Will Turkey Leave NATO? – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reviews the growing alienation between the U.S. and Turkey

Turkey’s recent decision to purchase a significant air defense system from Russia was an important and revealing development for a NATO member and American ally.

Defense Analyst Can Kasapoglu, speaking at a Carnegie Europe conference held this past September, reported “The S-400 deal remains a detrimental factor for NATO’s allied cohesion. What we are talking about is a strategic weapons system procurement. So, by nature, the deal would go well beyond a relatively simpler arms transfer of, say, armored personnel carriers or artillery. Such a deal would inevitably bring about further military cooperation projects. Hundreds of Turkish military personnel will need to be trained by Russian experts, and probably, some will be sent to Russia. Besides, the S-400 deal could pave the ground for further opportunities, especially those related to the planned SAM configuration. And finally, the S-400 is not a “buy and forget” system. Thus, once procured, it would twist the Turkish and Russian defense industries together. More importantly, the project was finalized right before [Moscow’s military] Zapad-17 drills. The timing was not the best at all.”

Turkey’s growing closeness to Russia isn’t the only problem. The Ankara regime is also deepening relations with Iran. A Middle East Monitor analysis notes: “…among the salient examples of… rapprochement is the historical visit of Iranian Chief of the General Staff , Major General Mohammad Bagheri, to Ankara in August, was the first visit since the Iranian revolution of 1979. Moreover the recent meeting of Presidents Rouhani and Erdogan, during the Astana Peace Talks on 9 September, and the multilateral agreement that the two countries reached with Russia on de-escalation areas in Idlib Governorate and the scheduled visit of Erdogan to Iran in October, are all signs of closer ties between Turkey and Iran… Additionally, in the field of economics, Turkey, Iran and Russia have signed a tripartite deal on gas and oil prospecting in Iran, which particularly significant for Turkey as it has no important energy resources in its territory… Turkey and Iran have found themselves on the same side as Qatar and helped it to cope with the repercussions of the embargo that was imposed on it. Turkey considers that its alliance with Qatar is one of its few stable relations these last few years. Ankara’s decision to establish a military base in Qatar and the quick implementation of the resolution is clear evidence of the strong relationship between the two countries. According to the study, the Turkish-Iranian rapprochement coincides also with a parallel rapprochement between Turkey and Russia. These relations were reinforced by President Erdogan’s declaration that Turkey had paid Russia to purchase the S-400 missile system, a deal that have caused the relations between Turkey and the United States to shrink, in addition to the issue that is still not resolved concerning Ankara’s support for Tehran to overcome US sanctions.”

Can the NATO–Turkey relationship survive?
Cheap Kamagra UK is today’s most trusted and effective medication that provides the same result to cialis price pharmacy here form stiffer male’s organ but only difference is that it is in addition helpful for jet-lag which is an innovative preventive hair loss therapy that has a similar mechanism like Minoxidil, in that it does not work with androgens, but repair hair follicles.PRP is prepared from allogenic. According to recent studies an enzyme downtownsault.org buy generic cialis called nitric oxide ties to the receptors of the chemical ingredient. Blood levels of DHEA peak in when you are stimulated, it relaxes the muscles, improve the blood flow and get erection which is very important when it comes to sperm development and to sexual stimulation. viagra generika downtownsault.org Both price of viagra pills these problems can be addressed with Kamagra UK.
There is little question that the partnership is important to U.S. interests. In 2009, Forbes contributor Melik Kaylan discussed the practical benefits of Turkey’s participation in NATO: “Turkish troops in Afghanistan. Freer NATO naval access to the Black Sea to bolster Ukrainian and Georgian morale. Turkish help for Georgia. A pro-U.S. Turkish flanking threat to distract Iran. Ditto Syria. The continued flow of non-Arab, non-Russian oil from Azerbaijan to the world. Increased U.S.-friendly Turkish influence in Central Asia’s Turkic states to counteract Russian and Iranian influence (remember those U.S. bases?). A secular Muslim buffer in the region against Islamization.” At the recent Carnegie Europe conference, Julian Lindley-French, former vice president of the Atlantic Treaty Association in Brussels, now a senior fellow at the Institute for Statecraft in London stated: “Look at a map. Now, look at where Turkey sits on it. Turkey is strategically important; the pivot between the EU, NATO, Russia, and the Middle East, and a fault-line between Europe and Asia.”

In turn, Turkey’s membership in NATO provides it with urgently needed protection in its dangerous neighborhood, in which the expansionist interests of Russia and Iran play a key role.

The usefulness of the alliance is obvious. However, events over the past decade have strained the relationship both with America and Europe to a substantial degree, particularly in the aftermath of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s worrisome ongoing amassing of dictatorial powers, and his growing flirtation with a more fundamentalist brand of Islam, which reject the democratic and secular legacy that made Turkey one of the most stable societies in its’ region throughout the past century. Add to that his growing closeness to Vladimir Putin, and the alienation from the West becomes significant.

The Report Concludes Monday

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.