The Turkey problem

[polarbear]

Hi again. Ahvalnews is not a reputable website. It is funded with Saudi money, turkish section is run by FETO people, promoting ideas of people behind FETO like Edelmann or Grossman. FETO is #1 public enemy in Turkey, (PKK is #2). Regular trade is not sanctioned; only defence related products, so 20 bil. usd thing is a gross attempt at disinformation. Unless you regard solid cast iron frying pan or work shoes as as weapons of war. The hq in question would have been raided and closed within the hour if they do something illegal. It is a waste of time and energy to discuss over information spilling from that cesspit.

What Mr. Sapolsky has written shows he has no idea where the ball park is when it comes to Turkey-US relations. Nukes at incirlik is a concession to US; we will be all too happy if US removed them. We are not interested in other people's lands; our army is strong enough to defeat anybody around us, if any of them is stupid enough to begin slaughtering our people and diplomacy fails. Nukes are utterly unnecessary, useless and dangerous to have let alone use. So by all means go ahead.

Turkey is not budging-- how stupid can they be? Russia has repeatedly declared NATO to be "the enemy". How on earth can Turkey, as a NATO country (and F-35 partner) purchase a strategic system like S-400 from "the enemy"?

I think you are beginning to understand the source of problem. Let me ask a similiar question. Could US, with repeatedly declared disregard for international law, our borders and lives of our people; with continuous and huge support to PKK and FETO causing loss of lives and extreme damage to economy and government structure; with persistent warmongering and warring causing massive damage to economy, with repeatedly proven unreliability at dire times be considered a "friend" or an "ally"? Or Could Russia; with rock solid and proven respect for our borders, governmet structure, and well being of people; with efficient and genuine peacemaking efforts in the region; with solid economic and technical support in dire times; with persistent efforts to keep good relations and increase goodwill even in the face of extremely hostile acion from us, be considered an "enemy"?

[pron]

Or Could Russia; with rock solid and proven respect for our borders, governmet structure, and well being of people; with efficient and genuine peacemaking efforts in the region; with solid economic and technical support in dire times; with persistent efforts to keep good relations and increase goodwill even in the face of extremely hostile acion from us, be considered an "enemy"?

What happend several times with the "rock solid and proven respect for your borders" that resultet into the following?
A Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jet shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24M attack aircraft
near the Syria–Turkey border on 24 November 2015.

You are a laugh and nothing more.

[loke]

Hi again. Ahvalnews is not a reputable website.

avuz Baydar is the Editor-in-Chief of Ahval.
He has been a journalist for nearly 40 years.
Baydar was among the co-founders, in 2013, of the independent media platform P24 to monitor the media sector and the state of journalism in his home country.
His opinion articles have appeared in the Guardian, Süddeutsche Zeitung, New York Times, El Pais, Svenska Dagbladet, Mainichi Shimbun, the Arab Weekly, and Index on Censorship.
Baydar has blogged with the Huffington Post and Al Jazeera, sharing his his analysis and views on Turkish politics, the Middle East, Balkans, Europe, U.S-Turkish relations, human rights, free speech, press freedom and history.
Turkey’s first news ombudsman, beginning at Milliyet daily in 1999, Baydar worked in the same role as reader representative until 2014. His work included reader complaints with content, and commentary on media ethics. Working in a tough professional climate had its costs: he was twice forced to leave his job, after his critical columns on journalistic flaws and fabricated news stories.
He served as president of the U.S. based International Organizaton of News Ombudsmen (ONO) in 2003.
In 2014, as a Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School of Government, he completed an extensive research paper on self-censorship, corruption of ownership in Turkish media, state oppression and threats over journalism in Turkey - in the wake of Gezi Park protests.
Baydar worked as producer and news presenter in Swedish Radio &TV Corp. (SR) Stockholm, Sweden; as correspondent for Scandinavia and Baltics for Turkish daily Cumhuriyet between 1980-1992, and the BBC World Service, in early 1990's.
He studied Informatics, Cybernetics and Journalism in the University of Stockholm.
Baydar has recently been given - in early February 2018 - the prestigious 'Journalistenpreis' by the (Munich-based) SüdostEuropa Gesellschaft in Germany.
Earlier, Baydar was delivered the Special Award of the European Press Prize (EPP), for 'excellence in journalism', in 2014.
In 2017, he received the Morris B Abram Human Rights Award by UN Watch.
He was also laureate of the Umbria Journalism Award, Italy, in March 2014, and Caravella 'Mare Nostrum' Award, by the organization 'Journalists of the Mediterranean', in Puglia, Italy.

