10 ms·

It seems like they may have their reasons, but it's odd considering NATO seems more and more like a relic of the Cold War that should be reconsidered. For examp

It seems like they may have their reasons, but it's odd considering NATO seems more and more like a relic of the Cold War that should be reconsidered. For example, Turkey is engaging in all kinds of activities that don't seem to match the goals of values of most NATO members, and yet officially they are backed up by NATO.

joelbluminator 6y ago
True. TBH it's not clear if the U.S itself is to be relied on. Europe should probably stop outsourcing defense and get it's act together.
- umvi 6y ago
  Once you've outsourced it's hard to bring it back because it's very expensive in the short term. Where would the EU countries' defense budget come from without increasing taxes or cutting social programs? It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China.
  - detritus 6y ago
    The UK and France already have considerable military budgets and capabilities to add to the EU pool. A shame one of them had to fuck everything up.
    - petre 6y ago
      They're still both part of NATO. The UK will not be a bystander if France or another NATO member is attacked, as they have already proven it time and time again. This is regardless of participation in the EU. The UK should have probably been at least part of the EEA. And yes, it's too bad they screwed it up.
      - runarberg 6y ago
        Unless if they will. There was little action by the UK during the annexation of Crimea (they even went on to participate in a major sporting event hosted by the invading nation; so little did the UK care about another European nation being attacked). The UK has also walked the line of invading another NATO member because they wanted to fish in another sovereign nations waters.
        nradov 6y ago
        Ukraine wasn't a NATO or EU member and the UK had no obligation to defend Crimea. What point are you trying to make?
        runarberg 6y ago
        The point is that the UK didn’t care about the rights of another nation’s to their borders. Not even so little that they were willing to sacrifice a little football for it. They also didn’t support Iceland’s rights to their own fisheries when a foreign nation tried to fish in their waters. Iceland was, and still is a NATO member. My point is that the UK doesn’t care about other nations, and I can see numerous situations where they will fail to act if a fellow NATO member is attacked.
        nradov 6y ago
        Why should the UK (or any country) care about defending another country which isn't a treaty ally? So far the only time when a NATO member actually invoked Article 5, the UK did fulfill their obligations.
        runarberg 6y ago
        Because the UK is a part of an international society of nations that share a common planet on which all humans live. Event though the two nations are not in a direct military alliance, the UK interest lie directly with Ukraine when it comes to protecting Ukraine from a foreign invasion (unless the invading army was the UK army). The UK trades with Ukraine, they share values (or at least so they say), tourists visit between the two places, and workers seek job in each others country. The UK didn’t need to send an army to Ukraine to protect them from the Russian invasion, but they should have at least sent a strong message to Russia that this would not be tolerated. A perfect opportunity for such a message was presented when Russia hosted the World Cup the following year... The message: “We are just gonna say this is not OK, but really Russia can do whatever they want”.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    While the peacetime ROI is shit, it's still stimulus of after a fashion. Hopefully the EU is somewhat over it's bad austerity ideas from 2008. NATO absolutely should go. > It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China. I don't really think so, because in that case there is/was wage arbitrage. Yes the US is subsidizing on an ongoing basis, but that doesn't quite feel the same for reasons I cannot articulate.
    - greedo 6y ago
      Defense spending isn't really an effective stimulus since the end result is primarily a jobs program. Any materiel purchases just sit there, not generating revenue (as a factory would).
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        I do agree, but it's not a 0 stimulus, because basically the supply chain can be multi-purpose. I would never choose military spending as a stimulus, that's basically fascist, but as a slight silver lining to make ditching NATO more palatable I would definitely want to bring it up.
        greedo 6y ago
        That's why I said "effective." The military supply chain really isn't multi-purpose, at least in the US and Western Europe. The technology, while having come similarity with consumer goods really is in a different class. As a jobs program, it's fine; kind of like how NASA treats the space program.
- jopsen 6y ago
  Even if you beef up budgets on around Europe, which many countries do. We still need standardization, exercises, and common command structures. If you build that outside the NATO framework collaboration with the US in future minor peace keeping deployments will likely be harder.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Defence has to match the threat, no more. Russia is the only threat. EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare. Even limited involvement in Syria is wearing down their aircraft. European defence has structural problem: scattering military resources all over the Europe. Spain, France and Belgium should keep most of their main battle tanks in Poland and send troops to train there. Russian amphibious attack from the North Atlantic is not a threat.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare They are creating plenty of pain with low intensity tactics.
    - khuey 6y ago
      The Russian strategy of low-grade asymmetric conflict with strategic assets like nuclear weapons and a real air force to deter any serious consequences works remarkably well.
    - nabla9 6y ago
