Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government is the alliance’s loose cannon
The received wisdom is that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has breathed new life, and a new sense of purpose, urgency and unity into nato. Someone forgot to tell Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Over the past month the Turkish president has blocked nato enlargement, warned of a new offensive against American-backed Kurdish fighters in Syria and stoked tensions with Greece, also a member of the alliance. A few pundits, in the West but also in Turkey, are once again debating whether nato and Turkey should part ways. This time, they are not alone. “Leaving nato should be put on the agenda as an alternative,” Devlet Bahceli, leader of a nationalist party in Mr Erdogan’s coalition, recently said. “We did not exist because of nato and we will not perish without nato.”
Frustration is also mounting in Western capitals, and in Kyiv, over Turkey’s willingness to accommodate Russia. Many in those places had hoped that the war in Ukraine would force Mr Erdogan to reconsider his romance with Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president. Opportunism has prevailed instead. Turkey has sold armed drones to Ukraine and closed access to the Black Sea for Russian warships, but it opposes Western sanctions against Russia and openly courts Russian capital. According to a report in the Turkish media, dozens of Russian companies, including Gazprom, are planning to move their European headquarters to Turkey.
Aside from a few words of condemnation at the start of the war in Ukraine, Turkey has remained on good terms with Russia throughout. When Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, visited Ankara this month his Turkish counterpart kindly suggested that the West should ease sanctions against Russia if Russia relaxed its blockade of Ukrainian ports. When Mr Lavrov repeated his claim that Russia had invaded Ukraine to liberate it from neo-Nazis, his host said nothing.
Mr Erdogan’s move to block Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to nato has further damaged Turkey’s standing in the alliance. The strongman has signalled that he wants the Nordic countries to extradite several members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (pkk), an outlawed armed group, and to drop a partial arms embargo against his country. He may also be shopping for concessions from America in exchange for withdrawing his veto, or from Russia for doing the opposite. Mr Erdogan occasionally sounds hostile to nato enlargement as a matter of principle. In a recent guest column for The Economist, he went as far as to blame Finland and Sweden for adding an “unnecessary item” to nato’s agenda by asking to join the alliance.
Mr Erdogan may have reasoned that a couple of foreign crises were needed to distract Turkish voters from their fast-diminishing circumstances, as galloping inflation, officially measured at over 70%, devours their savings and wages. In late May he warned of a new military offensive against Kurdish forces in Syria. Forced to shelve such plans, presumably because of opposition from Russia or America or both, he has since lashed out against Greece, demanding that it demilitarise Greek islands hugging Turkey’s western coast. He has also suggested that American bases in Greece pose a threat to Turkey (which hosts American forces itself). This might be bluster, and blow over. But obstructing Finland’s and Sweden’s nato membership while war rages in Europe is bound to have consequences, even if Mr Erdogan backs down. Sweden had been one of the few countries keeping alive Turkey’s hopes of membership in the European Union. That support has now gone.
That may seem a price worth paying to Mr Erdogan if the row fires up his nationalist base. Mainstream Turkish politicians, as well as many humbler Turks, see the pkk purely as a security threat, and have long criticised the West for not taking their concerns about the group seriously. They have bristled especially at America’s decision to team up with the group’s Syrian wing to bring down Islamic State’s caliphate.
YES !
Depends on how NATO moves forwards from here on out.
If NATO starts to transform into a more European centric defense pact, then yes.
But if NATO becomes more of a political project that advance western interests, then no.
Turkey can be a pain in the ass for sure, but I think it’s necessary to have a country in the alliance that isn’t afraid to get their hands dirty and that is a buffer zone that protects us from all the savagery in the Middle East
Turkey? Probably not
But Erdogan and his regime? Absolutely
Reddit will ofc love to say yes to this.
