International Turkey's Lonely Road to Isolation: The World Looks on as Erdogan Jockeys for a Third Decade in Power

[Arkain2K]

Saudi Arabia's handling of Jamal Khashoggi's killing has resulted in a golden opportunity for Turkey
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan knows what he potentially stands to gain (and lose) by positioning himself as a truth-teller in the volatile region.
David A. Andelman | Oct. 20, 2018

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, from right, and Saudi King Salman shake hands during a welcoming ceremony in Ankara, Turkey on April 12, 2016​

For more than three decades, Turkey has been pounding on the gates of Europe, desperately, at times frantically, seeking entry to the European Union. Turkey believed it had earned the right to be in the EU, and indeed, a decade ago Turkey’s economic growth and prospects were substantially more solid than any number of nations Europe had recently admitted. Turkey had also been a loyal member of the NATO alliance since 1952. But, alas, no matter how loudly and persistently it sought entry to the European Union, there was never any answer.

Eventually, Turkey’s hopes waned. Instead, it turned its attention toward the Arab world, opening new avenues for trade and investment with nations to its south and west, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Turkey also opposed NATO intervention in Libya. And for a time, and despite the objections of European nations anxious for Turkey to turn off the flow of Syrian migrants through its territory and onward to Europe, Ankara continued to offer a safety-valve for hundreds of thousands of people driven out of Syria by the civil war.

Still, Turkey never gave up completely on Europe, as its handling of the probe investigating Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi's killing suggests.

Turkey has spent the past decade attempting to put in place the economic and political reforms demanded by European leaders, with mixed results. Indeed, the latest annual report in April by the European Commission on Turkey’s progress toward membership said bluntly that Turkey was taking huge strides in the opposite direction. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has also endured a slew of negative headlines in the Western press,with pressure intensifying after a failed coup in 2016 resulted in a massive crackdown. Indeed one of the deep ironies of the Khashoggi investigation is that more journalists reportedly remain imprisoned in Turkey than any other nation, according to a 2017 Committee to Protect Journalists report. Erdogan's government has also shuttered more than 150 media outlets.

But now, suddenly an all but unparalleled and certainly unanticipated opportunity has presented itself — the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Erdoğan appears quite eager to pounce on this opportunity, disclosing any number of details of the Turkish investigation. As a result, the press has kept the pressure on Saudi Arabia and governments that do business with it, including Trump's White House.

With Saudi Arabia having cooled on closer relations with Turkey, especially as Erdoğan has failed to break with Riyadh’s arch enemy Qatar, there seems to have been little to restrain Erdogan from yet another effort to tilt toward Europe, if not the United States.

While Trump spent days waffling on the culpability of Saudi royals, Erdoğan jumped in whole hog. The evidence of Saudi foul play seems clear, but it’s unlikely Turkey is motivated merely by the search for truth.

Erdoğan's decision is not without some risk, though. It could place any future Turkish ties with Saudi Arabia and Saudi friends in the Middle East in serious jeopardy. Several Middle Eastern nations have already sprung to the Saudis’ defense. Until now, Turkey’s frayed relations with the Saudis themselves had not yet reached the breaking point. As recently as 2015, Turkey was a card-carrying member of the Saudi-led Arab coalition to destroy ISIS.

But most of these nations have long viewed Turkey with suspicion, if not outright hostility. The corrupt, often brutal rule the Ottoman Turks exerted over many of these states for half a millennium has never truly been forgotten or forgiven. Now, Turkey seems to be again on the verge of rupturing whatever goodwill it had managed to establish in the Arab world.

So, Turkey’s current geopolitical posturing probably isn’t likely designed to make its neighbors happy. However, there is far more at stake with respect to American interests in the region. Together with the United States, Saudi Arabia has been an important lynchpin in efforts to counter Iranian activities. While Saudi Arabia was a firm supporter of Trump’s withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement, Turkey has positioned itself on the side of Iran, again earning points from the leading Western signatories of the pact — Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia.

At the same time, Erdoğan has made a major effort to establish close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the two meeting three times in three weeks this summer — a new friendship that could not have been lost on Trump. Iran and the role Russia is playing in Syria were reportedly central to these discussions.

Lately, and perhaps of greatest long-term importance to America’s interests in the region, Turkey’s role as a go-between with Russia and Iran helped lead to a reduction in fighting in parts of northern Syria as Turkey sought to make good on a pledge to Russia to disarm some of the rebel factions it has supported. This conflict, that promised earlier this year to become the last major bloodbath in that country’s civil war has since cooled considerably, at least for the moment — again playing into Trump’s deep interest in disengaging with some degree of honor from that conflict.

But now with both Saudi Arabia and Trump belatedly conceding Jamal Khashoggi is dead, it would appear that the U.S. president may have to keep playing, in some fashion, the complex three-dimensional chess game into which his Saudi allies and Turkey have thrust him. Moreover, while Trump has tied his fortunes in the region heavily to Saudi Arabia, its arms purchases and its hammerlock on the oil market, he cannot be entirely unhappy that it’s Turkey and Erdoğan — who he fist-bumped and called his “great friend” as recently as July — is playing such a key role here.