      Low intensity tactics can't be used in high intensity warfare. If Russian green men cross into Poland, Poland is not responding with low intensity. They mobilize the whole country to fight to fight high intensity warfare until Russians are thrown out.
  - Someone 6y ago
    Does Belgium still have battle tanks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_c...: “Belgium retired its last operational Leopard 1 MBTs in 2014. Some were kept in inventory for training and research purposes.”
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. And Russia gets 30 trained soldiers for the price of 1 NATO soldier Feel the difference > Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare You are saying this about a country with the biggest tank armies anywhere in the world. What you are saying is laughable to anybody with a dime of military education.
itisit 6y ago
Not quite
jopsen 6y ago
I'm hardly an expert, but isn't NATO also about exercises, standardization and command structure? It's doubtful that international coalitions like we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia, Kosovo would be possible without NATO command structure. Am I wrong? Getting military branches from various countries to collaborate can't be easy -- certainly not without prior training and trust.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  NATO is a collective defense agreement, meaning if one nation is attacked all nations respond as if they were attacked, including the United States.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    It is so in words, but not action. The only time this has happened was after the terrorist attacks on the twin towers. Some NATO countries have been invited on other occasions, but it has never been considered an "attack on all nations". All the while NATO has been more and more comfortable participating in invasions. In writing NATO says they are a defense pact, but history shows it is very much an invasion force.
    - greedo 6y ago
      Historically an invasion force? Afghanistan is the only place where NATO has been involved in anything like an invasion. Unlike the Warsaw Pact which helped subjugate Chechoslovakia and Hungary.
      - runarberg 6y ago
        Before Afghanistan there was Bosnia and Herzegovina, and since there is have been some missions in Iraq, and the Gulf of Aden and a full scale intervention in Libya. Your not doing your cause any favor by pointing to another military alliance to proof a point. Too the contrary what you say about the Warsaw Pact is my point exactly. Military alliances are dangerous and need to be condemned by the UN.
duxup 6y ago
I think for Sweden and those nations with Russia on their border it might seem less a relic.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Why do you think they waited this long to join?
  - duxup 6y ago
    Tradition and convenience maybe. They got to have it both ways, official neutrality and yet they were closely tied to the west, NATO nations, and had assurances that they would be provided some level of protections as well. For a close to border nation at that time I think that is a desirable position. Provides at least the idea that there may be some flexibility for them.
  - mongol 6y ago
    Much of this can be explained with domestic politics. Sweden has 8 parties in parlament, each with it's own foreign policy agenda. Over the course of 20 years, one party after the other have changed it's position and now there are at least 4 parties in favour. But note that foreign policy is defined by the government, and the government parties are still opposed.
  - outside1234 6y ago
    Sweden, has for a long time, received the benefits of NATO and the Western alliance without the costs. They call it "official neutrality" but what it really means is that they are willing to let Germany roll over them on the way to Norway and not spend 2%+ on defense while knowing, like in WWII, we will bail them out.
    - duxup 6y ago
      Sweden also cooperated with western intelligence agencies and etc during the cold war. I think portraying them a sort of freeloader is inaccurate / an over-simplification / unfair. They worked closely with NATO, and NATO countries worked with them.
RivieraKid 6y ago
A military alliance of liberal democracies certainly makes sense. Mainly to counter China and Russia. Whether Turkey should be in NATO is hard to say without having a deep understanding of the situation. Turkey staying in NATO has pros and cons.
- schuke 6y ago
  I think a more useful NATO against China would be something like a NATO for free-speech. Norway gets punished economically for awarding a Nobel prize to a Chinese dissident. It really can't fight back unless all free-speech loving countries retaliate together.
  - DetroitThrow 6y ago
    There should be a political union of liberal democratic countries that favors trade deals and military alliances with one another - there's not a great counter against the slow rise of authoritarianism abroad. A less US centered axis centered around the G7 could be a good start, though developing democracies should certainly get a seat at the table and be rewarded for protecting democratic values.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Nice idea but even the liberal democracies have huge political differences on sensitive issues like fishing rights, oil drilling, and agricultural subsidies.
      - DetroitThrow 6y ago
        Sure, but the overall security of liberal democracy and the rights/freedoms commonly enshrined themselves are probably a fundamental shared interest, yes? While an economic union similar to the EU with common treaties you describe is likely non-viable across all liberal democracies, there are trade interests between them and certainly security/defense interests.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
bilgisayar 6y ago
A lot of NATO members are also engaging in all kinds of activities that don't seem to match the goals of values of NATO. Starting with the US. It seems odd that you've singled out Turkey. But I guess bashing Turkey is nowawadays a common Western sport.
- dralley 6y ago
  While you aren't wrong in some respects, Turkey is purchasing Russian military hardware and hooking it up to their network of existing US military hardware. The US is deeply unhappy about this for obvious reasons.