I’m open to the discussion of Turkey parting ways if necessary, though preferable would be that Erdoğan is succeeded by a more worthy leader who actually wants to work toward global peace and unity… That said, OP talking about “occupied Kurdistan” really takes air out of the sails on this post for me. Shows either bias or historical ignorance, neither of which inspire me. Yes, I think it would be a horrible idea to carve out a chunk of Turkey and give it to the extremist groups that still to this day view suicide bombs civilian targets, including Kurdish ones, as acceptable tactics. All of the problems of carving Israel out of Palestine and none of the Israeli style friendship reward (itself questionable at the moment). Last thing we need is to make an enemy of Turkey by creating yet another country led by oppressive religious extremist terrorists who torture and kill dissenters. Two enemies for the price of one. For the record, this is not a commentary on the Kurdish people, who in their own right need help, just the groups that push for and would rule “Kurdistan.” Fighting for a just cause does not automatically make you noble, and we’ve seen and continue to see that these groups would just shift the suffering onto dissenters rather than alleviate it.
The question i asked many times Turkish redditors is why everyone is against Turkey. How possible is it that there is a giant conspiracy against their country and could it be possible that they are in the wrong?
No answer yet.
​
I understand their need to defend their country, but its not possible for everybody else to see black and they see white.
​
When you talk to them you feel that they live in the 19th century, the few that actually have a grasp on reality exhibit a different kind of reaction which is the “erdo is a cunt but my country is important so you have to change your lifestyle to accomodate mine” attitude.
​
So, i think yes Turkey is more trouble than help. Check the Russia situation, the only NATO country which hasnt sanctioned them is Turkey. Answer to that is “my economy will get fucked if we sanction”, as if the other economies will be ok…its always Turkey centered, nothing else matters.
Sweden is more trouble to NATO than it’s worth if they keep letting PKK do these in their own country:
Just change this sub’s name to “turkey news” . Hrrrr bad turkey bad bird hrrrrrr
No you should have asked this question 20 years ago when Erdogan was coming to power. After being content with him for so long its stupid to let Turkey go when his days are numbered.
> Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government is the alliance’s loose cannon
it will not exist within a year’s time. just today, the only member of the big four names who founded erdogan’s party back in 2002 who’s still in the party and has not joined the opposition (except for erdogan ofc) said “the king is naked”, referring to erdogan himself. this party will probably collapse before the election lol
13 comments
ARTICLE:
Is Turkey more trouble to NATO than it is worth?
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government is the alliance’s loose cannon
The received wisdom is that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has breathed new life, and a new sense of purpose, urgency and unity into nato. Someone forgot to tell Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Over the past month the Turkish president has blocked nato enlargement, warned of a new offensive against American-backed Kurdish fighters in Syria and stoked tensions with Greece, also a member of the alliance. A few pundits, in the West but also in Turkey, are once again debating whether nato and Turkey should part ways. This time, they are not alone. “Leaving nato should be put on the agenda as an alternative,” Devlet Bahceli, leader of a nationalist party in Mr Erdogan’s coalition, recently said. “We did not exist because of nato and we will not perish without nato.”
Frustration is also mounting in Western capitals, and in Kyiv, over Turkey’s willingness to accommodate Russia. Many in those places had hoped that the war in Ukraine would force Mr Erdogan to reconsider his romance with Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president. Opportunism has prevailed instead. Turkey has sold armed drones to Ukraine and closed access to the Black Sea for Russian warships, but it opposes Western sanctions against Russia and openly courts Russian capital. According to a report in the Turkish media, dozens of Russian companies, including Gazprom, are planning to move their European headquarters to Turkey.
Aside from a few words of condemnation at the start of the war in Ukraine, Turkey has remained on good terms with Russia throughout. When Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, visited Ankara this month his Turkish counterpart kindly suggested that the West should ease sanctions against Russia if Russia relaxed its blockade of Ukrainian ports. When Mr Lavrov repeated his claim that Russia had invaded Ukraine to liberate it from neo-Nazis, his host said nothing.
Mr Erdogan’s move to block Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to nato has further damaged Turkey’s standing in the alliance. The strongman has signalled that he wants the Nordic countries to extradite several members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (pkk), an outlawed armed group, and to drop a partial arms embargo against his country. He may also be shopping for concessions from America in exchange for withdrawing his veto, or from Russia for doing the opposite. Mr Erdogan occasionally sounds hostile to nato enlargement as a matter of principle. In a recent guest column for The Economist, he went as far as to blame Finland and Sweden for adding an “unnecessary item” to nato’s agenda by asking to join the alliance.
