Emma Ashford: Hey, Matt! Happy new year to you. It’s our first column of the new year, and we’ve already got a lot to sink our teeth into: an attempted insurrection in Brazil, a change of military leadership in Russia’s war against Ukraine, and NATO member Turkey causing all kinds of problems for other member states.
Matt Kroenig: Let’s start with Turkey? Is President Recep Tayyip Erdogan going to ever let Finland and Sweden into NATO or what?
EA: Who knows? I suspect that he will relent at some point in the future—perhaps after the Turkish elections in June, or as part of his reelection campaign—and agree to ratify Finland and Sweden’s entry in exchange for Western concessions.
But Erdogan has been increasingly playing both sides in recent years, and it’s not impossible that he could refuse entirely. In addition to his troubled relationship with the United States, Erdogan is one of the few leaders who has managed to keep ties open with both Russia and Ukraine. The Turks are even arming Ukraine while doubling their trade with Russia. And they helped to orchestrate the grain export deal last year between the two sides.
It’s clear that Turkey plays an important role as a diplomatic middleman between Russia and the West. But it’s far less clear why Western leaders tolerate its veto over issues such as NATO membership, at least to me.
MK: Well, before I give my assessment, what do you mean by tolerating its veto? What would you recommend instead: Washington threatening that all options are on the table?
EA: Not everything requires military strikes, you know. But Washington doesn’t have to commit to defending Turkey as part of NATO or give it a bunch of diplomatic and economic concessions to overcome its veto while the government saber-rattles against other NATO allies (e.g., Greece) and invade their neighbors (e.g., Syria). NATO may not have an explicit mechanism for kicking out members, but if there was ever a good case for threatening to do so, it’s Turkey.
MK: Turkey has been a difficult ally in recent years, but Ankara still brings much to the alliance. And I think tolerating its veto is one of the beautiful things about the U.S.-led order. Washington gives smaller allies a full voice in the operation of the alliance. Can you imagine the Soviet Union asking Romania for permission before taking action in the Warsaw Pact?
The best Turkey experts I’ve talked to think that we will get to yes after the election. The Turks have a legitimate complaint. Turkey has accused Nordic countries of sheltering groups that Ankara sees as terrorists. Washington would not appreciate it if NATO allies were providing cover for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This issue also helps Erdogan politically in Turkey. There are elections coming up in June, so he will play this for all that it is worth until then. Moreover, Sweden has made some real concessions, including lifting an arms embargo on Turkey, promising to combat terrorism, and distancing itself from Kurdish armed groups. So, my sources say he is likely to quietly approve Sweden’s and Finland’s entry into NATO sometime this summer.
EA: What does Turkey bring to the alliance? Geography seems to me to be the most logical thing—particularly given the country’s strategically important location on the Dardanelles—but I’m not sure that’s sufficient. It was helpful that Turkey invoked the Montreux Convention last year, constraining Russia’s ability to use naval power in Ukraine, but it’s also repeatedly resisted allowing the U.S. military to use Turkish territory or airspace over the last few decades. I’d go as far as to say that Turkey’s geography only benefits NATO when Turkey wants it to.
MK: You can’t take the geo out of geopolitics. Turkey shores up the southern flank of NATO and controls access to the Black Sea.
Moreover, Turkey has one of the largest and most capable militaries in NATO. It hosts U.S. bases and radars. Washington and Ankara mostly share threat assessments related to Russia, Iran, and terrorism. And it has been a good ally in the not-too-distant past.
EA: And while Turkey has a real problem with terrorism, it’s also true that some of the people that Erdogan wants to have extradited are journalists, and the evidence that others committed crimes is murky. It’s a reminder that Turkey is not just authoritarian but also actively engaged in human rights abuses against Kurdish groups both domestically and in neighboring states. I think you’re probably right that Erdogan will eventually approve this, but I increasingly wonder if it’s worth keeping Turkey inside the tent when the country adds such limited value. You have to balance the geostrategic benefits the country brings to the alliance against the fact that Turkey picks and chooses when it wants to be aligned with NATO.
MK: As I argue above, I think it does bring value to the alliance. I do worry about the decline in democracy under Erdogan, but I am not sure that will last—I am told there is a decent chance he could lose the election in June and step down.Skip to main content
Although we have some advantages, we usually do not take the steps of a NATO member. In other words, sweden against joining nato (there is actually a lot of example like this) may be in the middle because of this.