  - sa-mao 6y ago
    Greece is doing the same with the Russian s300. [1] I think the problem with Turkey is around Syrian involvement, and the Mediterranean gaz exploration. [1] https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/russian-made_s-300_air_defense_missile_system_test-fired_for_the_first_time_by_army_greece_1412131.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2013_defense_indust...
petre 6y ago
Kicking Turkey out of NATO would only give Edrogan an excuse for restarting the war with Greece over Cyprus. They have already been cut off from the F35 program after they bought the S400 missile system from Russia. I really doubt the US will further supply them with weapons, at least not while Edrogan is in power.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  No it would not, because in that case it would be Turkey against NATO. Right now it is a dispute between two members so people are hesitant to meddle.
jorblumesea 6y ago
Turkey is actually the cold war relic, not NATO. They were mostly added for geopolitical reasons. The US wanted control of the Bosphorus, and that meant all sorts of concessions to Turkey. They were also more secular and more aligned with "Western values" back then. Today, Turkey is a very different country and with the AKP party, it's questionable how much they align with the West, both ideologically and politically. NATO was and still is a liberal democratic Western nations military alliance about standardizing military doctrine and protocol. If not NATO, something like it needs to exist as a bulwark against Russia and China.
- zabzonk 6y ago
  The AKP is by no means an overwhelming majority party (if it is a majority at all) and Turkey has the potential to be a liberal secular state (it was formed as such by Attaturk), and probably would be today if they had been allowed to join the EU.
  - jorblumesea 6y ago
    I think it still has potential but Edrogen's dictatorship and the AKP are rapidly eroding some of those ideas. There are two Turkeys, the cosmopolitan cities and the rural country (from which AKP hails from). In order to maintain power, Islam is being used to promote national identity and ethnocentrism. It is also being heavily taught in schools. This is a pretty good write up: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14683857.2019.1580828 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14683857.2019.1... Probably the best summary is a kletocratic state that leans Islamic and authoritarian, but never is completely Islamic or authoritarian.
  - petre 6y ago
    That ship has long sailed.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      No, that ship has currently sailed. It may come back again. (Or maybe I'm just a crazy optimist.)
baybal2 6y ago
> For example, Turkey is engaging in all kinds of activities that don't seem to match the goals of values of most NATO members All other NATO members are engaging in all kinds of activities that don't seem to match the goals of values of NATO And on top of that, NATO cannot hold Greece, Eastern European members, and France from backstabbing Turkey, when Turkey is effectively Europe's only policeman in the mediterranean
- zabzonk 6y ago
  > Turkey is effectively Europe's only policeman in the mediterranean Italy? Greece? Spain? France?
  - baybal2 6y ago
    I urge you to research the progression of conflicts in the region over the last decade, and what those three did, and what Turkey did. Turkey is the only reason why Europeans didn't end up with Russian military base in Libya.
082349872349872 6y ago
Portugal and greece were both junta-ruled and NATO members during my lifetime, so I'm not sure it's a values-based organisation. Then again, Franco's spain was beyond the pale, so maybe I'm overly cynical.
georgeecollins 6y ago
Here is the way to think about it: The rigidity of two powerful sides not letting the other advance held together certain countries like Yugoslavia and created a rigid framework for countries like Sweden. Now the Baltic states are not in the rigid framework of the USSR, and potentially threatened by Russia. Sweden may not care to intervene, but the way for Russia to secure the Baltic States from NATO is to seize Gotland. That is something Russia has the capability to do, and Sweden is not very well prepared to defend against. NATO membership would relieve a lot of that risk. NATO is actually a positive organization in terms of promoting the peace. It is and probably always will be totally ineffective as an offensive alliance. But it is unbeatable as a defensive alliance. So everybody wants to be a member to save on defense spending. I don't think that is awful.
- baybal2 6y ago
  Rethink your thinking. NATO was preparing for Russian attack through North-Eastern Europe effectively since its creation, and been keeping new Baltic members under spotlight for the last 20 years. At least, these countries will fight — something that is not so certain about countries down south. Where NATO needs to look now is its soft Southern underbelly. You now have a lot of weak, assorted statelets, ripe for the taking there. None of them will stand even a single tank division.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Which NATO members are you referring to? Russia doesn't currently have the expeditionary capability to put even a single tank division into Bulgaria or Romania. Other southern member states like Turkey, Greece, and the various Balkan countries would be even harder to invade.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      > Russia doesn't currently have the expeditionary capability to put even a single tank division into Bulgaria or Romania. They don't need to if any of many loose states there let themselves to be turned into Russian staging ground. Not a stretch given how fantastically corrupt governments there are, with Moldovia, and its breakaway regions in particular. There was even a precedent: Montenegro once almost let Russian to buy a military base there + humongous lots of lands adjacent to it, allegedly, in exchange for a laughable amount of money going to families of previous cabinet members.
ARandomerDude 6y ago
Think of it now more like the U.N. 2.0 but without having to put up with China and Russia.