Turkey knows what it stands to gain by positioning itself as a truth-teller and defender of human rights in the region. But just how deftly Trump manages his own chess moves and how carefully he chooses his partners going forward could be critical to establishing a viable solution to a host of challenges in this region.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...di-journalist-s-death-finally-open-ncna922176

 

[Islam Imamate]

Saudi Arabia's handling of Jamal Khashoggi's killing has resulted in a golden opportunity for Turkey
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan knows what he potentially stands to gain (and lose) by positioning himself as a truth-teller in the volatile region.
David A. Andelman | Oct. 20, 2018

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, from right, and Saudi King Salman shake hands during a welcoming ceremony in Ankara, Turkey on April 12, 2016​

For more than three decades, Turkey has been pounding on the gates of Europe, desperately, at times frantically, seeking entry to the European Union. Turkey believed it had earned the right to be in the EU, and indeed, a decade ago Turkey’s economic growth and prospects were substantially more solid than any number of nations Europe had recently admitted. Turkey had also been a loyal member of the NATO alliance since 1952. But, alas, no matter how loudly and persistently it sought entry to the European Union, there was never any answer.

Eventually, Turkey’s hopes waned. Instead, it turned its attention toward the Arab world, opening new avenues for trade and investment with nations to its south and west, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Turkey also opposed NATO intervention in Libya. And for a time, and despite the objections of European nations anxious for Turkey to turn off the flow of Syrian migrants through its territory and onward to Europe, Ankara continued to offer a safety-valve for hundreds of thousands of people driven out of Syria by the civil war.

Still, Turkey never gave up completely on Europe, as its handling of the probe investigating Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi's killing suggests.

Turkey has spent the past decade attempting to put in place the economic and political reforms demanded by European leaders, with mixed results. Indeed, the latest annual report in April by the European Commission on Turkey’s progress toward membership said bluntly that Turkey was taking huge strides in the opposite direction. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has also endured a slew of negative headlines in the Western press,with pressure intensifying after a failed coup in 2016 resulted in a massive crackdown. Indeed one of the deep ironies of the Khashoggi investigation is that more journalists reportedly remain imprisoned in Turkey than any other nation, according to a 2017 Committee to Protect Journalists report. Erdogan's government has also shuttered more than 150 media outlets.

But now, suddenly an all but unparalleled and certainly unanticipated opportunity has presented itself — the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Erdoğan appears quite eager to pounce on this opportunity, disclosing any number of details of the Turkish investigation. As a result, the press has kept the pressure on Saudi Arabia and governments that do business with it, including Trump's White House.

With Saudi Arabia having cooled on closer relations with Turkey, especially as Erdoğan has failed to break with Riyadh’s arch enemy Qatar, there seems to have been little to restrain Erdogan from yet another effort to tilt toward Europe, if not the United States.

While Trump spent days waffling on the culpability of Saudi royals, Erdoğan jumped in whole hog. The evidence of Saudi foul play seems clear, but it’s unlikely Turkey is motivated merely by the search for truth.

Erdoğan's decision is not without some risk, though. It could place any future Turkish ties with Saudi Arabia and Saudi friends in the Middle East in serious jeopardy. Several Middle Eastern nations have already sprung to the Saudis’ defense. Until now, Turkey’s frayed relations with the Saudis themselves had not yet reached the breaking point. As recently as 2015, Turkey was a card-carrying member of the Saudi-led Arab coalition to destroy ISIS.

But most of these nations have long viewed Turkey with suspicion, if not outright hostility. The corrupt, often brutal rule the Ottoman Turks exerted over many of these states for half a millennium has never truly been forgotten or forgiven. Now, Turkey seems to be again on the verge of rupturing whatever goodwill it had managed to establish in the Arab world.

So, Turkey’s current geopolitical posturing probably isn’t likely designed to make its neighbors happy. However, there is far more at stake with respect to American interests in the region. Together with the United States, Saudi Arabia has been an important lynchpin in efforts to counter Iranian activities. While Saudi Arabia was a firm supporter of Trump’s withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement, Turkey has positioned itself on the side of Iran, again earning points from the leading Western signatories of the pact — Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia.

At the same time, Erdoğan has made a major effort to establish close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the two meeting three times in three weeks this summer — a new friendship that could not have been lost on Trump. Iran and the role Russia is playing in Syria were reportedly central to these discussions.

Lately, and perhaps of greatest long-term importance to America’s interests in the region, Turkey’s role as a go-between with Russia and Iran helped lead to a reduction in fighting in parts of northern Syria as Turkey sought to make good on a pledge to Russia to disarm some of the rebel factions it has supported. This conflict, that promised earlier this year to become the last major bloodbath in that country’s civil war has since cooled considerably, at least for the moment — again playing into Trump’s deep interest in disengaging with some degree of honor from that conflict.

But now with both Saudi Arabia and Trump belatedly conceding Jamal Khashoggi is dead, it would appear that the U.S. president may have to keep playing, in some fashion, the complex three-dimensional chess game into which his Saudi allies and Turkey have thrust him. Moreover, while Trump has tied his fortunes in the region heavily to Saudi Arabia, its arms purchases and its hammerlock on the oil market, he cannot be entirely unhappy that it’s Turkey and Erdoğan — who he fist-bumped and called his “great friend” as recently as July — is playing such a key role here.

Turkey knows what it stands to gain by positioning itself as a truth-teller and defender of human rights in the region. But just how deftly Trump manages his own chess moves and how carefully he chooses his partners going forward could be critical to establishing a viable solution to a host of challenges in this region.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...di-journalist-s-death-finally-open-ncna922176

Good post, I just want to nitpick this part

The corrupt, often brutal rule the Ottoman Turks exerted over many of these states for half a millennium has never truly been forgotten or forgiven.

