Turkey - Geopolitical & Geostrategic.

[Boatteacher]

Most ''loyal ally'' by what definition and on what basis?

Turkey is a full fledged NATO member. If the F-35 sale is going to be scrapped/delayed/reviewed on account of Turkey not being a ''loyal ally'' or for other reasons; then NATO must as well go ahead and serve notice on Turkey that its NATO membership might be revoked ....

Trust.

That those who shouldn't be given access to the secrets won't be. It has nothing to do with annoying Uncle Sam or anyone else. But cozening up to the very party of most concern, realigning your loyalties while making clear your have fundamental strategic hostilities with the providers of the secrets, all while desperately trying to bolster internal support on Nationalistic grounds starts to ring alarm bells.

It' not a black line, all or nothing, issue in dealing with Turkey. There's a sliding scale of risks that can be taken. Accepting any chance they might give Russia access to F-35 secrets is the outlier.

 

[STURM]

Just because Turkey has issues with Uncle Sam or with NATO; doesn't necessarily mean any 'secrets' relating to the F-35 will be shared with Russia. If we go on that basis; there are lots of sensitive NATO stuff that Turkey can share with Russia. If that's the case; just revoke Turkey's NATO membership and be done with it. Who needs whom more : NATO or Turkey?

Turkey's loyalty is to itself first; as to be expected. As for trust, it's a 2 way street. When the U.S. cozies up to Kurdish groups that are at odds with Turkey or pursues policies that are at odds with Turkey's interests; what do you expect the Turks to do? For that matter, what would you expect else anyone to do? Why should Turkey's loyalty to anyone be questioned when it does what it thinks is in its best interests? NATO or the U.S. must as well just declare publicly that any NATO member that pursues policies which are not agreed upon by the U.S/NATO will have its membership reviewed and will be denied sensitive stuff.

If we want to argue that Turkey should not get the F-35 just because it has ''fundamental strategic hostilities with the providers of the secrets'' then this can also apply to other countries [non NATO members] who get a lot of leeway in what they can buy but are adopting policies that are more damaging to U.S. interests compared to what Turkey is doing.

 

[Ananda]

Are having S-400 is same with giving in F-35 secret ? I mean if Turkey S-400 system is control by them, how Russia going to be possible to analyse S-400 system against F-35.

Is Grece allowing Russia to analyse their S-300 system against their F-16 system which basically Nato system ?

Why Greece is ok to field Russian system, while Turkey's not ok ?
In the end is more to Erdogan's Turkey is worrying US main two big lobby allies Israel and Saudi. This S-400 thing in my oppinion is just an excuse by some factions in US congress based on some Lobby influences.

Why don't just say don't give Turkey the F-35 as long as Erdogan in power..don't used S-400 excuse, caused is just showing to average Turks the western bias against Turkey compared to Greece.
At least this way, the opposition might have more fuel to opposed Erdogan Policy. But using S-400 as an excuse, just add strength to Erdogan based.

 

[STURM]

Talk about the danger of Turkey passing Russia sensitivity data regarding the F-35 doesn’t make sense? Why would Turkey do this? Has Turkey given any indication that it doesn’t take seriously its obligations as a NATO member? Does Turkey have a history of sharing classified data/info with 3rd parties? In fact, when it comes to actual espionage on the U.S. and the sharing of classified data; it’s Israel which has a well documented history.

Why have people accused Erdogan (I have nothing for or against him) of being Putin’s new chum when it’s expected that Turkey seeks close ties with Russia as both have mutual interests. It’s not as if Turkey has signed a defence cooperation agreement with Russia to spite its NATO allies.

If Turkey scrapped the S-400 deal and decided to buy Patriot; would there be talks of not allowing the deal to go through on the grounds that Turkey might share data with Russia? I highly doubt it. I can go further and ask if it was another NATO member and not Turkey; would there be similar calls to a scrap an F-35 deal and mention of this member not being a loyal and dependable U.S ally?