joelbluminator 6y ago

True. TBH it's not clear if the U.S itself is to be relied on. Europe should probably stop outsourcing defense and get it's act together.

umvi 6y ago
Once you've outsourced it's hard to bring it back because it's very expensive in the short term. Where would the EU countries' defense budget come from without increasing taxes or cutting social programs? It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China.
- detritus 6y ago
  The UK and France already have considerable military budgets and capabilities to add to the EU pool. A shame one of them had to fuck everything up.
  - petre 6y ago
    They're still both part of NATO. The UK will not be a bystander if France or another NATO member is attacked, as they have already proven it time and time again. This is regardless of participation in the EU. The UK should have probably been at least part of the EEA. And yes, it's too bad they screwed it up.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Unless if they will. There was little action by the UK during the annexation of Crimea (they even went on to participate in a major sporting event hosted by the invading nation; so little did the UK care about another European nation being attacked). The UK has also walked the line of invading another NATO member because they wanted to fish in another sovereign nations waters.
      - nradov 6y ago
        Ukraine wasn't a NATO or EU member and the UK had no obligation to defend Crimea. What point are you trying to make?
        runarberg 6y ago
        The point is that the UK didn’t care about the rights of another nation’s to their borders. Not even so little that they were willing to sacrifice a little football for it. They also didn’t support Iceland’s rights to their own fisheries when a foreign nation tried to fish in their waters. Iceland was, and still is a NATO member. My point is that the UK doesn’t care about other nations, and I can see numerous situations where they will fail to act if a fellow NATO member is attacked.
        nradov 6y ago
        Why should the UK (or any country) care about defending another country which isn't a treaty ally? So far the only time when a NATO member actually invoked Article 5, the UK did fulfill their obligations.
        runarberg 6y ago
        Because the UK is a part of an international society of nations that share a common planet on which all humans live. Event though the two nations are not in a direct military alliance, the UK interest lie directly with Ukraine when it comes to protecting Ukraine from a foreign invasion (unless the invading army was the UK army). The UK trades with Ukraine, they share values (or at least so they say), tourists visit between the two places, and workers seek job in each others country. The UK didn’t need to send an army to Ukraine to protect them from the Russian invasion, but they should have at least sent a strong message to Russia that this would not be tolerated. A perfect opportunity for such a message was presented when Russia hosted the World Cup the following year... The message: “We are just gonna say this is not OK, but really Russia can do whatever they want”.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  While the peacetime ROI is shit, it's still stimulus of after a fashion. Hopefully the EU is somewhat over it's bad austerity ideas from 2008. NATO absolutely should go. > It's the same reason US has a hard time bringing back manufacturing once it has become reliant on China. I don't really think so, because in that case there is/was wage arbitrage. Yes the US is subsidizing on an ongoing basis, but that doesn't quite feel the same for reasons I cannot articulate.
  - greedo 6y ago
    Defense spending isn't really an effective stimulus since the end result is primarily a jobs program. Any materiel purchases just sit there, not generating revenue (as a factory would).
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      I do agree, but it's not a 0 stimulus, because basically the supply chain can be multi-purpose. I would never choose military spending as a stimulus, that's basically fascist, but as a slight silver lining to make ditching NATO more palatable I would definitely want to bring it up.