The injustice of Ottoman rule has been exaggerated in hindsight, mostly by Arab nationalists who wanted to legitimize their respective nationalist movements. Unlike the mostly Christians subjects in places like Greece the Arabs actually recognized the Turks as legitimate, if far from perfect, rulers. They even had a saying at the time; "the oppression of the Turks is better than the justice of the Bedouin" and instead of independence the Arabs wanted decentralization towards the end of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Arkain2K]

What Turkey's S-400 missile deal with Russia means for NATO
By Jonathan Marcus, Defence and diplomatic correspondent | 13 June 2019

The US and Turkey - one of Washington's key Nato allies - appear to be on a collision course this summer.

Turkey insists it will go ahead with the purchase of an advanced Russian S-400 air defence system. The first missiles and their associated radars could start to be delivered in July .

The US is urging Ankara to re-consider. It is warning that if the deal goes ahead then Turkey will be cut out of the F-35 warplane programme - the advanced US aircraft that will equip many Nato air forces over the coming decade.

So this is a controversy that has security, strategic and industrial dimensions. It raises questions about Turkey's reliability as a Nato partner and the diplomatic course that it is pursuing. And given its key geographical location on the alliance's southern flank - not to mention its role in the Syrian crisis - Turkey is not a country that Nato can turn its back on.

Washington's concerns about Turkey's purchase of the S-400 stem from both practical and security considerations.

The S-400 is a generic name for a variety of air defence systems configured in slightly different ways. But whatever version Turkey is buying, the simple fact is that the Russian system cannot be easily incorporated into the wider Nato air-defence system in the region.

This matters because air defences - and we are talking here about defending against both manned aircraft and ballistic missiles - comprise a variety of radars and missiles, each tailored to dealing with particular kinds of threats at particular altitudes.

So the whole is more than just the sum of the parts. Remove one crucial element from the mix by insisting upon a stand-alone system, and the overall defence is weakened.

Russia makes very good air defences. But installing a new system in a Nato member like Turkey is going to require trainers and on-the-ground support which raises all sorts of security concerns. What else might the Russians learn as they help to install and calibrate the weapons?

This is especially worrying for the Americans because Turkey is planning to deploy advanced US-built F-35 warplanes. Indeed, the first couple have already been handed over to Turkey in the US, where Turkish pilots have already been training on them.

The US fears that a Russian presence and involvement in Turkey's air defences, operating alongside the F-35, could enable Moscow to glean all sorts of useful intelligence.

Turkey insists that the missiles and the bases where the F-35 will operate will be geographically separate. It is also clear that Russia already has the means to gather all sorts of useful data on the F-35. It is already in operational service with the Israeli Air Force and its activities are being closely monitored by Russian radars in Syria.

But the US is far from happy at the Turkish decision. It is not willing, as one US commander put it, "to share the capabilities of the F-35 with Russia". Efforts to try to integrate the S-400 into Turkish defences could indeed reveal all sorts of details about Nato air defences and the capabilities of its aircraft.

And earlier this month the Trump administration made its response crystal clear. A letter from acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan to his Turkish counterpart warned that if the deal goes ahead then all Turkish pilots training in the US would have to leave the country by 31 July.

The US has already halted delivery of equipment related to the F-35 programme to Turkey and there will be industrial implications as well.

Turkey is a partner in the programme manufacturing some elements of the aircraft and designated as one of several maintenance sites for its engines. Some 937 separate parts for the F-35 are manufactured in Turkey, about 400 of which are made exclusively there. The US is already taking steps to source these parts elsewhere. Turkey is effectively being frozen out of the F-35 project, although US officials insist that all of this is reversible if Turkey changes its mind.

This is an extraordinary row between two Nato allies and, if Turkey insists upon going ahead with the deal, raises all sorts of questions about Ankara's standing within the Atlantic alliance.

This will not in itself precipitate Turkey's departure from Nato. But Turkey is already at loggerheads with the US over Washington's support for the Kurds in Syria while the increasingly authoritarian style of the Turkish leadership puts it at odds with the liberal values of many other Nato members.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-48620087

US cuts Turkey from F-35 program after Russian missile deal
Jul 17 2019

America’s most expensive weapons platform lost one of its founding international partners on the heels of a multi-billion dollar deal brokered between Russia and Turkey.

“Unfortunately, Turkey’s decision to purchase Russian S-400 air defense systems renders its continued involvement with the F-35 impossible. The F-35 cannot coexist with a Russian intelligence collection platform that will be used to learn about its advanced capabilities,” the White House said Wednesday, adding that there will be “detrimental impacts” on Turkey’s participation in NATO.

Last week, Turkey accepted delivery of the Russian-made S-400, a mobile surface-to-air missile system, that is said to pose a risk to the NATO alliance as well as Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth fighter jet.

“This day has been a long time coming and the second order effects for Turkey will be significant,” Aaron Stein, director of the Middle East program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told CNBC.

“Turkey has made the political choice to absorb what will be a tremendous financial cost for a system of questionable military value, but of immense political value for a Turkish leadership determined to act more autonomously from the United States,” Stein added.

Striking a deal with the Kremlin


In 2017, Ankara brokered a deal reportedly worth $2.5 billion with the Kremlin for the S-400 despite warnings from the U.S. that buying the system would come with political and economic consequences.

The S-400, the successor to the S-200 and S-300 missile systems, made its debut in 2007. Compared with U.S. systems, the Russian-made S-400 is believed to be capable of engaging a wider array of targets, at longer ranges and against multiple threats simultaneously.

In multiple efforts to deter Turkey from buying the S-400, the State Department offered in 2013 and 2017 to sell the country Raytheon’s Patriot missile system. Ankara passed on the Patriot both times because the U.S. declined to provide a transfer of the system’s sensitive missile technology.

All the while, Turkey became a financial and manufacturing partner for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 jet, the world’s most advanced fighter.

