may be happy to switch to a Patriot or David's Sling at some stage if they can get a reasonably advanced version but that will probably need to be post Ergodan, can't see him doing a U-turn on this. And even after he goes they would need some sweet carrots to abandon the S-400, it is not a cheap system and I doubt Russia will give them a refund if they decide they want to appease the West by reverting to their missile systems.

I see the issue as a classic example of the US trying to Bully another Country into doing what the US wants except for once they have been shown the middle finger. Can you imagine if Turkey (or anybody) tried to tell the US where it must buys it's Arms from? They'd probably sanction them for the mere suggestion :)

@Pentaprism

I have reviewed your postings since joining and recognise your are aligned with Iran and its situation. This is perfectly acceptable. However, you need to provide some justification of your posts .. passion is not enough. Suggest you argue the point with fact not nationalist fervour.

This is just a friendly prod hence the green text.

alexsa
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
But from what I have read the Patriot does not really match the capability of the S-400 anyway, eg the info in this article suggest the S-400 has greater range, can track more targets, hit faster moving targets etc (there seems to be a typo saying can hit targets moving at 17km/hr, that must be 17km/second(?)
That has more to do with the fact Russia and the US build their air defense layers differently. The S-400 and Patriot are not direct competitors, rather the S-400 sits between it and the THAAD.
The US, for example, also has higher tier systems which Russia does not match, as it does not see the need.

But any western country that wants a system built on a concept more similar to an S-400 than a Patriot may opt for a mix and match of various individual components.
A missile from here, a radar from there, and a C2 from somewhere else.

David's Sling is an interesting option. I didn't think Turkey and Israel traded Arms much but a quick bit of research proved me wrong. Suspect the Devil is in the detail in a lot of these deals. Countries often seem to have "export" versions with more basic capacity and "advanced" versions which they don't sell.
Israel and Turkey were regional best buds until 2010. Since then Turkey realigned itself in numerous ways, including a more active approach to a grand strategy.

Still, no bridge is yet burned. Turkey's S-400 buy was no less a political realignment than it would be to buy a David's Sling or any other western system.

I see the issue as a classic example of the US trying to Bully another Country into doing what the US wants except for once they have been shown the middle finger. Can you imagine if Turkey (or anybody) tried to tell the US where it must buys it's Arms from? They'd probably sanction them for the mere suggestion :)
I don't see it that way. Turkey chose to align with the west. It entails a series of privileges and duties. Get access to technologies, programs, and trade deals that put you ahead of your enemies/competitors, but also show loyalty and commitment.

Prefer at some point to stay in the middle between two sides and not commit? Fine, but then you also forfeit the privileges.

Access to the JSF program is a privilege. Hosting nuclear weapons is also one. Technological partnerships in sensitive areas, are naturally privileges as well.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #296
Erdoğan has decided to declare the Ambassadors of the US, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden persona non grata because of their call for the release of Osman Kavala, who they believe is incarcerated on the grounds of his political activities. He has been imprisoned for the last four years without being convicted of any criminal offence. The EU Court of Human Rights has called for his release and the Council of Europe has issued Turkey with a final warning, giving them until November to release Kavala.

Turkey to declare 10 ambassadors 'persona non grata'

This diplomatic stoush appears to be an attempt by Erdoğan to deflect attention away from his ever diminishing domestic support, and is an attempt to hold on to power by showing his strength in standing up to foreign bullies. However it's a well worn card that he's used before and probably will be seen domestically for what it is; smoke and mirrors.

Within the EU, NATO and in the wider western diplomatic, defence and security would I think that this will be seen as a further reason to keep Turkey at arms length, and that all military and security alliances and relationships may have to be thoroughly reevaluated. NATO in particular will have to decide whether or not Turkey remaining in the alliance is a feasible, practical, and safe option. Personally I now think that Turkey's membership of the alliance is more harmful than helpful to it. Turkey has become a liability, politically, strategically, security wise, and militarily.
 