Actually this is probably the most reputable news site focusing on Turkey and Turkish news...

As for Russia; as already stated, they have repeatedly denoted NATO to be "the enemy" -- there is no way around it. Then of course you have Georgia, Ukraine, and all the "hybrid warfare" in Europe, the US, and yes, also Turkey. I find it weird that you are not aware of this.

[loke]

Purchase of S-400 from Russia is a done deal, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Saturday, adding that Turkey will also jointly produce S-500 with Russia in future.
Speaking with the youth in Istanbul's Dolmabahçe Palace, Erdoğan also noted that Turkey will "sooner or later" get F-35s from the U.S., despite current delaying by the American side.
"They (the U.S.) are passing the ball around in the midfield now, showing some reluctance. But sooner or later, we will receive the F-35s. (The U.S.) not delivering them is not an option," Erdoğan said.

https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/201 ... dogan-says

[spazsinbad]

IF properly translated this statement is delusional, considering all the efforts being made by the JSF Partners (other than Turkey) backing the US Government efforts to warn Turkey of consequences for accepting the S-400 system in country.

"...sooner or later, we will receive the F-35s. (The U.S.) not delivering them is not an option," Erdoğan said."

[fidgetspinner]

Or Could Russia; with rock solid and proven respect for our borders, governmet structure, and well being of people; with efficient and genuine peacemaking efforts in the region; with solid economic and technical support in dire times; with persistent efforts to keep good relations and increase goodwill even in the face of extremely hostile acion from us, be considered an "enemy"?

What happend several times with the "rock solid and proven respect for your borders" that resultet into the following?
A Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jet shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24M attack aircraft
near the Syria–Turkey border on 24 November 2015.

You are a laugh and nothing more.

So you don't consider the s-400 deployment excuse to control their airspace as payback? They even used Israel as a excuse for the s-300 deployment and they were not happy about their airspace being monitored as well. Turkey is still supporting the FSA with Qatar while the US withdrew support in 2017 and every NATO country afterwards did as well. Idlib looks like the next place that will be in the Syrian army's hands and now they are screwing with us in Venezuela, this trend better stop or the your a laugh and nothing more accusation might fall on us. What I am saying is whatever country we eye next I better see results instead of the Russians are screwing with us again.
I am surprised the Russians are even planning to give them the S-400s or Iraq considering purchasing them when they have US bases in their country.

[polarbear]

This CV conveniently excludes his involvement with Zaman and Today's Zaman newspapers. Also his time with Sabah is barely mentioned. His nationality is not turkish anymore but swedish. His attempts to get Banu Avar, a journalist making news on Sweden's extensive support to PKK, fired from her job and get her imprisoned have not been forgotten. Before relations between Erdogan and Gulen went sour, he was an avid supporter of rookie sultan. He is not a reliable source of truth but a propaganda outlet.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... ldnt-23629

Could the russians be hostile becouse US backed off from this deal? In europe their aggresiveness do not extend beyond the border mentioned above. And they resort to violence only in SSSR space after US puppets severely outstepped their bounds in their areas. NATO is the offender here and russians remained well within their rights according to international law and the agreement above. Considering what NATO and US proxies have done since 1990's in SSSR boundaries, russians acted with extreme restraint and caution.

At last US government succeeded in forcing a confrontation. The aircraft will either be denied; Lockheed will lose a lot of revenue, Erdogan will get a popularity boost, turkish budget will get a massive relief; or be delivered, US will lose a lot of face boosting Erdogan's popularity. I think the decisive factor will be Lockheed's greed. It may triumph over "national security concerns". In the past they were quite effective in finding "innovative" ways to finish a sale, especially with F-104. We may see some top notch performance on their behalf for this facelifted F-104.