 

[SolarWind]

The current circumstances are such that the interests of Turkey and US have diverged and are seen to be diverging further. Current tensions have nothing to do with past records but with a carefully weighted comparison of current and expected future risks versus expected risk tolerance levels. Furthermore, my own interpretation is that the primary benefit of having Turkey in NATO was and is the control of Black Sea passages and the resulting containment of Soviet Union/Russia. The latter actually goes back more than a hundred years to past alliances, a period when Turkish and European cultures had even less in common than now. It is important to note that I am working off of the assumptions of pragmatism and rationality, as well as perfect information.

 

[John Fedup]

Time for others to voice their concerns besides the US senate and Israel about Turkey getting F-35s. The article claims Turkey is a NATO member on paper only. IMO Turkey should no longer be a member along with no F-35s. By all means give them a refund as we wave good bye.

Israel To US: Don’t Sell F-35s To Turkey

 

[Feanor]

It's tricky. Is NATO only for countries whose goals align with the US completely? How much divergence before it's a showstopper? Given that the US and European countries are butting heads over issues like the North Stream 2 pipeline, or sanctions on Iran, or even the invasion of Iraq back in 2003 (Britain was on board but much of NATO wasn't), it doesn't seem feasible for NATO to merely remain an extension of US foreign policy. Even during the Cold War there were plenty of disagreements but at least then you had the Soviet threat to keep everyone united. Now that Russia is smaller, weaker, and no longer ideologically set on world revolution, playing the "scary Russian bear" card isn't working to get everyone behind the US. To be sure most NATO members agree with much of the US stance, but the differences are increasing in number. The current US president has certainly exacerbated many of these issues, but these issues predate his tenure. I think that NATO as an organization needs to be mindful of how it treats its members. And it's important for NATO to be an international organization, not a USA fan club. As such Turkish membership should not be tied to their purchase of the F-35 or lack thereof. Nor should it be tied to regional American interests in the Middle East. It should be tied to Turkish obligations to NATO, and their participation in NATO missions. Most importantly it's a decision that needs to be made collectively, and the consequences of which need to be weighed very carefully. The US has already played a poor game in the Middle East, losing influence to Russia in ways that really shouldn't have happened. The desire to punish Turkey for their role in this is understandable, but is it really a smart move for NATO? Aside from that, is it a smart move for the US in particular? I'm not so sure.

 

[Boatteacher]

It's tricky. Is NATO only for countries whose goals align with the US completely? .

I think you've put far more eloquently and intelligently some of the views I've been trying to express.

To which I've simply gone a bit further to say that in the spectrum of relationships, supplying the F-35 is at a different point to being in NATO and I think Turkey's current trends has moved them along the spectrum to where supplying the F-35 no longer looks like a good idea. Because it is not just today we have to think about. This is a 20 year asset. If the relationship deteriorates further, they can be cut off from NATO in a flash (relatively), but you can't get the planes back.

I don't really see it as a "punishment" thing; whether for the S.400 or an anti-Galenist crackdown. I just see there being a trend in Turkey's politics and from a western point of view the trend is not our friend.

 

[SolarWind]

NATO really is an international organization of its own, and I don't see it as a US fan club. Current official rhetoric involves the topic of F-35's only, and there is no talk of cutting Turkey off of NATO, except in media and forums. The important point is that the US has no obligation to hand over F-35s to any state regardless of its NATO membership. Yes, if F-35 was a NATO plane made in NATO plants with rights to by all NATO members then maybe you could make the case that Turkey totally deserves to have it. But as it is, F-35 is an American plane made in America by Americans and to serve American interests, whether the interests lie in convincing a rogue ally to reconsider its behavior or something else.

 

[STURM]

As such Turkish membership should not be tied to their purchase of the F-35 or lack thereof. Nor should it be tied to regional American interests in the Middle East. It should be tied to Turkish obligations to NATO, and their participation in NATO missions.

