Turkey should excluded from NATO, former US diplomat suggests

[FfFfFfFF 58,083]

NATO should be ready to suspend Turkey's membership, Mark Wallace, former US Ambassador to the UN, Chief Executive Officer of the Turkish Democracy Project, and Madeleine Joelson, Executive Director of the project, write in a letter published by the Financial Times.

The problem with the current strategy is that it encourages Erdogan's bad behavior. This will encourage him to press for more concessions the next time NATO needs a unanimous vote to avert a crisis.

Every concession received from the alliance will be billed as a diplomatic victory for Erdogan, helping him garner domestic support and help him win re-election next year.

As long as Erdogan knows that the members of the alliance are unwilling to take the final step of excluding Turkey, even if only temporarily, he will still have the upper hand in the negotiations.

Source: https://news.am/eng/news/710933.html

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

The problem with the current strategy is that it encourages Erdogan's bad behavior. This will encourage him to press for more concessions the next time NATO needs a unanimous vote to avert a crisis.

true it's a bad move

[FfFfFfFF 58,083]

26 minutes ago, AnnaNicoleSmith said:

true it's a bad move

There are many pros of excluding Turkey from the allience, first of all being the fact that Turkey is too tangled in Middle Eastern issues, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc and just recently announced that it will launch an invasion for northern Syria against the Russian-backed Assad regime, not to mention maritime disputes with Greece and Cyprus.

Turkey is militaristic and caught in messy relations with the Middle East. The more I think about it the more I wonder who though this was a good idea (though I get it, Turkey is important for power projection in the Caucasus and to say control over the Bosphorus, Black Sea is useful is an understatement).

The cherry on top is that the Middle East will become increasingly unstable as the food crisis caused by the war in Ukraine begins to take effect. We will have a full-on NATO member, covered by Article 5 in a geopolitical powdergrerg. Turkish flags are red and this is what I see.

[seresmantle 7]

Are you aware that Turkey holds NATO membership since almost the organization has been established and It has the second-largest army and is home to its headquarters? Even though the behavior of the President goes bad in general, he tends to express the situations related to terrorism - which he should in the global press. Removing Turkey from NATO is not something that will be possible in every sense.

[Pennywise 36,080]

1 hour ago, FfFfFfFF said:

The cherry on top is that the Middle East will become increasingly unstable as the food crisis caused by the war in Ukraine begins to take effect

It was supposed to be ROARING 20's again. NOT SCREAMING AND STARVING 

[Evil R 1,084]

2 hours ago, FfFfFfFF said:

The problem with the current strategy is that it encourages Erdogan's bad behavior. This will encourage him to press for more concessions the next time NATO needs a unanimous vote to avert a crisis.

This cannot be twisted and made all about him. Allience states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it shall be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary. Turkey cannot go on and let new members who are showing support to terrorist organizations which are treat to their national security. It is against the logic of NATO and allience.

[PartySick 172,477]

A general note to people who report political threads: please tell us why you're reporting them

I have no idea what's wrong with this thread unless you tell my ignorant American self. Thank you!

Anyway, OT: Isn't Turkey close to Russia politically? I feel like dropping them from NATO would just be a gift to Puta, no?

[Benji 20,113]

3 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Anyway, OT: Isn't Turkey close to Russia politically? I feel like dropping them from NATO would just be a gift to Puta, no?

It is but that gives them the power to veto action that would hurt Russia.  Removal from NATO is pretty serious but I’d support Turkey being removed.

[PartySick 172,477]

1 minute ago, Benji said:

It is but that gives them the power to veto action that would hurt Russia.  Removal from NATO is pretty serious but I’d support Turkey being removed.

That's fair...but is expulsion worth Russia gaining a jaded dictator as an ally  like, I'm certainly not here for appeasing Puta but part of me feels tossing them does more harm than good.

Do we know the terms for them saying yes to Sweden and Finland, btw?

[FfFfFfFF 58,083]

24 minutes ago, seresmantle said:

Are you aware that Turkey holds NATO membership since almost the organization has been established and It has the second-largest army and is home to its headquarters? Even though the behavior of the President goes bad in general, he tends to express the situations related to terrorism - which he should in the global press. Removing Turkey from NATO is not something that will be possible in every sense.