[spazsinbad]

Climate Change is going to make the 'polarbear' predictive ability even more laughable & silly. "Tell 'im he's dreamin'":

"...At last US government succeeded in forcing a confrontation. The aircraft will either be denied; Lockheed will lose a lot of revenue, Erdogan will get a popularity boost, turkish budget will get a massive relief; or be delivered, US will lose a lot of face boosting Erdogan's popularity. I think the decisive factor will be Lockheed's greed. It may triumph over "national security concerns". In the past they were quite effective in finding "innovative" ways to finish a sale, especially with F-104. We may see some top notch performance on their behalf for this facelifted F-104."

[spazsinbad]

Erdogan Tells of Two Missile Defense Deals With Russia [Voice of America - same as 'loke' earlier version above]
18 May 2019 VoA

"ANKARA — Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said Saturday that the purchase of S-400 defense systems from Russia was a done deal, adding that Ankara would also jointly produce S-500 defense systems with Moscow.

U.S. officials have called Turkey's planned purchase of the S-400 missile defense system "deeply problematic," saying it would risk Ankara's partnership in the joint strike fighter F-35 program because it would compromise the jets, made by Lockheed Martin Corp.

However, Erdogan said at a televised question-and-answer session with university students in Istanbul that Turkey had carried out technical work and found that such a problem did not exist.

"They [the U.S.] are passing the ball around in the midfield now, showing some reluctance. But sooner or later, we will receive the F-35s. [The U.S.] not delivering them is not an option," he said...." [QUE? must be accurate]

Source: https://www.voanews.com/a/erdogan-tells ... 23097.html

[marsavian]

It's been obvious for any serious observers of that guy for the last few years that he is not playing with a full deck which irrespective of this F-35 issue means he is one of the most dangerous players on the geopolitical scene. He doesn't accept election results, indulges in ballot stuffing for his own and plays NATO off against Russia and vice versa. One dangerous bipolar power crazed dude with the resources of a major regional military power behind him

[polarbear]

It's been obvious for any serious observers of that guy for the last few years that he is not playing with a full deck which irrespective of this F-35 issue means he is one of the most dangerous players on the geopolitical scene. He doesn't accept election results, indulges in ballot stuffing for his own and plays NATO off against Russia and vice versa. One dangerous bipolar power crazed dude with the resources of a major regional military power behind him

He is also a thief, shameless liar, tactless blockhead with some cunning, and a staunch supporter of religious sects. His greed has no bounds; he will not spend a dime unless he could embezzle a portion of it. His only concern is not to lose power so that he wont have to answer for his crimes. It is Davutoğlu and Gul who were dangerous. Against all common sense they made commitments with disastrous consequences. Normalization takes time and resources; Erdogan's embezzling tendencies is not speeding up the process.

I am curious about one thing. Despite all his faults; Erdoğan managed to keep a considerable portion of public at his side. What is the forum's opinion about why this is happening?

[loke]

This CV conveniently excludes his involvement with Zaman and Today's Zaman newspapers. Also his time with Sabah is barely mentioned. His nationality is not turkish anymore but swedish. His attempts to get Banu Avar, a journalist making news on Sweden's extensive support to PKK, fired from her job and get her imprisoned have not been forgotten. Before relations between Erdogan and Gulen went sour, he was an avid supporter of rookie sultan. He is not a reliable source of truth but a propaganda outlet.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... ldnt-23629

Could the russians be hostile becouse US backed off from this deal? In europe their aggresiveness do not extend beyond the border mentioned above. And they resort to violence only in SSSR space after US puppets severely outstepped their bounds in their areas. NATO is the offender here and russians remained well within their rights according to international law and the agreement above. Considering what NATO and US proxies have done since 1990's in SSSR boundaries, russians acted with extreme restraint and caution.

