Turkey: Our NATO Ally

#1
Rasputin_Vol

Rasputin_Vol

"Slava Ukraina"
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
72,056
Likes
39,842
#1
Turkey’s Erdogan, Seeking a More Powerful Presidency, Cites Hitler’s System

ISTANBUL — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, who is pushing to imbue the largely ceremonial presidency with sweeping executive powers akin to the United States or France, gave a new example of an effective presidential system late Thursday: Hitler’s Germany.

After returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Erdogan was asked by the Turkish news media whether a presidential system was possible given that the government is now organized under a prime minister.

“There are already examples in the world,” Mr. Erdogan said. “You can see it when you look at Hitler’s Germany.”
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
The only reason Turkey is a NATO ally is for their location. It wouldn't surprise me if they had been hoping for a conflict between the West and Russia when they shot down the Russian planes. I think Edrogan is a radical Muslim.
 
#4
#4
volfanhill said:
Can you detail for me what the difference is between him and Vlad?
Click to expand...

Putin has made every effort in the world the last 3 years to avoid war... even when it was brought to his doorstep (Minsk I & II).

Erdogan has done everything in his power to ignite a world war by supporting ISIS and shooting down a Russian fighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
"How dare people desire more accountability out of their governments! How dare they!"

- Smug, privileged Western self-loathers and non-Western autocratic thugs alike
 
#9
#9
I know our government does a bunch of shady stuff all over the world, some of it probably more vital to your personal well-being than you'd initially realize (some not so much), but it just kills me when we have some self-haters here in the West constantly moaning and whining about their governments, crying about why they don't do this or don't do that. Why don't they do what I want them to do! Why can't they be perfect like I want! And then these same people have the audacity to constantly dismiss it as "American coups" and "American meddling" when non-Westerners do the same thing, only their demands are often much more legitimate because they're not pampered, spoiled Western brats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#11
#11
Velo Vol said:
What do you do with a problem like Turkey?
Click to expand...

Turkey is a tough case. Unfortunately, we will have to build a high-level of tolerance for them, as they are unfortunately in a very strategic location, controlling the Bosphorus, as well as bordering the Med. Sea and the Middle East. These are all essential for keeping Russia contained.

Some who don't quite grasp the nature of the game will ask why this matters since the Cold War is over, but the reality of geopolitical/great power struggle is that it never ends. Kissenger did a lot of dumb things in his life, most notably in his earlier idealist days, but older, realist Kissenger was right about two things: you must never give up a strategic location, even in a time of peace, and you must never assume that a peaceful peer competitor will always remain peaceful. If the US/NATO doesn't dominate the strategic resources of the Middle East, someone else will. And once you're pushed out, namely for a nation that's 8,000 miles away like the US, you may never get back in again unless in a major war that requires it. (I give you isolationist post-WWI America and non-isolationist post-WWII America as cases in point; post-WWII America was the response to post-WWI America's follies, namely refusing to stay involved until another damn European slaughter session required us to go back there. Post-WWII America said the hell with this ****, and decided to do something different. It's worked so far.)

It's as simple as that. Cold, harsh, unforgiving, but reality. It also means that Turkey will be able to get away with murder, quite literally. The only thing I could see necessitating their removal is identifying a clear point at which the risks they accrue outweigh the benefits of their geostrategic location (which would be the point at which Turkey would no longer be a "strategic location" for us; perhaps for someone else, but not us). While that point, whatever it is, has not yet arrived, it is getting closer. Another shootdown of a Russian jet could possibly do it. NATO doesn't want to go to war for Turkey over something as dumb as the Syrian Civil War. Let Russia have their little playpin in the Middle East to keep them happy; we'll keep our playpins too. The key is that no other power there ever be allowed to become a regional hegemon. This is the same reason why we have to tolerate loathsome state actors like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States as well. It doesn't make us moral, but it at least doesn't make us victims.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#12
#12
Adding that the mission of NATO, whatever it is now, isn't what it used to be.
 
#13
#13
Velo Vol said:
Adding that the mission of NATO, whatever it is now, isn't what it used to be.
Click to expand...

NATO has essentially become an expeditionary force to either keep the peace or to institute regime change. It's no longer just a collective defense treaty. This transition began with Clinton in the Balkans, namely Kosovo, but was completed during the Bush Administration. These are unwelcomed developments, as such a mission should be served only most sparingly and in service to the most dire national security aims of the partners.

Even so, I disagree with those who claim that NATO is no longer useful. Of course it is. It has brought about positive change, including curtailing state corruption and spreading liberal democracy peacefully (rather than violently in Iraq), in most of its nations. (This positive is unfortunately being reversed in such countries as Turkey, Hungary, and Poland, however.) It has also made Europe safer, for the most part. It should put an indefinite halt to its spreading immediately though. While a strong NATO is desirable, as long as it can get away from its expeditionary trend (which seems to be happening thankfully), it becomes undesirable if it encroaches too much on Russia's doorstep. Doing so makes NATO weaker, counterintuitively, and makes us all more vulnerable to the security concerns of a Russia that feels it's backed into a cage. (What I said above about geopolitical struggle never ending for the US applies equally to Russia, and despite all the bluster, they have effectively gotten their asses mauled in this struggle, even still. It stings them, and they're only going to act more aggressively and poorly, as any desperate great power, the more they see their asses being handed to them on the geopolitical platter.)