      - greedo 6y ago
        That's why I said "effective." The military supply chain really isn't multi-purpose, at least in the US and Western Europe. The technology, while having come similarity with consumer goods really is in a different class. As a jobs program, it's fine; kind of like how NASA treats the space program.
jopsen 6y ago
Even if you beef up budgets on around Europe, which many countries do. We still need standardization, exercises, and common command structures. If you build that outside the NATO framework collaboration with the US in future minor peace keeping deployments will likely be harder.
nabla9 6y ago
Defence has to match the threat, no more. Russia is the only threat. EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare. Even limited involvement in Syria is wearing down their aircraft. European defence has structural problem: scattering military resources all over the Europe. Spain, France and Belgium should keep most of their main battle tanks in Poland and send troops to train there. Russian amphibious attack from the North Atlantic is not a threat.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare They are creating plenty of pain with low intensity tactics.
  - khuey 6y ago
    The Russian strategy of low-grade asymmetric conflict with strategic assets like nuclear weapons and a real air force to deter any serious consequences works remarkably well.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Low intensity tactics can't be used in high intensity warfare. If Russian green men cross into Poland, Poland is not responding with low intensity. They mobilize the whole country to fight to fight high intensity warfare until Russians are thrown out.
- Someone 6y ago
  Does Belgium still have battle tanks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_c...: “Belgium retired its last operational Leopard 1 MBTs in 2014. Some were kept in inventory for training and research purposes.”
- baybal2 6y ago
  > EU countries together outpace Russian military spending with large marging. And Russia gets 30 trained soldiers for the price of 1 NATO soldier Feel the difference > Russia has no capability to act outside it's borders in high intensity warfare You are saying this about a country with the biggest tank armies anywhere in the world. What you are saying is laughable to anybody with a dime of military education.

itisit 6y ago

Not quite

jopsen 6y ago

I'm hardly an expert, but isn't NATO also about exercises, standardization and command structure? It's doubtful that international coalitions like we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia, Kosovo would be possible without NATO command structure. Am I wrong? Getting military branches from various countries to collaborate can't be easy -- certainly not without prior training and trust.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
NATO is a collective defense agreement, meaning if one nation is attacked all nations respond as if they were attacked, including the United States.
- runarberg 6y ago
  It is so in words, but not action. The only time this has happened was after the terrorist attacks on the twin towers. Some NATO countries have been invited on other occasions, but it has never been considered an "attack on all nations". All the while NATO has been more and more comfortable participating in invasions. In writing NATO says they are a defense pact, but history shows it is very much an invasion force.
  - greedo 6y ago
    Historically an invasion force? Afghanistan is the only place where NATO has been involved in anything like an invasion. Unlike the Warsaw Pact which helped subjugate Chechoslovakia and Hungary.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      Before Afghanistan there was Bosnia and Herzegovina, and since there is have been some missions in Iraq, and the Gulf of Aden and a full scale intervention in Libya. Your not doing your cause any favor by pointing to another military alliance to proof a point. Too the contrary what you say about the Warsaw Pact is my point exactly. Military alliances are dangerous and need to be condemned by the UN.