Regarding the enlargement of NATO:

Second, the authors assert that the end of the Cold War obviated the traditional rationale for NATO: to keep America in, Germany down, and Russia out. While one can argue about the first and last reasons, the middle one was still salient – even essential – after the Berlin Wall fell because of fears over reunification between East and West Germany. Many European policymakers at the time still had living memories of World War II and some, including Margaret Thatcher, harbored deep concerns over Germany’s future role in Europe. Simply put, Germany was not considered “a stable and trustworthy democracy” as the authors assert. West Germany might’ve been those things in some people’s eyes, but there still were serious doubts – both in NATO and the former Warsaw Pact – about what direction a powerful, unified Germany was going to take. That reunification occurred within the constraining structure of NATO was an important ameliorating factor. Neither Moscow nor London was looking at an unfettered Germany, but one still embedded in the European Union and NATO, constrained politically by Brussels and militarily by Washington. This is an important point about NATO’s post-Cold War role that is now all but forgotten.

Third, the authors state that after 1991, “NATO reached out to the former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, initially offering them a kind of associate membership (the Partnership for Peace) and then permanent membership.” This is backwards causality. NATO didn’t “reach out” to these countries. Rather, those countries came knocking on the alliance’s door. Partnership for Peace wasn’t an associate membership. It was an ad hoc policy stalling tactic (that included formal participation by Russia, at least initially). Essentially, most of the former Warsaw Pact wanted treaty-guaranteed protection from their former overlord and occupier. Not knowing whether Washington wanted to do this, whether it was politically feasible, or even a good idea, Partnership for Peace was proffered as a “halfway house,” while the various extant alliance members sorted out their strategic and policy options. Sen. Richard Lugar once quipped that “PfP” – the acronym for the program – really stood for “Policy for Postponement.”

Simply put, drawing lines enhances stability. What’s something no one talks about anymore? The Polish question. Yet for over a century and a half Poland’s status and loyalties were at the heart of multiple dangerous and costly wars. NATO membership settled that. Likewise, while there are legitimate questions about the defensibility of the Baltic states, from a strategic standpoint, knowing that NATO is committed to their defense enhances stability between them and Russia. The Baltic-Russian relationship isn’t perfect, but it is nowhere near as fraught as that between Russia and Ukraine. Some of this is due to the far better levels of governance and economic performance in the Baltic states than in Ukraine. But the fact that the security situation is settled and plain for all to see also encourages normalcy and makes clear the strategic consequences if Russia wants to be aggressive. Take away NATO membership, and the situation in the Baltic states is far more destabilizing and (as in the current case of Ukraine) retains greater potential for an unintended escalation of tensions between Russia and the West. NATO membership for the Baltic states enhances European security and is a direct element of stability in relations between Washington and Moscow, full stop. That is the definition of a contribution to our security.

While some argue that Baltic NATO membership engenders a sense of encirclement on Russia’s part (thereby working against stability), it’s in the nature of alliances that those “inside the line” may feel safe only at the cost of heightened anxiety on the part of those “outside the line.” That Russia is anxious about Baltic membership can’t be avoided to some extent, but it also doesn’t mean the danger is real.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/nato- ... ngs-right/

Critics of U.S. foreign policy, particularly those who hail from the “realist” school of international relations, consider NATO expansion a fateful, even tragic error. NATO had lost its purpose after the Cold War ended, they claim; it should have been disbanded or, at best, frozen in amber. But instead, it marched steadily eastward, snapping up former Warsaw Pact members and eventually former Soviet republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This aggressive policy ultimately exhausted Russian patience, triggering Moscow’s wars against Georgia and Ukraine and driving the renewed confrontation between the Kremlin and the West. In 2014, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer put NATO expansion front and center in arguing that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was actually the West’s fault.

Yet the Mearsheimer of 2014 would have done well to acquaint himself with the Mearsheimer of 1990. That year, he wrote a widely read essay predicting that post-Cold War Europe would become an anarchic hellscape. Russia and Germany would compete viciously for influence. Countries would race to arm themselves; nuclear proliferation would run rampant. The Cold War had been a sort of vacation from history, Mearsheimer suggested. With that conflict over, the continent would be thrust back into its violent past.

