Erm... has anyone noticed Turkey and Syria?

[Walsingham]

From Stratfor.com

 

Turkey is prepared to go to war with Syria if it becomes necessary, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, Timeturk newspaper reported Oct. 7. Davutoglu said Turkey is an independent nation and will make all decisions connected to the region by itself.

 

This comes on the back of a mobilisation to the border with Syria. Not to mention all the recent kerflap about Turkey and Israel. Looks like they're really trying to set themselves forward as a regional power.

 

This strikes me as hardly surprising, with Syria and Iran moving into alignment, and Lebanon going completely Iran-tastic. Which is worrying in itself. Iran would reap huge strategic rewards if it could bring Syria onside, both in terms of Iraq and in terms of 'controlling' Hezbollah.

 

Happy days.

[HoonDing]

I say let Turkey annex Greece first.

[Walsingham]

I say let Turkey annex Greece first.

 

If anything my guess would be they want to move further away!

[213374U]

Yeah, things are basically wrapped up in Libya -as far as NATO is concerned, anyway- and those trigger fingers will start getting twitchy soon enough. Can't have all those German ordnance factories idling - not now that the PIGS have finally proven beyond all doubt that we can't be trusted to handle our own affairs and need huge wads of German Euros to prevent a huge-ass crash of the Euro economy.

 

Besides, we'd better hurry before they get Da Bomb.

[Walsingham]

Besides, we'd better hurry before they get Da Bomb.

 

I think it's already proliferated.

 

 

Anyway, as before it's back to this question of "are they evil if it's convenient that they're evil"?

[Humodour]

You have to keep in mind that everything Turkey does in this kind of thing (within reason), it does so as part of Europe, part of the West, and specifically part of NATO. Obviously it's a sovereign country with its own goals, but at the end of the day, Turkey is a strong ally of Europe and America, a member of NATO, and the current Turkish administration is fairly democratic and sensible (even if it is an Islamist party in power). It's hard to see Turkey doing anything militarily that doesn't have the backing and support of NATO.

 

I highly doubt anybody is planning to go to war with Syria, but rather Turkey is playing bad cop to Europe's god cop in laying pressure on Syria to stop being so outright vile.

 

Something else of interest lately is the alliance between India and Afghanistan. Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of state-sponsored terrorism with respect to their support for the Taliban, and has aligned itself with India. India is obviously very sympathetic to these accusations, since Pakistan is also responsible for sponsoring terrorist cells within India. Looks like India is providing huge amounts of aid to

[213374U]

I think it's already proliferated.

This world is going MAD. MAD, I tell you!

[Walsingham]

Something else of interest lately is the alliance between India and Afghanistan. Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of state-sponsored terrorism with respect to their support for the Taliban, and has aligned itself with India. India is obviously very sympathetic to these accusations, since Pakistan is also responsible for sponsoring terrorist cells within India. Looks like India is providing huge amounts of aid to

 

I assume you were cut off there.

 

I can understand your analysis of Turkey, but I think events of the last two years have signalled a significant shift. NATO, as seen in Libya is just a talking shop, and Germany is set against Turkey becoming a Euro member.

 

My guess would be that even a moderate Islamist party will see the future of Turkey as a leading player in 'Islamic' affairs. Couple that to a weak NATO and I can see a logic forming around a concept of Turkey as a key, forthright regional player on its own terms. Such a player could demand and get far more from countries like the US, Britain, France etc. Not to mention the security derived from dominating the local scene. If Turkey became sufficiently strong then it might put forward a 'stall' as a strategic partner to rival the US in companionship with countries like Iraq, Egypt, Saudi, Yemen. Moreover a partner with a long term vested interest who won't cut and run. this would become particularly important for Iraq if Syria aligns with Iran.

[Gorgon]

I wouldn't mind getting rid of the Syrian leadership, I'm sure neither would the Syrian people. Turkey doesn't have a very strong human rights record though, I'm not sure having them campaign around the middle east is that advisable.

[Malcador]

Well Turkey could probably count on IDF support, heh.

[Zoraptor]

Heh, I guess with the euros getting back into the colonialism game the turks are feeling a bit left out. Must re-establish Sultanate People's Democratic Republic of Rum.

 

Ludicrous threat in any case, it's about as likely as us invading Fiji to get rid of Frank Bananarama.

[Humodour]

NATO isn't falling apart any time soon, and frankly I can't see how NATO actions in Libya are in any way evidence of that. Certainly Turkey is still part of NATO and will be for a long time to come. Turkey also still has US nuclear weapons ready to be equipped to its fighter aircraft (requiring US auth codes of course), and the mutual defence obligations of NATO ensure that Turkey's security isn't of concern for the foreseeable future.

 

Although Turkey may be worried that the Syrian border will be a source of state-sponsored terrorists from Iran, and that is probably a legitimate concern. That isn't something that NATO's mutual defence trigger really covers.

 

But also, Turkey appears legitimately incensed by the Syrian regime's brutality. It has spoken vocally against the Syrian regime and called for strong action against it almost from day 1.

[Walsingham]

NATO isn't falling apart any time soon, and frankly I can't see how NATO actions in Libya are in any way evidence of that.

 

You're pretty much alone in that opinion. NATO as an entity failed to take action on Libya. The Italians actively undermined the embargo by buying Ghaddafi oil! The Germans were against it.