Very true. These are points that seem to be overlooked by some. As it stands, the perception is that Turkey is being punished for not doing what the Americans would like it to do.

I just see there being a trend in Turkey's politics and from a western point of view the trend is not our friend.

From a Turkish point of view; the U.S. has undertaken policies that are not consistent with a friend and ally. It works both ways.

To which I've simply gone a bit further to say that in the spectrum of relationships, supplying the F-35 is at a different point to being in NATO

Then why have there been concerns raised as to how safe sensitive data relating to the F-35 will be safe in Turk hands and whether Russia will be the recipient of that data? As it stands, as a full fledged NATO member Turkey is privy to a lot of sensitive NATO data which - on paper - it can pass to an ''unfriendly'' country. Yet the fact remains, there are no solid grounds to even assume Turkey will hand anything over to anyone [why would it]; nor has Turkey even indicated that it will lessen its involvement with NATO or has taken steps in that direction.

NATO really is an international organization of its own, and I don't see it as a US fan club.

Thus the question : Is Turkey's being punished because it has undertaken policies that are at odds with the U.S. or with NATO? Never the mind the U.S, it has made a fine mess of things in the region [Assad and Putin are extremely grateful - just like how the Iranians are extremely grateful to Bush Jr. and Blair for invading Iraq] but will punishing Turkey actually benefit NATO?

But as it is, F-35 is an American plane made in America by Americans and to serve American interests, whether the interests lie in convincing a rogue ally to reconsider its behavior or something else.

If that's the case, the U.S. should just announce that Turkey will not receive the F-35 because it has been ''misbehaving'' - full stop/period. In other words a key NATO ally will be denied a platform needed to bolster its air arm and in the event of a future conflict involving NATO, will not have the same capability as its NATO partners; on the grounds that it has been ''misbehaving''. Is this in NATO's interests?

 

[SolarWind]

Thus the question : Is Turkey's being punished because it has undertaken policies that are at odds with the U.S. or with NATO?

I am not sure that Turkey is being punished.

If that's the case, the U.S. should just announce that Turkey will not receive the F-35 because it has been ''misbehaving'' - full stop/period. In other words a key NATO ally will be denied a platform needed to bolster its air arm and in the event of a future conflict involving NATO, will not have the same capability as its NATO partners; on the grounds that it has been ''misbehaving''. Is this in NATO's interests?

The US has pretty much implied to that effect by tying the F-35s to the S-400, however stating that as an effect to a cause rather than a done deal. Additionally, one ought to take a broader view and consider what made Turkey decide to go the way of cooperation with Russia, and is it just the beginning or maybe, in fact, a progression of something very negative in the eyes of the West. In other words, is this just the tip of the iceberg. Another possibility is that the US wants to give Russia a black eye on this sale of S-400, thus placing so much pressure on Turkey.

 

[SolarWind]

To which I've simply gone a bit further to say that in the spectrum of relationships, supplying the F-35 is at a different point to being in NATO and I think Turkey's current trends has moved them along the spectrum to where supplying the F-35 no longer looks like a good idea. Because it is not just today we have to think about. This is a 20 year asset. If the relationship deteriorates further, they can be cut off from NATO in a flash (relatively), but you can't get the planes back.

I don't really see it as a "punishment" thing; whether for the S.400 or an anti-Galenist crackdown. I just see there being a trend in Turkey's politics and from a western point of view the trend is not our friend.

Very well said. The decision to stop handover of F-35s would be based on assessment of future risks given current trends. And current trends are such that Turkey seems to be cooperating with Russia and buying their most advanced weaponry, weapons that pose a great challenge to the West and are practically a game changer anywhere they are installed. This also would add Turkey to the list of Russian clients.

 

[Feanor]

Very well said. The decision to stop handover of F-35s would be based on assessment of future risks given current trends. And current trends are such that Turkey seems to be cooperating with Russia and buying their most advanced weaponry, weapons that pose a great challenge to the West and are practically a game changer anywhere they are installed. This also would add Turkey to the list of Russian clients.