This didn’t happen, of course. Even accounting for the Balkan civil wars of the 1990s and Russian aggression more recently, Europe made remarkable strides toward democracy and stability, and there was zero nuclear proliferation. Europe moved forward, not backward, and NATO expansion was a critical reason why. For one thing, NATO expansion kept America in Europe. When the Cold War ended, many observers predicted that the U.S. would withdraw, as it had done after World War I. Yet expanding NATO gave the alliance — and America’s role in it — new purpose. The U.S. did not again retreat across the ocean, leaving turmoil and seething rivalry in its wake. It recommitted to playing its stabilizing role not just in Western Europe but across the continent.

Second, NATO expansion kept the German problem solved. A great fear of the early 1990s was that a reunified and independent Germany, no longer hemmed in by NATO on one side and the Warsaw Pact on the other, would return to its predatory ways. Instead, the U.S. ensured that it remained closely tethered to NATO, surrounded by allied states, and thoroughly pacified. To hear U.S. officials complain today that Germany has become too demilitarized, that it does not behave assertively enough, is to understand just how completely this mission succeeded.

Third, NATO expansion kept the demons at bay in Eastern Europe. It was not foolish to fear trouble there in the early 1990s. Ethnic tensions were on the rise; many former Soviet allies harbored revisionist territorial claims. There was no shortage of underemployed scientists who might have helped Poland or other vulnerable states build the bomb.
But NATO wrapped its security blanket around the former Warsaw Pact nations, committing them to accepting their existing frontiers, giving them the protection that allowed them to forego nuclear weapons, and creating the climate of reassurance in which democratic and economic reforms could occur. A reinvigorated NATO even provided stability beyond its own boundaries, intervening to stop ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia.

Finally, NATO expansion was a crucial hedge against the failure of Russian reform and integration. U.S. officials wanted to foster a democratic Russia that would join the West and remain at peace with its neighbors. This is why they bent over backward throughout the 1990s to give President Boris Yeltsin the benefit of the doubt.Yet Washington also had to reckon with the dangers that might reemerge if liberalization failed and a more aggressive Russia reemerged. This is precisely what eventually happened — but in the intervening years, NATO expansion had moved the dividing line between Moscow and the West much farther to the east, and given many of Russia’s neighbors the security guarantees that still help them keep the Kremlin at bay. Putin’s Russia has invaded and mutilated two countries — Ukraine and Georgia — that are not NATO members. It has coerced and intimidated, but not invaded, any country that belongs to the alliance.

As for the critique that it was NATO expansion that provoked Russian revisionism, this argument has always been flimsy. Yes, the expansion angered Russian officials, during Yeltsin’s time as well as Putin’s. It was undoubtedly humiliating for the fallen superpower. But the idea that NATO expansion caused Russian aggression rests on an implicit counterfactual argument that, absent NATO expansion, Russia would not have behaved in a domineering fashion toward countries on its border. There is simply nothing in Russian history — and nothing in Vladimir Putin’s personality — that supports this argument.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... in-invaded

So to summarize: The Eastern European countries "came knocking on the door" of NATO, not the other way around. The enlargement was frustrating to Russia but led to stability and peace in most of Europe. A frustrated Russia is a small prize to pay for such a highly beneficial outcome. In hindsight, NATO enlargement was the right thing to do.

[milosh]

@loke

Georgia wasn't invaded, Russian troops were there as part of peace treaty which saved Tbilisi during 1990s war. It look Bloomberg forgot to mentioned that.

Also it is funny how Bloomberg is okey with breaking deals with Russia which is only country in world which can destroy USA while Bloomberg is pissing on Trump when he break deals with countries which can't do nothing to USA.

[madrat]

It's not an invasion if 50 division drive peacefully over the one division Georgia could field.

[XanderCrews]

@loke

Georgia wasn't invaded, Russian troops were there as part of peace treaty which saved Tbilisi during 1990s war. It look Bloomberg forgot to mentioned that.

Also it is funny how Bloomberg is okey with breaking deals with Russia which is only country in world which can destroy USA while Bloomberg is pissing on Trump when he break deals with countries which can't do nothing to USA.

So the US could send tens of thousands of troops into Havana Cuba by force, but its no invasion since we occupy Guantanamo Bay as a part of previous treaties?

This is exciting news

I guess I can forget all the reports I read about the Russian invasion that pointed to a very lethal and potent force that was leveling up in terms of competence. There was no tactical lessons there afterall I guess.