On Wednesday, the White House said in a statement that it made “multiple offers to move Turkey to the front of the line to receive the U.S. Patriot air defense system,” which CNBC reported in April.

What Turkey’s decision means for U.S. defense companies
People with knowledge of the negotiations told CNBC that Lockheed Martin and Raytheon were preparing to make massive adjustments to their intricate production schedules amid contentious negotiations with Turkey.

If Turkey went through with the Russian deal, Lockheed Martin would have to rework its supply chain on components for the F-35 fighter jet, while also making changes to its production schedule. Yet if Turkey abandoned its deal with Russia, Raytheon would reorganize the Patriot missile defense system production schedule to guarantee that Turkey could receive the missile system within a faster time frame.

Lockheed said in a statement Wednesday that it has taken actions to limit the impact and expects to meet its commitment of delivering 131 F-35s this year.

“Over the last several months we’ve been working to establish alternative sources of supply in the United States to quickly accommodate Turkey’s current contributions to the program,” Lockheed Martin said.

Sanctioning a NATO ally?

Under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which President Donald Trump signed in August 2017, Turkey, a NATO partner, faces economic sanctions for accepting the Kremlin’s missile system.

“As NATO allies, our relationship is multi-layered, and not solely focused on the F-35. Our military-to-military relationship is strong, and we will continue to cooperate with Turkey extensively, mindful of constraints due to the presence of the S-400 system in Turkey,” the White House said.

Meanwhile, nearly 13 countries have expressed interest in buying Russia’s S-400 missile system. China, India and Turkey have already signed purchase agreements with the Kremlin. China, which is embroiled in a trade battle with the U.S., is in the middle of receiving its final shipment of the S-400 system. India signed a deal with Moscow for the S-400 in October. Turkey received its S-400 last week and is expected to have the system ready for use by 2020.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/us-cuts-turkey-from-f-35-program-after-russian-missile-deal.html

 

[Arkain2K]

Can Turkey Be a Trusted NATO Partner?
By Jamie Dettmer | August 6, 2019

Can Turkey be reeled back in as a trusted NATO partner? A growing chorus of policy-makers and foreign-policy analysts fear it can’t.

The threat this week by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to launch a military incursion into Kurdish-majority areas in northern Syria is setting the stage for yet another fierce dispute between Ankara and the rest of NATO — including the U.S., which partnered with Syrian Kurds to rout the Islamic State terror group.

Erdogan’s warming ties with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and his purchase of an advanced Russian air-defense system — as well as his pursuit of strategies in Syria that conflict with those of other NATO partners and his support for Islamist causes— are straining Turkey’s ties with the West to the point of rupture, say analysts.

Pentagon officials also have expressed frustration with signs of an Erdogan rapprochement with Iran.

The crisis in Turkish-NATO relations is now as grave as in 1974, when Turkey invaded the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. There’s no formal mechanism for a NATO member to be expelled from the defense organization. Nonetheless, in Washington and European capitals, talk is mounting among policy-makers and influential foreign-policy analysts about whether Turkey has any future in NATO and whether the time is coming for it to leave or for its membership to be suspended.

“It's time to throw Turkey out of NATO,” opined British newspaper columnist Con Coughlin, a commentator who often reflects the views of Britain’s intelligence establishment.

Last month, European Union foreign ministers suspended about $164 million in aid to Turkey and shelved talks on an aviation accord in retaliation for Turkish drilling and gas exploration in the waters off Cyprus. The island has been partitioned since 1974 between the ethnically Greek south and ethnically Turkish north.

The administration of northern Cyprus is recognized only by Ankara. The EU foreign ministers also asked the European Investment Bank to review lending to the country, which amounted to nearly $434 million in 2018.

The EU measures came just days after the first shipments arrived in Turkey of a Russian-made surface-to-air missile system to Turkey.

President Erdogan shrugged off Washington's warnings that it would penalize Turkey for the purchase and went ahead with deal anyway. U.S. defense chiefs say the S-400 system the Turks bought is not compatible with NATO defenses and poses a potential threat to U.S. F-35 stealth fighter. Responding to the delivery of the Russian system, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would withhold sales of advanced F-35 jets to Turkey, but refrained from further sanctions.

Erdogan said Tuesday that he is confident Trump won’t allow ties between the two NATO allies to become captive to the dispute over Ankara's purchase of the S-400 defense system. Speaking to Turkish ambassadors gathered in Ankara, Erdogan said he remained committed to NATO.

“There is no concrete evidence showing the S-400s will harm the F-35s or NATO, nobody should deceive each other. Many NATO member states have purchased from Russia. We don't see this being turned into a crisis,” Erdogan said. “Turkey made a business decision for its security.”

Analysts say Erdogan is banking on Western leaders having to balance their disapproval of his foreign-policy steps, as well as their disdain for his increasingly authoritarian actions domestically, with their need for Turkish assistance to curtail migration and for help with counter-terrorism. But they say Erdogan risks miscalculating and that the host of serious issues now straining Turkey’s ties with the West is nearing the point of rupture.

An incursion into Kurdish areas of northern Syria would add considerably to the strains.

The crisis has long been in the making. Since 2013 Erdogan has pulled against NATO and the West. He was indignant over the refusal by the U.S. and the EU to condemn the toppling by the Egyptian army of Egypt’s elected President Mohamed Morsi, an Islamist, and scolded the West for perceived double standards. He accused Israel of playing a role in Morsi’s ouster.