Does a country do what’s best for NATO as a whole or what’s best for itself… you have that answer to that question you have the answer to this.
It was a crucial and good ally until 10 years ago. Now it’s corrosive.
It is necessary to ask the following question, when was the last time Turkey got anything from Nato? Patriots were deployed in Turkey for air strikes from Syria. Only the Patriots of Spain remained. Others were recaptured after Turkey shot down the Russian jet. During the Gulf War, Germany and France did not approve the defense pact against a potential attack from Iraq.
In 2016, Turkey organized an anti-ISIS ground operation, Russia did not allow Turkish jets to enter Syrian airspace, and coalition planes gave very little air support in a 30-day period. Planes were also taking off from Turkey. If you have an example, please share. It does not get much desired support about Pkk.
We can also talk about what Turkey gave to NATO. It was in Afghanistan, it was in the Bosnia, it was in the Kosovo operation.He joined whatever Nato operation there was. It immediately implemented all Nato resolutions, except for the membership of Sweden and Finland. It supported the membership of Ukraine and Georgia to Nato. Participated in the Baltic airspace protection mission. It joined the maritime patrol against the Pirates in the Gulf of Aden.
Jupiter missiles were deployed to Turkey in Cold war. Except Italy and Turkey, none of the NATO members wanted to take nuclear weapons. They avoided this risk.
I am ending this comment that will get tens of downvotes with a word of İsmet İnönü.” If you don’t give something to those who are with you, why should they be with you?”
Turkey as a country is an asset, unfortunately just like the UK and USA they elected shitty governments which are corrosive to not only NATO but all of humanity.
Ultranationalist oppressive regimes lead by unhinged autocrats don’t belong in NATO. Hopefully things turn around for Turkey after their election this year…
Both, literally.
It is corrosif in its policies and actions (veto on membership and tensions with the EU. However geographically it is vital to NATO’s military strategy as they countrol access to the Black Sea from the rest of the world. It was vital in preventing non-black sea naval renforcement from Russia.
It is crucial but at a few times also an obstacle, but contrary to all the hatred it receives it is a country that seems wonderful, hope it can solve the situation and disputes it has with some of its neighbours (mainly Greece, Armenia, Syria) and the Kurds.
Both
Yes.
Erdogan is temporary.
Crucially corrosive!
The Latvian defence minister Artis Pabriks described Turkeys role in NATO — a defence pact mainly intended to protect its member states from the Soviets/Russia — pretty well at the [Riga Conference 2020](https://youtu.be/1fen-nX8Oh8?t=11440).
>We can speak here about Turkey and maybe I will not be extremely popular but I would say if we are speaking to traditional challenges. For instances what is happening now in a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in a context with Libya and with Syria then I would like to challenge or put a hypothesis here that no matter what different political forces and countries think about Turkey or some other issues around Turkey.
>
>The Turkish position in all three places was the one where they could challenge the growing Russian dominance. Nobody else could do this — neither the Europeans nor the Americans. Turkey could do this. Maybe there is also something that we can learn from this attitude.
Countries that used to live under the boots of the Russia cannot afford the hubris that some Western NATO (would be) members have. They couldn’t care less about some Kurdish ethnonationalists or some Aegean islands. They appreciate Turkey in NATO, its stands against Russia in multiple conflict zones and its ever growing military industrial complex.
The West really needs to grow out of this ridiculous mindset of “What’s good for the West is good for everyone. So if others don’t bend to our will, they must be wrong”. Do you guys think that Turkey will stop looking out for its own interests after Erdogan is gone? Swedens support for the PKK is a point of contention throughout Turkeys mainstream political establishment.
>Grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but world’s problems are not Europe’s problem.
~ Subrahmanyam Jaishankar – minister of external affairs of India
NATO is a military organization, at the end of the day we are the ones who will protect you in a possible Russian attack from east and as NATO member we decide who to protect and who not (by preventing them from joining NATO or not) so like it or not but we are crucial ally for NATO
are not you never ask this “are nato members corrosive turkiye allies” than we can talk
Yes.
Crucially corrosive
They’re corrosive. They could be crucial, but they’re not, they haven’t been and they don’t seem to be changing their minds any time soon. More trouble than they’re worth, in terms of what they bring to the table whilst at the same time being a huge risk and obstacle.
It’s a corrosive ally, yet crucial for the alliance due to most European members lacking proper and substantial military power.
