3 ms·

>Long term, is whether a Turkish autocracy, which is what it is now, a viable member in NATO? I think the U.S. looks the other way as long as Turkey helps fight

>Long term, is whether a Turkish autocracy, which is what it is now, a viable member in NATO? I think the U.S. looks the other way as long as Turkey helps fight Daesh. But Turkey is now a stain on NATO's democratic origin and purpose. Unless Turkey loses control of the Bosphorous straits or Russia stops being what it is, Turkey will always be welcome at the table. Help with Daesh and/or pushing democratic ideas is neither the purpose of NATO, nor the origin of NATO, nor the future of NATO.

cmurf 9y ago
"NATO promotes democratic values" http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html And Erdogan, right now, is doing the opposite of that. It is completely valid to question Turkey's role in NATO, but the current U.S. president doesn't care about or even understand what democracy is, because he's an ignoramous about pretty much everything. All he cares about is "winning" and that's why he praises autocrats like Erdogan, Duerte, Salman, Kim Jong Un, and el-Sisi, while criticizing American allies. I think he's kinda jealous of autocrats who get things done and doesn't have to deal with silly legislatures and courts. So I have no doubt that this administration will be fine with Turkey staying in NATO for the foreseeable future despite the incongruity on democratic values.