He turned increasingly cool to the idea of Turkey joining the European economic bloc, something the country has aspired to for half-a-century despite repeated rebuffs from some key European states including Germany. His chief negotiator with the EU said Turkey would likely never join, blaming the “prejudiced” attitudes of current EU members, and sneering the EU is in a “process of dissolution” anyhow.

In a Brookings Institution report last year, analyst Amanda Sloat noted the West has a “Turkey conundrum.” While it wanted Turkey to remain a NATO member, partly because it occupies an important geo-strategic space, “the country’s president is growing more authoritarian, using virulent anti-Western rhetoric, and making foreign policy choices contrary to the interests of the trans-Atlantic alliance,” she noted.

Erdogan, analysts and Western diplomats say, has proven himself in the past as master-manipulator of the West, astutely knowing when to pull back and when to shrug off Western warnings, betting that what Turkey has to offer the West, including the important NATO air-base at Incirlik in the south of the country, would persuade the U.S. and Europeans to overlook his warming ties with Russia.

But how long can that continue? Doug Bandow, an analyst with the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank, noted this week that “the only serious potential security threat to Europe today is from Russia. Yet Turkey cannot be trusted to take NATO’s side in a conflict.” He argues NATO has little choice but to suspend Turkey’s membership, as Ankara’s foreign policy now diverges so greatly from that of the Western states. “In practice, Turkey has already been ‘lost' to the alliance,” he argues.

https://www.voanews.com/europe/can-turkey-be-trusted-nato-partner?amp

 

[Arkain2K]

Russia Is Trying to Sell Turkey Its Own Stealthy New Fighter After U.S. Revoked Access to F-35
BY STEPAN KRAVCHENKO AND HENRY MEYER / BLOOMBERG | AUGUST 27, 2019

​

(Bloomberg) — President Vladimir Putin showed off Russia’s latest stealth warplane to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who’s been barred from buying a new U.S. fighter jet in a dispute with Donald Trump over the purchase of a Russian missile system.

Flanked by the Russian and Turkish defense ministers, Putin and Erdogan inspected the cockpit of the fifth-generation Su-57 fighter on Tuesday at opening of the MAKS-2019 international air show outside Moscow. They also toured the Su-35 fighter, helicopter displays and an amphibious aircraft.

Welcoming his “good friend” Erdogan to the air display, Putin pitched the “technical capabilities of the latest generation of the Russian Air Forces,” which he said “will open up new opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation,” according to a Kremlin transcript.

When Erdogan inquired during the tour whether the Su-57 is already available to buy, a smiling Putin replied “You can buy,” the Interfax news service reported.

Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, center left, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's president, center right, inspect a Sukhoi Su-57 fighter jet at the MAKS International Aviation and Space Salon at Zhukovsky International Airport in Moscow, Russia, on Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2019.​

Erdogan’s visit follows the U.S. decision last month to suspend Turkey’s ability to buy and help build the advanced F-35 stealth warplane in retaliation for defying Trump and taking delivery of a Russian S-400 air-defense system. The U.S. says the S-400 purchase is incompatible with Turkey’s role in NATO and the F-35 program because it may allow Russia to glean information about the fighter’s advanced technology.

Turkey had planned to buy about 100 F-35s and will have to seek alternatives if the U.S. maintains the ban. After a crisis in relations when Turkish jets shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border in 2015, Putin and Erdogan have strengthened economic and military ties in recent years as relations between Turkey and its NATO ally have strained.

Syria Strains

The two leaders are holding their latest talks to try to resolve disagreements over a Kremlin-backed offensive by the Syrian army against rebels in the northwestern Idlib region that risks sparking a fresh exodus of refugees to Turkey.

“Turkey is our very close partner, it’s our ally,” Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Monday of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization member. While he declined to say whether Putin and Erdogan would discuss new arms sales, he noted that “everything is really concentrated right there” at MAKS.

Turkey insists it was forced to buy the Russian air-defense system because NATO allies, including the U.S., wouldn’t meet its defensive needs on Turkish terms. The U.S. has repeatedly offered to sell Patriot air-defense missiles to Turkey, but without the technology sharing that the Turkish government says it needs to develop its domestic production capabilities.

https://time.com/5662553/russia-turkey-fighter-jet/

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Darkballs]

​

But how long can that continue? Doug Bandow, an analyst with the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank, noted this week that “the only serious potential security threat to Europe today is from Russia. Yet Turkey cannot be trusted to take NATO’s side in a conflict.” He argues NATO has little choice but to suspend Turkey’s membership, as Ankara’s foreign policy now diverges so greatly from that of the Western states. “In practice, Turkey has already been ‘lost' to the alliance,” he argues.

I think this quote sums it up best. Turkey is already lost. We didn't need them to go completely side with the Russians for that to happen. We just needed the trust to erode to where we can't trust them as a strategic ally against a potential Russian military threat. And it has. NATO can't trust Turkey to act for western security interests. Turkey is a big boy and they made this bed. Suspend their membership at this point.

 

[Arkain2K]

Kick Turkey out of NATO? It wouldn't be easy
By JOHN VANDIVER | STARS AND STRIPES | October 11, 2019​

A view of NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. ​

STUTTGART, Germany— Turkey’s invasion of Syria has generated widespread international condemnation, infuriated allies and raised questions about whether the country’s inclusion within NATO should be reconsidered.

But even if there was consensus inside NATO about kicking Turkey out, the 70-year-old military alliance faces this key obstacle: no mechanism exists in NATO’s founding charter for revoking a state’s membership.