Mr Erdogan may have reasoned that a couple of foreign crises were needed to distract Turkish voters from their fast-diminishing circumstances, as galloping inflation, officially measured at over 70%, devours their savings and wages. In late May he warned of a new military offensive against Kurdish forces in Syria. Forced to shelve such plans, presumably because of opposition from Russia or America or both, he has since lashed out against Greece, demanding that it demilitarise Greek islands hugging Turkey’s western coast. He has also suggested that American bases in Greece pose a threat to Turkey (which hosts American forces itself). This might be bluster, and blow over. But obstructing Finland’s and Sweden’s nato membership while war rages in Europe is bound to have consequences, even if Mr Erdogan backs down. Sweden had been one of the few countries keeping alive Turkey’s hopes of membership in the European Union. That support has now gone.
That may seem a price worth paying to Mr Erdogan if the row fires up his nationalist base. Mainstream Turkish politicians, as well as many humbler Turks, see the pkk purely as a security threat, and have long criticised the West for not taking their concerns about the group seriously. They have bristled especially at America’s decision to team up with the group’s Syrian wing to bring down Islamic State’s caliphate.
YES !
Depends on how NATO moves forwards from here on out.
If NATO starts to transform into a more European centric defense pact, then yes.
But if NATO becomes more of a political project that advance western interests, then no.
Turkey can be a pain in the ass for sure, but I think it’s necessary to have a country in the alliance that isn’t afraid to get their hands dirty and that is a buffer zone that protects us from all the savagery in the Middle East
Turkey? Probably not
But Erdogan and his regime? Absolutely
Reddit will ofc love to say yes to this.
I’m open to the discussion of Turkey parting ways if necessary, though preferable would be that Erdoğan is succeeded by a more worthy leader who actually wants to work toward global peace and unity… That said, OP talking about “occupied Kurdistan” really takes air out of the sails on this post for me. Shows either bias or historical ignorance, neither of which inspire me. Yes, I think it would be a horrible idea to carve out a chunk of Turkey and give it to the extremist groups that still to this day view suicide bombs civilian targets, including Kurdish ones, as acceptable tactics. All of the problems of carving Israel out of Palestine and none of the Israeli style friendship reward (itself questionable at the moment). Last thing we need is to make an enemy of Turkey by creating yet another country led by oppressive religious extremist terrorists who torture and kill dissenters. Two enemies for the price of one. For the record, this is not a commentary on the Kurdish people, who in their own right need help, just the groups that push for and would rule “Kurdistan.” Fighting for a just cause does not automatically make you noble, and we’ve seen and continue to see that these groups would just shift the suffering onto dissenters rather than alleviate it.
The question i asked many times Turkish redditors is why everyone is against Turkey. How possible is it that there is a giant conspiracy against their country and could it be possible that they are in the wrong?
No answer yet.
​
I understand their need to defend their country, but its not possible for everybody else to see black and they see white.
​
When you talk to them you feel that they live in the 19th century, the few that actually have a grasp on reality exhibit a different kind of reaction which is the “erdo is a cunt but my country is important so you have to change your lifestyle to accomodate mine” attitude.
​
So, i think yes Turkey is more trouble than help. Check the Russia situation, the only NATO country which hasnt sanctioned them is Turkey. Answer to that is “my economy will get fucked if we sanction”, as if the other economies will be ok…its always Turkey centered, nothing else matters.
Sweden is more trouble to NATO than it’s worth if they keep letting PKK do these in their own country:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVZU_HLXwAA2YAY?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVZVCX-WQAMkOWL?format=jpg&name=medium
These are from today.
Recommend background reading:
Turkey persistently further from EU values and standards: European Parliament:
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/v7jxc3/turkey_persistently_further_from_eu_values_and/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Just change this sub’s name to “turkey news” . Hrrrr bad turkey bad bird hrrrrrr
No you should have asked this question 20 years ago when Erdogan was coming to power. After being content with him for so long its stupid to let Turkey go when his days are numbered.
> Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government is the alliance’s loose cannon
it will not exist within a year’s time. just today, the only member of the big four names who founded erdogan’s party back in 2002 who’s still in the party and has not joined the opposition (except for erdogan ofc) said “the king is naked”, referring to erdogan himself. this party will probably collapse before the election lol