
tincansailor wrote:Kill the F-35 sale to Turkey before the situation gets more out of control. This will damage NATO, and other allied countries national security on so many levels. Losing 116 F-35 sales is of no consequence, ... <snipped>
I largely agree. The many equivocating and condemnatory comments plus propaganda coming directly from the mouth(s) of the leadership of Turkey over the past 3-years (since the immediate aftermath of Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, actually, Jan 2015) renders the following two claims absurd.
1- Turkey is still a strong NATO ally,
2- Nothing has changed in her foundations.
"Nothing has changed in her foundations"?
Not even a national constitution, imprisonment of a lawful democratic opposition, and bridling of free speech, and a free press, ... etc. ... etc.?
This can not be taken seriously as a reply, nor a serious basis for arguing for status-quo to remain in place. There have been dozens of statements made by Turkey's leadership that seriously calls those claims into doubt. (the further assertion that "hate" is at the heart of this, also can not be taken seriously).
Turkey's allegiance to NATO state defence could not be more unclear. It's already become too high a risk to permit tech/info/software/data transfers to proceed further. Without profound changes in the leadership cohort, and its attitudes, and a formal recant of its positions on several topics, it's hard to foresee a future where it would be acceptable.
The stakes are too high, and this is a matter of Turkey's own generation, excessive reaction-ism and avid domestic public and international exacerbation.
Bottom-line is, this is a risk that does not have to be taken. The F-35 is not actually essential to Turkey's defence nor to deterrance of aggression against Turkey, within the NATO alliance. Turkey can be effectively defended via its own airforce, plus the armed support of its NATO allies (i.e. just like a dozen other NATO states, sans F-35s in their respective airforces).
Not delivering F-35s to Turkey may be the diplomatic shunt it needs to actually reform and rationalise the nonsense that's been going on there thus ending up with a reformed and reliable ally, much sooner.
If not so be it ... we'll just adjust .. and already are.
Turkey's clearly hedging internationally, on many levels, and that's a warning signal. And the alliance(s) should be hedging accordingly, as that's the proper and valid response, and should not be inhibited from operating from here.
Let Turkey take on the resulting risks and feel the costs of dodgy comments, claims, actions and attitudes ... not the rest of us.
"You can go your own way" - Fleetwood Mac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ul-cZyuYq4
Maybe they'll snap out of it in a decade ... maybe not ... if not it's far better to safeguard, where the risk is real, but non-essential to take, let alone necessary to accept.
They'll have to re 'prove' themselves, first, and we have to fundamentally review what's gained via continuing and why that's being done, besides inertia, if the risk:reward ratio is not worth the downside, if solidified. They need the Alliance(s) much more than it needs them. And if they access they don't need it, and it also doesn't need them, at least not in formal alliance, maybe ad-hoc coalitions (precisely as per Saudi levels of ad-hoc coalitions and transient combat integration, rather than a specific formal alliance membership), then why continue with the arrangement as it is expressed today?
Of course that has to be a rational decision based around the balance of projected battle, deterrence and diplomatic leverage and outcomes within the various forms of regional conflict, if a transient or rolling change is to be made to the status.
What we have now in my honest (mere) opinion, is not that rational and isn't transparent, seems adrift in the inertia of (a now changed) old past arrangements.
Do you just pull the band-aid off fast or draw it out slowly - as at present? And will drawing it out slowly produce a reformed genuine 'ally', that you actually trust, and who's interests are best served via close and unwavering loyal alliances within NATO? Or will pulling the band-aid off fast, leaving them exposed, at risk, and at high cost, inducing many domestic defence and other issues for them do that better, and faster (if at all ... in either case)?
The questions for me are; is Turkey's having the F-35 worth the risk to the Alliance(s), their effectiveness and security and justifying continuing with status-quo?
If conditions change, do not and should not the plans change too?
At what point would it rationally be not worth the risk to continue with the enduring status-quo plans?
And Is it likewise rational to be considering a change, given the above and else since about Jan 2015?
If not, why? What conditions would trigger that change?
The fact it's being discussed so openly makes clear there's a serious problem here, contrary to the, "Nothing has changed in her foundations" type view.