While Article 13 in NATO’s Washington Treaty offers a way for a county to quit, the charter is silent on how to force out a member state that has fallen out of favor.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on the eve of Turkey’s Wednesday push into northern Syria, said he would “call for their suspension from NATO” if the U.S.’s Kurdish partners in the fight against the Islamic State group came under attack.

Similar statements have been made this week by some European politicians and former American military leaders, who say Turkey’s incursion into Syria should be answered with suspension or expulsion from the 29-nation NATO alliance.

Other international organizations such as the United Nations and European Union have legal mechanisms for suspending and even removing members, but NATO does not, said Jorge Benitez, a NATO expert with the Atlantic Council think tank.

“The issue has been raised several times before, when the behavior of a NATO member is in conflict with the values of the alliance and the spirit of the Washington Treaty, such as (past) military coups in Greece and Turkey,” Benitez said.

Should NATO ever decide to remove a member, it would have to amend its treaty. And that would mean getting unanimous support from all members, including Turkey.

During the course of NATO’s history, members have fallen out of favor numerous times and debates have swirled about how to deal with a recalcitrant ally.

In 1974, allied leaders discreetly debated suspending Portugal’s membership in NATO following a leftist coup, Benitez said.

Instead, the Portuguese were quietly sanctioned and excluded from most NATO activities during 1974-1975.

“The historical record is that NATO deals with these problems by privately sanctioning the member violating alliance values, but does not officially terminate their membership,” Benitez said.

Ultimately, NATO leaders wait out the misbehaving national leaders until a government consistent with alliance values eventually returns to power, he said.

Ultimately, NATO leaders wait out the misbehaving national leaders until a government consistent with alliance values eventually returns to power, he said.

“It is important to note, that in these cases NATO members act more strongly outside of the alliance, through their bilateral relationships with the offending government,” Benitez said.

For example, the U.S. Congress cut off military aid to Turkey after it intervened in Cyprus in the 1970s. Turkey responded by cutting off American access to military bases in the country.

A current example would be Norway, which on Thursday announced it will block exports of military equipment to Turkey.

Inside NATO, there are other steps allies can take to punish a member, such as withholding information and excluding them from alliance meetings, Benitez said.

For its part, NATO continues to emphasize that Turkey is an ally in good standing.

“Turkey is a valued ally,” said a NATO official, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. “We have deep relations that allies built over decades.”

On the issue of how the alliance would go about expelling a member, the official said, “this is a hypothetical question, which would be a matter for the parties to the treaty to determine.”

https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/kick-turkey-out-of-nato-it-wouldn-t-be-easy-1.602661

 

[Mendacious]

Turkey is so useful as jumping-off point. They’re in the middle of Europe, Asia, and Africa. NATO members will probably wait it out like it says in the article.

a shame because Turkey has a history of acting up. They still violate Greek airspace to this day and of course the Cyprus invasion.

 

[Arkain2K]

 

[Arkain2K]

Turkey’s Caucasus Adventure Risks Another Crisis in NATO
NATO allies have been at odds with Turkey for years. But Ankara’s role in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict is bringing matters to a head.
By Robbie Gramer, Jack Detsch | October 6, 2020

​

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh has fueled a fresh fight within NATO, with alliance members pushing Turkey to dial back its aggressive foreign policy and support a cease-fire in the Caucasus.

As the conflict over the disputed territory has escalated over the past week, leaving over 200 people dead and hundreds more injured, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called on Turkey to defuse the situation, given its decades of support for Azerbaijan. “We are deeply concerned by the escalation of hostilities. All sides should immediately cease fighting,” Stoltenberg said during a visit to Ankara, the Turkish capital, on Monday. “I expect Turkey to use its considerable influence to calm tensions.”

But Turkey has dug in its heels, defying a joint call from the United States, France, and Russia for an immediate cease-fire in Nagorno-Karabakh. “We look at the calls coming from around the world, and it’s ‘immediate cease-fire.’ What then? There was a cease-fire until now, but what happened?” said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Tuesday during a visit to Azerbaijan.

In crisis after crisis in recent years, Turkey’s relations with many of its NATO allies have frayed, but they’ve never fully collapsed. Turkey has purchased Russian air defense systems and angered Washington. Turkey has squared off with Greece and France in the Eastern Mediterranean, invaded northeastern Syria, and waded into the civil war in Libya. All that came after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s authoritarian turn in the wake of a 2016 coup attempt.

Now, many are wondering where the breaking point is—and how close it might be, especially with a potential U.S. administration under presidential candidate Joe Biden signaling a much tougher line on Turkey than the Trump administration’s coddling.

Turkey’s lurch into the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, including the use of Syrian mercenaries that serve as its proxy army, has put some powerful NATO members in the odd position of coordinating its message with Moscow, which has long sided with Armenia. (Many alliance members are on the other side of Turkey in ongoing conflicts in Syria and Libya.) Analysts fear that the conflict could spiral into wider regional confrontations; both Turkey and Israel have a close security relationship with Azerbaijan, Russia has a defense pact with Armenia, and neighboring Iran is trying to play a role in mediating the conflict.

The latest conflict is already reverberating inside NATO. Canada this week announced it was halting some weapons sales to Turkey after allegations its equipment was used by Azerbaijani forces. Turkey’s foreign ministry quickly shot back, accusing Canada of “double standards” by continuing to export arms to countries involved in the war in Yemen.

Conventional arm-twisting might not work. Experts say Turkey is honing a style of mercenary-led combat—backed by drones for close air support—that lends itself to flashy propaganda coups, if not guaranteed battlefield successes. Turkish military propaganda could leave a lasting—if outsized—impression of Ankara’s might on the battlefield, as it did during a battle in the contested Syrian province of Idlib earlier this year.