duxup 6y ago

I think for Sweden and those nations with Russia on their border it might seem less a relic.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Why do you think they waited this long to join?
- duxup 6y ago
  Tradition and convenience maybe. They got to have it both ways, official neutrality and yet they were closely tied to the west, NATO nations, and had assurances that they would be provided some level of protections as well. For a close to border nation at that time I think that is a desirable position. Provides at least the idea that there may be some flexibility for them.
- mongol 6y ago
  Much of this can be explained with domestic politics. Sweden has 8 parties in parlament, each with it's own foreign policy agenda. Over the course of 20 years, one party after the other have changed it's position and now there are at least 4 parties in favour. But note that foreign policy is defined by the government, and the government parties are still opposed.
- outside1234 6y ago
  Sweden, has for a long time, received the benefits of NATO and the Western alliance without the costs. They call it "official neutrality" but what it really means is that they are willing to let Germany roll over them on the way to Norway and not spend 2%+ on defense while knowing, like in WWII, we will bail them out.
  - duxup 6y ago
    Sweden also cooperated with western intelligence agencies and etc during the cold war. I think portraying them a sort of freeloader is inaccurate / an over-simplification / unfair. They worked closely with NATO, and NATO countries worked with them.

RivieraKid 6y ago

A military alliance of liberal democracies certainly makes sense. Mainly to counter China and Russia. Whether Turkey should be in NATO is hard to say without having a deep understanding of the situation. Turkey staying in NATO has pros and cons.

schuke 6y ago
I think a more useful NATO against China would be something like a NATO for free-speech. Norway gets punished economically for awarding a Nobel prize to a Chinese dissident. It really can't fight back unless all free-speech loving countries retaliate together.
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  There should be a political union of liberal democratic countries that favors trade deals and military alliances with one another - there's not a great counter against the slow rise of authoritarianism abroad. A less US centered axis centered around the G7 could be a good start, though developing democracies should certainly get a seat at the table and be rewarded for protecting democratic values.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Nice idea but even the liberal democracies have huge political differences on sensitive issues like fishing rights, oil drilling, and agricultural subsidies.
    - DetroitThrow 6y ago
      Sure, but the overall security of liberal democracy and the rights/freedoms commonly enshrined themselves are probably a fundamental shared interest, yes? While an economic union similar to the EU with common treaties you describe is likely non-viable across all liberal democracies, there are trade interests between them and certainly security/defense interests.
- bilbo0s 6y ago

bilgisayar 6y ago

A lot of NATO members are also engaging in all kinds of activities that don't seem to match the goals of values of NATO. Starting with the US. It seems odd that you've singled out Turkey. But I guess bashing Turkey is nowawadays a common Western sport.

dralley 6y ago
While you aren't wrong in some respects, Turkey is purchasing Russian military hardware and hooking it up to their network of existing US military hardware. The US is deeply unhappy about this for obvious reasons.
- sa-mao 6y ago
  Greece is doing the same with the Russian s300. [1] I think the problem with Turkey is around Syrian involvement, and the Mediterranean gaz exploration. [1] https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2013_defense_industry_military_news_uk/russian-made_s-300_air_defense_missile_system_test-fired_for_the_first_time_by_army_greece_1412131.html https://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2013_defense_indust...

petre 6y ago

Kicking Turkey out of NATO would only give Edrogan an excuse for restarting the war with Greece over Cyprus. They have already been cut off from the F35 program after they bought the S400 missile system from Russia. I really doubt the US will further supply them with weapons, at least not while Edrogan is in power.

kmonsen 6y ago
No it would not, because in that case it would be Turkey against NATO. Right now it is a dispute between two members so people are hesitant to meddle.