21 comments
Both
Emma Ashford: Hey, Matt! Happy new year to you. It’s our first column of the new year, and we’ve already got a lot to sink our teeth into: an attempted insurrection in Brazil, a change of military leadership in Russia’s war against Ukraine, and NATO member Turkey causing all kinds of problems for other member states.
Matt Kroenig: Let’s start with Turkey? Is President Recep Tayyip Erdogan going to ever let Finland and Sweden into NATO or what?
EA: Who knows? I suspect that he will relent at some point in the future—perhaps after the Turkish elections in June, or as part of his reelection campaign—and agree to ratify Finland and Sweden’s entry in exchange for Western concessions.
But Erdogan has been increasingly playing both sides in recent years, and it’s not impossible that he could refuse entirely. In addition to his troubled relationship with the United States, Erdogan is one of the few leaders who has managed to keep ties open with both Russia and Ukraine. The Turks are even arming Ukraine while doubling their trade with Russia. And they helped to orchestrate the grain export deal last year between the two sides.
It’s clear that Turkey plays an important role as a diplomatic middleman between Russia and the West. But it’s far less clear why Western leaders tolerate its veto over issues such as NATO membership, at least to me.
MK: Well, before I give my assessment, what do you mean by tolerating its veto? What would you recommend instead: Washington threatening that all options are on the table?
EA: Not everything requires military strikes, you know. But Washington doesn’t have to commit to defending Turkey as part of NATO or give it a bunch of diplomatic and economic concessions to overcome its veto while the government saber-rattles against other NATO allies (e.g., Greece) and invade their neighbors (e.g., Syria). NATO may not have an explicit mechanism for kicking out members, but if there was ever a good case for threatening to do so, it’s Turkey.
MK: Turkey has been a difficult ally in recent years, but Ankara still brings much to the alliance. And I think tolerating its veto is one of the beautiful things about the U.S.-led order. Washington gives smaller allies a full voice in the operation of the alliance. Can you imagine the Soviet Union asking Romania for permission before taking action in the Warsaw Pact?
The best Turkey experts I’ve talked to think that we will get to yes after the election. The Turks have a legitimate complaint. Turkey has accused Nordic countries of sheltering groups that Ankara sees as terrorists. Washington would not appreciate it if NATO allies were providing cover for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. This issue also helps Erdogan politically in Turkey. There are elections coming up in June, so he will play this for all that it is worth until then. Moreover, Sweden has made some real concessions, including lifting an arms embargo on Turkey, promising to combat terrorism, and distancing itself from Kurdish armed groups. So, my sources say he is likely to quietly approve Sweden’s and Finland’s entry into NATO sometime this summer.
EA: What does Turkey bring to the alliance? Geography seems to me to be the most logical thing—particularly given the country’s strategically important location on the Dardanelles—but I’m not sure that’s sufficient. It was helpful that Turkey invoked the Montreux Convention last year, constraining Russia’s ability to use naval power in Ukraine, but it’s also repeatedly resisted allowing the U.S. military to use Turkish territory or airspace over the last few decades. I’d go as far as to say that Turkey’s geography only benefits NATO when Turkey wants it to.
MK: You can’t take the geo out of geopolitics. Turkey shores up the southern flank of NATO and controls access to the Black Sea.
Moreover, Turkey has one of the largest and most capable militaries in NATO. It hosts U.S. bases and radars. Washington and Ankara mostly share threat assessments related to Russia, Iran, and terrorism. And it has been a good ally in the not-too-distant past.
EA: And while Turkey has a real problem with terrorism, it’s also true that some of the people that Erdogan wants to have extradited are journalists, and the evidence that others committed crimes is murky. It’s a reminder that Turkey is not just authoritarian but also actively engaged in human rights abuses against Kurdish groups both domestically and in neighboring states. I think you’re probably right that Erdogan will eventually approve this, but I increasingly wonder if it’s worth keeping Turkey inside the tent when the country adds such limited value. You have to balance the geostrategic benefits the country brings to the alliance against the fact that Turkey picks and chooses when it wants to be aligned with NATO.
MK: As I argue above, I think it does bring value to the alliance. I do worry about the decline in democracy under Erdogan, but I am not sure that will last—I am told there is a decent chance he could lose the election in June and step down.Skip to main content
Although we have some advantages, we usually do not take the steps of a NATO member. In other words, sweden against joining nato (there is actually a lot of example like this) may be in the middle because of this.