“All you see is the strikes. It’s very powerful imagery,” said Aaron Stein, the director of research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “In Idlib everyone forgets that Turkey lost. All people remember is Turkey kicking Russian ass.”

“It’s lowered the barrier to entry, it’s made combat less risky to them, and it’s highly effective propaganda,” he added.

If bilateral tensions spill over into NATO deliberations, it could hamstring the alliance’s ability to make decisions on other areas of importance, related to Russia, the Middle East, or other threats facing the trans-Atlantic alliance. NATO operates with consensus decision-making, meaning nothing is decided until all 30 members agree.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/0...onflict-risks-nato-crisis-armenia-azerbaijan/

 

[Arkain2K]

Turkey slams joint declaration by Cyprus, Greece and Egypt

Turkey’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday slammed a joint statement by Greece Cyprus and Egypt that condemns Turkish energy exploration in the eastern Mediterranean and numerous “provocations” that they maintain are threatening regional peace.

The Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it “fully rejected the declaration containing baseless accusations and allegations.”

During a trilateral regional summit Wednesday in Nicosia, Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis urged Ankara to end its “aggressive" actions.

The joint statement also asked Turkey to accept Cyprus’ invitation to enter negotiations for an agreement on maritime delimitations. Greece and Cyprus have signed maritime border agreements with Egypt while dismissing a similar deal that Ankara signed with Libya’s Tripoli-based government as “legally invalid.”.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said the declaration attacked Ankara rather than supporting peace and stability in the region. It repeated Turkey’s position that cooperation could only take place with the inclusion of Turkish Cypriots in governing and sharing the resources of the ethnically divided island nation.

“We will continue with determination to protect our rights and the rights of Turkish Cypriots in the eastern Mediterranean,” the ministry statement said.

The trilateral summit took place amid high tensions between nominal NATO allies Greece and Turkey over maritime borders and energy rights.

In late summer, Turkey dispatched a research vessel escorted by warships to conduct seismic research in a part of the Mediterranean Sea that Greece claims as its territory, which prompted the Greek government to deploy its own warships.

Turkey pulled the research ship back to shore for several weeks for maintenance and to allow time for diplomacy but redeployed the Oruc Reis on a new energy exploration mission. A maritime announcement by Turkey says the Oruc Reis and two other ships would continue working in the area until Oct. 27.

Turkey also has had ships prospecting for oil and gas reserves in waters that Cyprus claims as its exclusive economic zone.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...try-turkey-cyprus-greece-ankara-b1223187.html

 

[Arkain2K]

Turkey detains ex-admirals over statement on straits treaty
By SUZAN FRASER | April 5, 2021

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkish authorities on Monday detained 10 retired admirals after a group of more than 100 former top navy officers declared their commitment to an international shipping treaty, a statement that government officials tied to Turkey’s history of military coups.

The retired admirals were held as part of an investigation into whether they had reached “an agreement with the aim of committing a crime against the security of the state and the constitutional order,” Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency reported. The chief prosecutor in Ankara launched the investigation on Sunday.

Four other former navy officers were asked to report to authorities within three days but not detained because of their advanced ages, Anadolu reported.

Authorities also stripped the suspects of their rights to government housing and bodyguards, the news agency said.

In his first comments on the declaration issued late Saturday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the admirals of having ulterior motives, dismissing arguments that the former officers merely expressed an opinion.

“This act, which took place at midnight, is definitely an ill-intended attempt in its tone, its method and according to the debates it would clearly lead to,” Erdogan said.

He spoke after summoning a meeting with the head of the intelligence agency, the chief of military staff and some members of his Cabinet to discuss the admirals’ statement.

“It is under no circumstances acceptable for...retired admirals to make such an attempt in the middle of the night in a country whose history is full of coups and memoranda,” Erdogan said.

The 10 retired admirals were detained at their homes in Ankara, Istanbul and Kocaeli, and undergoing questioning by the chief prosecutor’s office in the capital.

Anadolu reported that they included Cem Gurdeniz, the name behind Turkey’s controversial “Blue Homeland” doctrine, which claims vast sections of the Mediterranean and Aegean seas and its undersea energy deposits. The concept is at odds with Greece and Cyprus’ claims in the region.

A total of 103 retired admirals signed the statement declaring their commitment to an international treaty that regulates shipping through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, which link the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea. The 14 suspects are believed to have organized the declaration.

The statement was issued amid a debate over whether Erdogan, who withdrew Turkey from a international convention to protect women last month, could also pull the country out of the 1936 Montreux Convention, which regulates the passage through the straits, and other international treaties.

Erdogan’s plan to build an alternative waterway to the north of Istanbul that would bypass the Bosporus also sparked a debate over the Montreux treaty.

“The fact that withdrawing from the Montreux Convention was opened to debate as part of talks on Canal Istanbul and the authority to exit from international treaties was met with concern,” the retired admirals said in their declaration.

The statement triggered strong condemnation by ruling party and government officials who drew a parallel with statements that accompanied past military takeovers in Turkey.

Erdogan voiced a commitment to the shipping treaty but did not rule out its revision in the future.

“We neither have any current plans nor any intention with regard to leaving the Montreux Convention. But if the need arises in the future, we will not hesitate to review any convention to ensure that our country gets a better deal,” he said.

Earlier, Defense Minister Hulusi Akar, a former chief of military staff, said the declaration served no purpose other than to “harm Turkey’s democracy, break the Turkish Armed Forces’ personnel’s morale, and please our enemies.”