Turkey has been a Russian client before this on something strategically far more significant; nuclear power plants. So this is hardly ground breaking. As for trends, Turkey is actively seeking to be a regional power in its own right, rather then a US client state. A multi-vector foreign policy is practically a necessity. I think that the US could preserve Turkey as an ally if the US were willing to support a few Turkish pretensions in the region. The alternative is not supporting Turkey and letting Russia step in. Not a good one, in my opinion. Now maybe this was hard to see clearly in the mess around Syria initially. However now it should be apparent. Turkey is talking to Iran by itself, making deals with Russia by itself. If the US wants to preserve its influence and relationship with Turkey, they need to do something positive. Cancelling the F-35 deal, given the nature of US-Turkish defense cooperation on the F-16 and the F-35 would be the opposite of that and would likely drive Turkey and the US further apart.

 

[SolarWind]

As the region is adjusting to nearly 20 years worth of tectonic change, it is only natural for Turkey, a major player, to be active in seeking advantageous outcomes. I doubt that the US would try to constrain Turkey in this regard, so they can be talking to Iran or making deals with Russia all they want. The question of F-35 sales is, however, once again, an analysis of risk versus reward for US and NATO. I wonder also what pretensions does Turkey need American support in? Could you please be more specific on that?

Edit: With all due respect, I believe you overestimate the significance of nuclear power plants. These are purely civilian projects.

 

[Feanor]

As the region is adjusting to nearly 20 years worth of tectonic change, it is only natural for Turkey, a major player, to be active in seeking advantageous outcomes. I doubt that the US would try to constrain Turkey in this regard, so they can be talking to Iran or making deals with Russia all they want. The question of F-35 sales is, however, once again, an analysis of risk versus reward for US and NATO. I wonder also what pretensions does Turkey need American support in? Could you please be more specific on that?

Turkey wants the Kurds kept down, and a zone of influence in northern Syria reserved for them. The US wouldn't give them that and in fact behaved in a manner that led some to even infer that the US would support a Kurdish state. This would be anathema to Turkey. The US simply ignored vital Turkish interests, or gave them empty assurances. The Turks correctly placed no stock in those. Russia gave the Turks exactly this. Opportunity to crush any chances of Kurdish statehood, and a zone of influence in northern Syria. Turkey, together with Iran, were even ready to jump on Iraqi Kurdistan, should the Iraqi government fail to crush their independence aspirations.

Edit: With all due respect, I believe you overestimate the significance of nuclear power plants. These are purely civilian projects.

Their political and infrastructural significance is huge. Moreover many countries associate nuclear programs with great power status.

 

[SolarWind]

Turkey wants the Kurds kept down, and a zone of influence in northern Syria reserved for them. The US wouldn't give them that and in fact behaved in a manner that led some to even infer that the US would support a Kurdish state. This would be anathema to Turkey. The US simply ignored vital Turkish interests, or gave them empty assurances. The Turks correctly placed no stock in those. Russia gave the Turks exactly this. Opportunity to crush any chances of Kurdish statehood, and a zone of influence in northern Syria. Turkey, together with Iran, were even ready to jump on Iraqi Kurdistan, should the Iraqi government fail to crush their independence aspirations.

Well, an independent Kurdish State would give bulletproof legitimacy to Pentagon bases there, and Pentagon is calling the shots right now. I doubt they can take into consideration or deal with diplomatic matters. And as is, the President is too busy back home. I think this is a case of great miscommunication and misunderstanding, but ultimately not our place to resolve.

Their political and infrastructural significance is huge. Moreover many countries associate nuclear programs with great power status.

You are describing mostly economic benefits.

 

[Feanor]

Well, an independent Kurdish State would give bulletproof legitimacy to Pentagon bases there, and Pentagon is calling the shots right now. I doubt they can take into consideration or deal with diplomatic matters. And as is, the President is too busy back home. I think this is a case of great miscommunication and misunderstanding, but ultimately not our place to resolve.