Does a country do what’s best for NATO as a whole or what’s best for itself… you have that answer to that question you have the answer to this.
It was a crucial and good ally until 10 years ago. Now it’s corrosive.
It is necessary to ask the following question, when was the last time Turkey got anything from Nato? Patriots were deployed in Turkey for air strikes from Syria. Only the Patriots of Spain remained. Others were recaptured after Turkey shot down the Russian jet. During the Gulf War, Germany and France did not approve the defense pact against a potential attack from Iraq.
In 2016, Turkey organized an anti-ISIS ground operation, Russia did not allow Turkish jets to enter Syrian airspace, and coalition planes gave very little air support in a 30-day period. Planes were also taking off from Turkey. If you have an example, please share. It does not get much desired support about Pkk.
We can also talk about what Turkey gave to NATO. It was in Afghanistan, it was in the Bosnia, it was in the Kosovo operation.He joined whatever Nato operation there was. It immediately implemented all Nato resolutions, except for the membership of Sweden and Finland. It supported the membership of Ukraine and Georgia to Nato. Participated in the Baltic airspace protection mission. It joined the maritime patrol against the Pirates in the Gulf of Aden.
Jupiter missiles were deployed to Turkey in Cold war. Except Italy and Turkey, none of the NATO members wanted to take nuclear weapons. They avoided this risk.
I am ending this comment that will get tens of downvotes with a word of İsmet İnönü.” If you don’t give something to those who are with you, why should they be with you?”
Turkey as a country is an asset, unfortunately just like the UK and USA they elected shitty governments which are corrosive to not only NATO but all of humanity.
Ultranationalist oppressive regimes lead by unhinged autocrats don’t belong in NATO. Hopefully things turn around for Turkey after their election this year…
Both, literally.
It is corrosif in its policies and actions (veto on membership and tensions with the EU. However geographically it is vital to NATO’s military strategy as they countrol access to the Black Sea from the rest of the world. It was vital in preventing non-black sea naval renforcement from Russia.
It is crucial but at a few times also an obstacle, but contrary to all the hatred it receives it is a country that seems wonderful, hope it can solve the situation and disputes it has with some of its neighbours (mainly Greece, Armenia, Syria) and the Kurds.
Both
Yes.
Erdogan is temporary.
Crucially corrosive!
The Latvian defence minister Artis Pabriks described Turkeys role in NATO — a defence pact mainly intended to protect its member states from the Soviets/Russia — pretty well at the [Riga Conference 2020](https://youtu.be/1fen-nX8Oh8?t=11440).
>We can speak here about Turkey and maybe I will not be extremely popular but I would say if we are speaking to traditional challenges. For instances what is happening now in a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in a context with Libya and with Syria then I would like to challenge or put a hypothesis here that no matter what different political forces and countries think about Turkey or some other issues around Turkey.
>
>The Turkish position in all three places was the one where they could challenge the growing Russian dominance. Nobody else could do this — neither the Europeans nor the Americans. Turkey could do this. Maybe there is also something that we can learn from this attitude.
Countries that used to live under the boots of the Russia cannot afford the hubris that some Western NATO (would be) members have. They couldn’t care less about some Kurdish ethnonationalists or some Aegean islands. They appreciate Turkey in NATO, its stands against Russia in multiple conflict zones and its ever growing military industrial complex.
The West really needs to grow out of this ridiculous mindset of “What’s good for the West is good for everyone. So if others don’t bend to our will, they must be wrong”. Do you guys think that Turkey will stop looking out for its own interests after Erdogan is gone? Swedens support for the PKK is a point of contention throughout Turkeys mainstream political establishment.
>Grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but world’s problems are not Europe’s problem.
~ Subrahmanyam Jaishankar – minister of external affairs of India
NATO is a military organization, at the end of the day we are the ones who will protect you in a possible Russian attack from east and as NATO member we decide who to protect and who not (by preventing them from joining NATO or not) so like it or not but we are crucial ally for NATO
are not you never ask this “are nato members corrosive turkiye allies” than we can talk
Yes.
Crucially corrosive
They’re corrosive. They could be crucial, but they’re not, they haven’t been and they don’t seem to be changing their minds any time soon. More trouble than they’re worth, in terms of what they bring to the table whilst at the same time being a huge risk and obstacle.
It’s a corrosive ally, yet crucial for the alliance due to most European members lacking proper and substantial military power.