Vivendi

Active Member
According to Turkey, the ambassadors "stepped back" and therefore Erdogan withdrew the threat:

In comments on Monday Erdoğan said statements issued earlier in the day by the embassies in question, reaffirming that they will abide by a diplomatic convention not to interfere in a host country’s internal affairs, “show they have taken a step back from the slander against our country” and “they will be more careful now”.
The Western countries however have a slightly different version:

Both Washington and Ankara appeared to insist on Monday night that they had not backed down, with a US state department spokesperson saying that the earlier statement on adhering to Article 41 of the Vienna Convention was meant to underscore that the US envoy’s actions were in keeping with the convention’s terms.
Turkey backs down on threat to expel foreign ambassadors | Turkey | The Guardian

Anyway, this is in some way what I expected: that Erdogan would create a lot of noise and project a "strong man" image, but not actually do anything about this.

I don't think this episode will have a significant impact on the relationship between NATO and Turkey. The relationship was strained before this incident, and might be a bit more strained now, but it seems the calculus in Washington and elsewhere is still that it's better to keep Turkey in NATO, rather than pushing Turkey away and into the arms of Russia and/or China. And apart from the aggressive wording from Erdogan, nothing really happened here.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
That has more to do with the fact Russia and the US build their air defense layers differently. The S-400 and Patriot are not direct competitors
The Russians adopt the pragmatic or rather the realistic approach that they might not achieve air superiority, hence their reliance on layered ground based AD networks [from S-400s to Buks and Tors to Iglas - all supporting each other] and how they distribute short range systems organically down to battalion sized formations.

Ultimately, Patriot and S-400 were born out of slightly diffrent operating philosophies and doctrine but both from the onset were intended to deal with high altitude threats at certain ranges. A major difference with the Americans is that unlike the Russians they did not have sonething in large numbers to fill the gap between Patriot and Stinger [I-Hawk was retired] the way the Russians make extensive use of stuff like Buk and Tor to fill the S-300/400 and Igla gap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
The Russians adopt the pragmatic or rather the realistic approach that they might not achieve air superiority, hence their reliance on layered ground based AD networks [from S-400s to Buks and Tors to Iglas - all supporting each other] and how they distribute short range systems organically down to battalion sized formations.

Ultimately, Patriot and S-400 were born out of slightly diffrent operating philosophies and doctrine but both from the onset were intended to deal with high altitude threats at certain ranges. A major difference with the Americans is that unlike the Russians they did not have sonething in large numbers to fill the gap between Patriot and Stinger [I-Hawk was retired] the way the Russians make extensive use of stuff like Buk and Tor to fill the S-300/400 and Igla gap.
It's not a more pragmatic or realistic approach. It is equally pragmatic / realistic. The ruggedness and high built-in redundancy of Russian air defenses comes at a cost, and that cost is high, including prohibiting the air force from expanding and modernizing.

Its systems are built for a doctrine where the air force takes a much lesser role in the air defense mission and assume little to no dependence on other services.

It's powerful, yes. But in a country with western fighting doctrine, it's simply incompatible.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #300
It's not a more pragmatic or realistic approach. It is equally pragmatic / realistic. The ruggedness and high built-in redundancy of Russian air defenses comes at a cost, and that cost is high, including prohibiting the air force from expanding and modernizing.

Its systems are built for a doctrine where the air force takes a much lesser role in the air defense mission and assume little to no dependence on other services.

It's powerful, yes. But in a country with western fighting doctrine, it's simply incompatible.
I would disagree because the Russians may be many things, but being stupid isn't one of them. Major western powers have become accustomed to fighting with air superiority and have neglected some capabilities. They haven't had to face a real near peer air threat since WW2 with the closest being the Falklands War in 1982. So their ground forces don't have a proper air defence doctrine and capability, and if it isn't a doctrinal requirement then that doctrine is incomplete and not fit for purpose.
 
Top