The internal reasons for US behavior don't change much for outside actors. And the idea that the Pentagon wanting those bases has led the US down this path is a rather horrific one, much like the tail wagging the dog. Either way, I think my point stands. The US disregarded Turkish interests, and expected the Turks to simply follow. This has not worked out well. Cancelling the F-35 sale would not undo this, and is likely to cause more problems not less, backing Erdogan into a corner where his only viable option becomes open defiance and bluster, even if he would rather resolve the conflict quietly.

You are describing mostly economic benefits.

A country with a domestic civilian nuclear program can create a military one much faster then one without. But honestly the Turkish aspirations in the regional context aren't purely military or purely political.

 

[SolarWind]

The internal reasons for US behavior don't change much for outside actors. And the idea that the Pentagon wanting those bases has led the US down this path is a rather horrific one, much like the tail wagging the dog. Either way, I think my point stands. The US disregarded Turkish interests, and expected the Turks to simply follow. This has not worked out well. Cancelling the F-35 sale would not undo this, and is likely to cause more problems not less, backing Erdogan into a corner where his only viable option becomes open defiance and bluster, even if he would rather resolve the conflict quietly.

Pentagon does have a degree of freedom in the area, and it probably wants to play territorial control with Assad, Iran, and Russia. Still, the major communication problem between the US and Turkey is, in my opinion, Erdogan's growing dictatorial powers. I am not sure that the leaders could even talk to each other productively any more, given the growing rifts in values.

A country with a domestic civilian nuclear program can create a military one much faster then one without. But honestly the Turkish aspirations in the regional context aren't purely military or purely political.

Civilian reactors cannot be used to make weapons grade material. For a military nuclear program, they would still have to build a very specific type of reactor, all on their own.

 

[STURM]

Additionally, one ought to take a broader view and consider what made Turkey decide to go the way of cooperation with Russia, and is it just the beginning or maybe, in fact, a progression of something very negative in the eyes of the West.

Both countries are involved in Syria and have economic/trade ties. It is natural that Turkey would seek good ties with Russia; to be expected. How can this be seen as negative in the West [or rather Uncle Sam]? It's not as if Turkey has signed a long term defence cooperation agreement with Russia or has agreed to host a Russian military presence in Anatolia. Should Turkish policy toward Syria and the Kurds be based on not offending the 'West' [or rather Uncle Sam]; even if its contrary to its interests?

If we want to talk about future scenarios; we can also ask what would happen if a NATO member decided to reduce its involvement with NATO and increase its level of relations with neighbouring Russia; whilst also maintaining NATO membership? Base on this should we at present be talking about limiting what this country should receive in terms of Western equipment because of what it might do in the future?

As it stands, Turkey has made no mention of reviewing its position within NATO or indicated that its foreign policy will undergo a significant change. It is a full fledged NATO member and is meeting its NATO obligations. So why are are we discussing what Turkey might or might not do in the future just because some of its present policies are at odds with Uncle Sam? Why have some even mentioned the possibility of F-35 related stuff being provided to Russia? Has Turkey proven itself to be untrustworthy when it comes to safeguarding NATO secrets? Has anything sensitive which Turkey has bought ended up in the hands of an 'unfriendly' country?

 

[SolarWind]

Foreign relation and diplomacy decisions should not be made based on what offends and what does not. That said, recent Turkish tilt toward authoritarianism is in very broad terms definitely offensive to an average Western citizen. The major concern, however, is probably rooted in the fact that NATO is a de facto anti-Russian alliance, despite all assurances to the contrary. So cooperation by a NATO member, especially so important as Turkey, with Russia beyond a certain threshold is probably going to make Western decision-makers uncomfortable, regardless of any arguments made in defense. You are of course right to point out that speculation about future events is just that, speculation. But believe it or not, a formal science has been made out of it. And also remember that the warning to stop F-35 handover is at this point just that, a warning. These thoughts, as always, are solely mine alone.