jorblumesea 6y ago

Turkey is actually the cold war relic, not NATO. They were mostly added for geopolitical reasons. The US wanted control of the Bosphorus, and that meant all sorts of concessions to Turkey. They were also more secular and more aligned with "Western values" back then. Today, Turkey is a very different country and with the AKP party, it's questionable how much they align with the West, both ideologically and politically. NATO was and still is a liberal democratic Western nations military alliance about standardizing military doctrine and protocol. If not NATO, something like it needs to exist as a bulwark against Russia and China.

zabzonk 6y ago
The AKP is by no means an overwhelming majority party (if it is a majority at all) and Turkey has the potential to be a liberal secular state (it was formed as such by Attaturk), and probably would be today if they had been allowed to join the EU.
- jorblumesea 6y ago
  I think it still has potential but Edrogen's dictatorship and the AKP are rapidly eroding some of those ideas. There are two Turkeys, the cosmopolitan cities and the rural country (from which AKP hails from). In order to maintain power, Islam is being used to promote national identity and ethnocentrism. It is also being heavily taught in schools. This is a pretty good write up: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14683857.2019.1580828 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14683857.2019.1... Probably the best summary is a kletocratic state that leans Islamic and authoritarian, but never is completely Islamic or authoritarian.
- petre 6y ago
  That ship has long sailed.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    No, that ship has currently sailed. It may come back again. (Or maybe I'm just a crazy optimist.)

baybal2 6y ago

> For example, Turkey is engaging in all kinds of activities that don't seem to match the goals of values of most NATO members All other NATO members are engaging in all kinds of activities that don't seem to match the goals of values of NATO And on top of that, NATO cannot hold Greece, Eastern European members, and France from backstabbing Turkey, when Turkey is effectively Europe's only policeman in the mediterranean

zabzonk 6y ago
> Turkey is effectively Europe's only policeman in the mediterranean Italy? Greece? Spain? France?
- baybal2 6y ago
  I urge you to research the progression of conflicts in the region over the last decade, and what those three did, and what Turkey did. Turkey is the only reason why Europeans didn't end up with Russian military base in Libya.

082349872349872 6y ago

Portugal and greece were both junta-ruled and NATO members during my lifetime, so I'm not sure it's a values-based organisation. Then again, Franco's spain was beyond the pale, so maybe I'm overly cynical.

georgeecollins 6y ago

Here is the way to think about it: The rigidity of two powerful sides not letting the other advance held together certain countries like Yugoslavia and created a rigid framework for countries like Sweden. Now the Baltic states are not in the rigid framework of the USSR, and potentially threatened by Russia. Sweden may not care to intervene, but the way for Russia to secure the Baltic States from NATO is to seize Gotland. That is something Russia has the capability to do, and Sweden is not very well prepared to defend against. NATO membership would relieve a lot of that risk. NATO is actually a positive organization in terms of promoting the peace. It is and probably always will be totally ineffective as an offensive alliance. But it is unbeatable as a defensive alliance. So everybody wants to be a member to save on defense spending. I don't think that is awful.

baybal2 6y ago
Rethink your thinking. NATO was preparing for Russian attack through North-Eastern Europe effectively since its creation, and been keeping new Baltic members under spotlight for the last 20 years. At least, these countries will fight — something that is not so certain about countries down south. Where NATO needs to look now is its soft Southern underbelly. You now have a lot of weak, assorted statelets, ripe for the taking there. None of them will stand even a single tank division.
- nradov 6y ago
  Which NATO members are you referring to? Russia doesn't currently have the expeditionary capability to put even a single tank division into Bulgaria or Romania. Other southern member states like Turkey, Greece, and the various Balkan countries would be even harder to invade.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > Russia doesn't currently have the expeditionary capability to put even a single tank division into Bulgaria or Romania. They don't need to if any of many loose states there let themselves to be turned into Russian staging ground. Not a stretch given how fantastically corrupt governments there are, with Moldovia, and its breakaway regions in particular. There was even a precedent: Montenegro once almost let Russian to buy a military base there + humongous lots of lands adjacent to it, allegedly, in exchange for a laughable amount of money going to families of previous cabinet members.

ARandomerDude 6y ago

Think of it now more like the U.N. 2.0 but without having to put up with China and Russia.