I do hope we soon get NATO in check, because it is starting to become a security liability, just as the Bush Administration made the US liberal order a liability because of exploiting it and using it very wrongheadedly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
Prof and Velo, we finally got Ras to start his own threads about his issues, he is finally growing up. We finally accomplished some real measurable growth out of him after Ukraine 1 & 2 and various other color revolutions in other threads. Hallelujah praise Jesus and Bernie Sanders (or whoever you godless atheists worship atm)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
volprof said:
NATO has essentially become an expeditionary force to either keep the peace or to institute regime change. It's no longer just a collective defense treaty. This transition began with Clinton in the Balkans, namely Kosovo, but was completed during the Bush Administration. These are unwelcomed developments, as such a mission should be served only most sparingly and in service to the most dire national security aims of the partners.

Even so, I disagree with those who claim that NATO is no longer useful. Of course it is. It has brought about positive change, including curtailing state corruption and spreading liberal democracy peacefully (rather than violently in Iraq), in most of its nations. (This positive is unfortunately being reversed in such countries as Turkey, Hungary, and Poland, however.) It has also made Europe safer, for the most part. It should put an indefinite halt to its spreading immediately though. While a strong NATO is desirable, as long as it can get away from its expeditionary trend (which seems to be happening thankfully), it becomes undesirable if it encroaches too much on Russia's doorstep. Doing so makes NATO weaker, counterintuitively, and makes us all more vulnerable to the security concerns of a Russia that feels it's backed into a cage. (What I said above about geopolitical struggle never ending for the US applies equally to Russia, and despite all the bluster, they have effectively gotten their asses mauled in this struggle, even still. It stings them, and they're only going to act more aggressively and poorly, as any desperate great power, the more they see their asses being handed to them on the geopolitical platter.)

I do hope we soon get NATO in check, because it is starting to become a security liability, just as the Bush Administration made the US liberal order a liability because of exploiting it and using it very wrongheadedly.
Click to expand...

Why did you include Hungary in the countries where the trend is reversing? I know they're falling out of favor with the EU because they won't take refugees from the ME. Of course they don't have jihadis running all over their country shooting up the streets, raping their women, and blowing up their airports either. I ask because I was impressed by a speech their prime minister recently gave, but I don't know his politics.
 
#20
#20
red butler said:
Why did you include Hungary in the countries where the trend is reversing? I know they're falling out of favor with the EU because they won't take refugees from the ME. Of course they don't have jihadis running all over their country shooting up the streets, raping their women, and blowing up their airports either. I ask because I was impressed by a speech their prime minister recently gave, but I don't know his politics.
Click to expand...

Oh, nothing to do with immigration policy.

My comments are in reference to Orban's illiberalism. He is more cozy with Putin than Washington would like; he also stands among a growing number of rightist European leaders that are increasingly skeptical of NATO, the EU, and "the West." They find more spiritual solidarity with Moscow than with Washington or Brussels.

Hungary is also a nation that has a more prominent fascist wing actually in power in its parliament and at the local level. And when I say that Jobbik, the party in question, is "fascist," I don't mean that in the overused contemporary usage of that term; I mean, instead, a "these bastards would actually commit genocide and ethnic cleansing of Hungary's minorities" fascism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik

With the immigration crisis in full-swing in Europe, we will see a similar trend in Western European nations as well. I think we witness the demise of the EU within the next 10-15 years. NATO will survive, but its structure, unity, and purpose will be far different. Many nations will remain in it simply as a matter of convenience, rather than any political commitment. They will probably not respond to Article 5 either, if called upon. But the basic alliance itself will remain. Hopefully that will be enough to dissuade the newly "sovereign" nation-states of Europe, freed from the EU tether, to not revert to pre-WWII relations again.
 
#23
#23
volprof said:
Oh, nothing to do with immigration policy.

My comments are in reference to Orban's illiberalism. He is more cozy with Putin than Washington would like; he also stands among a growing number of rightist European leaders that are increasingly skeptical of NATO, the EU, and "the West." They find more spiritual solidarity with Moscow than with Washington or Brussels.

Hungary is also a nation that has a more prominent fascist wing actually in power in its parliament and at the local level. And when I say that Jobbik, the party in question, is "fascist," I don't mean that in the overused contemporary usage of that term; I mean, instead, a "these bastards would actually commit genocide and ethnic cleansing of Hungary's minorities" fascism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobbik

With the immigration crisis in full-swing in Europe, we will see a similar trend in Western European nations as well. I think we witness the demise of the EU within the next 10-15 years. NATO will survive, but its structure, unity, and purpose will be far different. Many nations will remain in it simply as a matter of convenience, rather than any political commitment. They will probably not respond to Article 5 either, if called upon. But the basic alliance itself will remain. Hopefully that will be enough to dissuade the newly "sovereign" nation-states of Europe, freed from the EU tether, to not revert to pre-WWII relations again.
Click to expand...

Could be a lot sooner than that depending on what sort of policy the next president adopts. Trump, anyone??
 
#24
#24
jvol1 said:
Could be a lot sooner than that depending on what sort of policy the next president adopts. Trump, anyone??
Click to expand...

Indeed. Nuking Europe to combat and deter ISIS will significantly weaken Europe's long-term outlook.
 
#25
#25
He's right about one thing. Hitler's form of government was effective. At least for a while.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top