Yes, I am aware of everything, and I still think Turkey being removed from NATO is the better option. Not only is Turkey problematic within itself, but it brings NATO into the equation of Middle East's complex and messy affairs. Turkey is increasingly militaristic and will soon face Putin's Syria, this is the last thing we need at this moment.

[PartySick 172,477]

31 minutes ago, Pennywise said:

It was supposed to be ROARING 20's again. NOT SCREAMING AND STARVING 

Girl get out before sh*t hits the fan

[seresmantle 7]

18 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Yes, I am aware of everything, and I still think Turkey being removed from NATO is the better option. Not only is Turkey problematic within itself, but it brings NATO into the equation of Middle East's complex and messy affairs. Turkey is increasingly militaristic and will soon face Putin's Syria, this is the last thing we need at this moment.

I doubt you are since it doesn't make sense to remove such a crucial point geographically between Europe and the Middle East.  Turkey is going through many things over the years and the circumstances within Turkey and Syria are coming from the demand of remaining sovereignty. This is applicable at all to every country we mention. 

[FfFfFfFF 58,083]

12 minutes ago, seresmantle said:

I doubt you are since it doesn't make sense to remove such a crucial point geographically between Europe and the Middle East.  Turkey is going through many things over the years and the circumstances within Turkey and Syria are coming from remaining sovereignty. This is applicable at all to every country we mention. 

It's not ideal, Turkey is incredibly important strategically but brings too many issues to the table. Very militaristic, too tangled in Middle Easter affairs (theoretically NATO should have been first and foremost an alliance of countries in North America and Europe, while Turkey is mostly Asian. Not even Hawaii or the British islands in the Southern Hemisphere are covered by Article 5 - it made sense in the context of URSS but nowadays the threat coming from Caucasus is different).

Any invasion is by default a denial of sovereignty, you may argue if it's is justified (or not), but doesn't change this fact. Either way what Turkey does is it will pretty much open a new front against Russia, which again isn't what the world needs now (and it was explicitely warned not to do it by NATO). Turkey does whatever it wants and it's unfair for potentially a whole alliance to suffer the consequences.

[ARTPOP 3,096]

2 hours ago, FfFfFfFF said:

There are many pros of excluding Turkey from the allience, first of all being the fact that Turkey is too tangled in Middle Eastern issues, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc and just recently announced that it will launch an invasion for northern Syria against the Russian-backed Assad regime, not to mention mari time disputes with Greece and Cyprus.

Turkey is militaristic and caught in messy relations with the Middle East. The more I think about it the more I wonder who though this was a good idea (though I get it, Turkey is important for power projection in the Caucasus and to say control over the Bosphorus, Black Sea is useful is an understatement).

Gurl.. You are talking as if Turkey is the only country in NATO that is too entangled in the middle east. One could argue that USA is the most messy member when it comes to questionable military and shady relations with many questionable governments (Saudia Arabia, Israel..etc) 

While I get the hate for Erdogan, his statement about Sweden and Finland sponsoring terrorist organizations in Turkey is not wrong...

The only negative point is the hate/love  relationship Turkey and Russia have, but this also could be said about many EU countries that really economically on russian gas. 

 

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,083]

8 minutes ago, ARTPOP said:

Gurl.. You are talking as if Turkey is the only country in NATO that is too entangled in the middle east. One could argue that USA is the most messy member when it comes to questionable military and shady relations with many questionable governments (Saudia Arabia, Israel..etc) 

While I get the hate for Erdogan, his statement about Sweden and Finland sponsoring terrorist organizations in Turkey is not wrong...

The only negative point is the hate/love  relationship Turkey and Russia have, but this also could be said about many EU countries that really economically on russian gas. 

 

 

Turkey IS Middle Eastern and NATO doesn't need a member such a dangerous region when tensions are rising everywhere (US' wrondoings and interference in Middle Eastern affairs are something else entirely, they don't relate to my point. You bring up Israel and Saudi Arabia, well they are not in NATO and Europe is not obligated to defend them). And then you stil have to answer my point: Why should we defend Erdogan even if he launches a military operation not approved by NATO?? Sounds like he is on his own.