 

Similarly NATO has completely failed to act as an entity on terrorism.

 

Now you have Germany engaged in cosying up to the Russians on security and (much more importantly) energy. The Italians are also seeking Russian gas and capital.

 

How exactly do you see NATO functioning? What is its purpose in the next ten to twenty years?

[Gorth]

How exactly do you see NATO functioning? What is its purpose in the next ten to twenty years?

As an insurance company. Nobody likes the premiums and you think you are never going to need it. When storm hits the roof, you suddenly realize it is good to have others helping pay the bill. It probably does more to prevent war between member states than any other organization in recent history.

[Nepenthe]

It probably does more to prevent war between member states than any other organization in recent history.

EU?

[Gorgon]

I kinda doubt that anything like that would have happened without the EU. Peaceful cooperation was one of the driving forces behind its creation though. The idea is quite visionary. The reality a giant bureaucracy.

[Nepenthe]

I kinda doubt that anything like that would have happened without the EU. Peaceful cooperation was one of the driving forces behind its creation though. The idea is quite visionary. The reality a giant bureaucracy.

Mmh, the cold war probably did more to stabilise western europe than the coal and steel union ever did.

[Walsingham]

How exactly do you see NATO functioning? What is its purpose in the next ten to twenty years?

As an insurance company. Nobody likes the premiums and you think you are never going to need it. When storm hits the roof, you suddenly realize it is good to have others helping pay the bill. It probably does more to prevent war between member states than any other organization in recent history.

 

Well, I sure as hell don't want to see any more wars in Europe in my lifetime.

 

However, I'm not sure 'insurance' really cuts it. To be an effective military alliance NATO members have to be able to really rely on one another or they begin thinking about insurance within the block. But Europe as it currently stands has too diverse a range of interests to be invested in any common actions.

 

The really worrying thing for me is that Germany appears to be aligning with Eastern Europe and ignoring anything 'over the water'. Although I'm quite encouraged by the way France seems keen to pair up with Britain on various actions, equipment, and training.

[Gorgon]

Well you are Euro sceptics for the most part and insist on unilateral action on occasion. Eastern Europe wants land locked allies it can count on against Russia. The old sphere of interest thinking is still very much a reality and Russia has been known to roll out the tanks once in a while, knowing that no one dares get involved.

[Walsingham]

Well you are Euro sceptics for the most part and insist on unilateral action on occasion. Eastern Europe wants land locked allies it can count on against Russia. The old sphere of interest thinking is still very much a reality and Russia has been known to roll out the tanks once in a while, knowing that no one dares get involved.

 

Well, we are Euro-sceptic, because traditionally the solitary guiding principle of British foreign policy for about a tohusand years has been to try and avoid a single power dominating europe.

 

Eastern Europe should be very wary of Germany looking east because Germany appears (under Merkel at least) to be aiming to link hands with Russia. If I were running the Czech Republic, or Poland, that would make me bloody nervous. And I don't say that out of some maudlin 'don't mention the war' instinct. Those ations cannot expect any significant indpeendence if Russia and Germany become opposite points on a new axis.

[Zoraptor]

To be an effective military alliance NATO members have to be able to really rely on one another or they begin thinking about insurance within the block.

It's a defensive alliance, anyone who attacks one NATO member attacks all. That is about as close to insurance as you can get in international relations and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't be honoured.

 

But that does mean there's as little obligation to support other members in elective wars as there is for Laos, Paraguay or Belize to.

[Gorth]

Eastern Europe should be very wary of Germany looking east because Germany appears (under Merkel at least) to be aiming to link hands with Russia. If I were running the Czech Republic, or Poland, that would make me bloody nervous.

Polish leadership gets killed at Katyn, Berlin and Moscow are the new best friends... what Century is it today?

 

Still waiting for the Lavrov-Westerwelle treaty of non-aggression between Germany and Russia >_

[Walsingham]

To be an effective military alliance NATO members have to be able to really rely on one another or they begin thinking about insurance within the block.

It's a defensive alliance, anyone who attacks one NATO member attacks all. That is about as close to insurance as you can get in international relations and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't be honoured.

 

But that does mean there's as little obligation to support other members in elective wars as there is for Laos, Paraguay or Belize to.

 

I follow your logic. But this isn't the 19th century. I've been arguing for some time that real present existential threats to national security are systemic in this day and age. To make the point exaggeratedly clear, we can afford to lose Suffolk more than we can afford to lose our bases in Cyprus. Because the two have very different contributions to our ability to function as an independent nation.

[Morgoth]

Still waiting for the Lavrov-Westerwelle treaty of non-aggression between Germany and Russia

Don't overblow the cosy relationship between Germany and Russia. They're not building some kind of axis, as that would mean both would have to show leadership.

 

I repeat: Leadership.

 

Question: Who has more leadership? Merkel or Putin?

 

That's right. Germany can't do **** geopolitically 'cause they can't exert leadership. If Germany ever gets a Chancellor that even shows a tiny little bit of backbone and independent thinking, the world's already gonna cry "They wanna build the 4th Reich assemble the army quick!!!11".

 

But I agree, Russia might annex Poland.

[Walsingham]

I know geography's not your strong suit, but wouldn't they have to annex Belarus or Ukraine first?