Turkey experienced coups in 1960, 1971 and 1980, and a 1997 military intervention caused the resignation of an Islamist-led coalition government. In 2016, a failed coup led to more than 250 deaths.

https://apnews.com/article/turkey-b...n-sea-ankara-f6e1fe297a9e49476444214bd9542132

 

[Arkain2K]

The world looks on as Erdogan jockeys for a third decade of power in Turkey
By Nadeen Ebrahim, CNN | January 27, 2023

Turkey is less than four months away from a presidential election that could extend the 20-year rule of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan into a third decade. Analysts say that the result may be a close call for the long-term leader.

The poll, which is expected May 14, takes place amid the most serious collision between Russia and the West since the end of the Cold War. And Russia’s war on Ukraine has seen Turkey’s foreign influence grow to a level that has become an annoyance for some and useful for others. The 68-year-old president has perhaps never been as polarizing on the international scene as he has become of late.

“From the standpoint of the global powers, Turkey fits at the intersection of the West and the rest,” said Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat and chairman of Istanbul-based think-tank EDAM.

Ahead of the vote, Erdogan has been on a quest to mend fraying ties and strengthen old ones. He has also been eager to leverage Turkey’s NATO membership and position himself as a mediator in the Ukraine conflict to both achieve national interests and promote himself as a regional and global leader.

Among those keenly watching the Turkish election on the international stage, there are those who may be rooting for Erdogan, those who have decided to live with him, and those who want nothing more than to see him relegated to the history books. Here’s a breakdown:

Russia
Moscow’s preferences in Turkey are no secret. The Ukraine war has been a defining moment for Turkey’s international influence, but also its relationship with Russia.

Erdogan’s close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin have given his country the unique position of being the only NATO nation whose ear Russia has. He hasn’t followed his Western allies in imposing sanctions on Moscow, and is expanding energy ties with Russia while the West is severing them.

“Putin has given a considerable degree of support to Erdogan before the elections in a way that no other global leader has,” Ulgen told CNN, citing their growing cooperation as evidence of their deepening ties.

Ankara and Moscow are working on creating a regional natural gas hub in Turkey, which Erdogan previously said can be used to transport gas to Europe.

Turkey is also expected to add nuclear power to its growing energy dependence on Russia. Built, owned and operated by Russia, the country’s first nuclear plant is expected to become operational this year, according to state news agency TASS.

The two nations also coordinate their activities in Syria, where both have a military presence but back opposing sides. Analysts say that Erdogan often seeks a green light from Moscow – which backs President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria – before launching attacks in the country.

“It is clear that Putin has made his choice very transparent about who he wants to win in Turkey,” said Ulgen.

Gulf states
The Gulf states have been uncomfortable with Turkey’s role in the Middle East, but they have put those differences aside and decided to work with Erdogan.

Recent rapprochements with Gulf states brought not only a much-needed cash injection into the slowing Turkish economy, analysts say, but also served as an endorsement of Erdogan and a vote of confidence in his rule.

A landmark visit by Erdogan to Saudi Arabia last year marked the end of a bitter dispute between Turkey and Riyadh that exploded after the killing and dismemberment of Saudi Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Both Riyadh and the United Arab Emirates have also opposed Erdogan’s support for Islamist parties in the region.

The Turkish leader also made his first state visit to the UAE in a decade last year, where he met with then-Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (known as MBZ), who is now president. The visit followed a landmark trip by MBZ to Ankara in 2021.

Both those détentes came with financial benefits for Turkey. Ankara got a pledge for a $5 billion central bank deposit from Saudi Arabia and the UAE established a $10 billion investment fund for Turkey.

“(Erdogan) has never won elections when not delivering (economic) growth,” said Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “That’s why he is trying to cultivate financial inflows from outside actors; resetting with wealthy (Gulf states like) the Saudis, the Emiratis.”

That U-turn in relations indicated that Gulf Arab states expect Erdogan to remain in power for the foreseeable future, Omer Taspinar, a professor at National Defense University in Washington, DC, told CNN.

“Saudi Arabia and the UAE see Erdogan as a fellow king/strongman and do not really believe kings leave power with elections,” he said, adding that the newly mended ties are “a marriage of convenience” that balances the Gulf’s concerns as well as grants Erdogan financial support.

The West
Western states would be glad to see a post-Erdogan Turkey, according to analysts.

The United States and the European Union have struggled with the Turkish leader as he continues to stand in the way of Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO and continues to cooperate with Russia. Turkey’s reasoning for the stalling of the membership is that the Nordic state have not taken concrete actions against “terrorist” groups – mainly the separatist militant Kurdistan’s Workers Party, also known as PKK – that Turkey accuses Sweden of harboring.

Turkey’s final straw appeared to be the burning of the Quran during a protest outside the Turkish embassy in Stockholm last weekend.

The US has had its own share of problems with Erdogan. The Turkish president has been working for months to get a sale of 40 F-16 fighter jets to Turkey approved, especially since his country has been removed from the F-35 program since 2019 after purchasing the Russian-made S-400 missile system.

Congressional sources two weeks ago told CNN that the Biden administration, which has been weighing Turkey’s F-16 request for more than a year now, is preparing to ask Congress to approve the sale of the jets. Erdogan isn’t very popular in Congress either, and US politicians have been critical of Turkey’s human rights record.

Biden is yet to invite Erdogan on an official visit, but the two leaders met on the sidelines of the G20 summit in November.

“The EU and the US would be happy to see a post-Erdogan Turkey,” said Taspinar. “Such an outcome would prove that Turkey is still a democracy and could create hope for a honeymoon with the West.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/middleeast/turkey-elections-erdogan-mime-intl/index.html