This situation can end in one of two ways, as far as NATO is concerned: Either Turkey is paid a hefty bribe to shut up and sit down, or Turkey is rudely ejected from NATO. That wouldn't be the end of NATO, but it would demonstrate to every other peripheral NATO country - including "New Europe" and the wannabes in Central Asia - that NATO is prepared to jettison any peripheral country that doesn't narrowly comply with American foreign policy.
How much damage that would do to NATO's attractiveness is, of course, an open question, given that most of "New Europe" and the Central Asian wannabes practically have their lips glued to the US' ass. But we are unlikely to see the experiment decide the case, because I think Turkey will be paid its hush money.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
It's not the first time.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
aspiring to genteel poverty
Myself, I don't think so. I think that Turkey has turned a corner and is casting the die. They have sloughed off the insult from the US for the brokered Iran deal, and are upping the ante.
They must have figured that there were pretty high odds that Israel couldn't let the ships pass, and that there would be a provocation as a result. In reality, what choice did Israel have? This symbol was just too big.
Will they escort the next bunch of boats through? That is what they must do now. Backing down to America ain't gonna happen this time. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
If Turkey makes a serious move towards Suez, or towards further control of the shores of the Black Sea - the only realistic venues for expanding their sphere of influence - they'll come up against at least two major powers and at least one regional power. And even those powers not directly involved would be spooked by any new power that looked like it was expanding near Suez.
They have a lot of clever people, they have a long history of some very enlightened rulers, mixed with the typical lunacy of a degrading empire. Certainly there are a lot of lessons there. And now, with the chess board all mixed up, they find themselves not weak (well armed and trained, in fact), they are not in horrid debt, they are have a lot of technology, and the choices are few.
Let the anti-secularist movement progress, and become the next Egypt or figure out some balance that lets the religious feel that they are being accommodated for, while the commercial and political people take advantage of their market and resource proximity and comparatively low wages.
Moves like actually backing the flotilla and the clever Iranian nuke move with Brazil and Spain launches them into the expanded-regional good guy category in a low risk fashion, with great internal benefit. And the more the US and Israel rants the better off their position becomes.
Kicked out of NATO? They are so strategically placed that there is no answer to "Who's going to replace them?" Greece? Ukraine? Italy? Macedonia? From their view, what could happen? Hilary will take their billion dollar subsidy away? Trigger the fail-safe device on all the equipment the US gave them for the last decade? Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
It can't be overstated how important Egypt's role has been in regards to holding the region back from outright war over the past 30 years. With the strong liklihood of internal strife and a massive shake-up in Egypt somebody in the region needs to step into that role.
Turkey, it seems, is very well-suited, being strong, big, economically developed and secular in nature.
In regards to Turkey departing NATO, I think there is a strong movement against NATO in Europe and if one big player takes the step you may well see others rushing to join them in order to be the leader of a new alliance rather than be America's lapdog. This image of course immediately calls to mind Sarkozy, who could do a large bit in repairing France's credibility with Turkey by forming a post-NATO military alliance with them (thus pushing the EU question back a few more years whilst accelerating integration).
Sooner or later Russia is going to - have to? - be institutionally brought into Europe. How much, through what, and with what is beyond my pay grade. At which point the entire point of NATO gets problematical.
With Mubarek sure to die/become incapacitated within the next 2-5 years and no clear succession in Egypt, nevermind all of their internal problems, Egypt won't be the "old Egypt" anymore either.
Meh. None of the people likely to succeed Mubarak would change much.
It can't be overstated how important Egypt's role has been in regards to holding the region back from outright war over the past 30 years.
Uh, yes it can. You just did. Egypt would like everyone to believe that (thus justifying its continued receipt of some $2 billion per year in US bribes military and civilian aid), but it's just not true. Jordan has had a greater role in "regional stability" than Egypt, even before it signed its own peace deal with Israel. The only war Egypt has prevented is one involving Egypt. (Which Egypt would have lost, but don't tell them that, they think they won the last one.)
I will note as well that there was an outright war just four years ago, in Lebanon. I was there. Many Lebanese believe that Syria's chemical weapons were the main deterrent to the spread of that conflict. It certainly wasn't Egypt.
With the strong liklihood of internal strife and a massive shake-up in Egypt somebody in the region needs to step into that role.
There is no "strong likelihood of internal strife," and probably little chance of a "massive shake-up."
A political protest that draws 200 people in Cairo, a city of 20 million, is considered a smashing success. (If you get the Brotherhood involved, which only happens when specific issues are at stake, you might get 2000, big freaking deal.) The only thing that moves any significant number of people to action is personal economic interest, which is why you see yet another wave of labor actions going on now -- but even those are fairly limited in scope. If anything, most Egyptians strive to avoid contact with the state, never mind trying to change it.
Egypt jealously guards its alleged "regional leadership" role, and any successor to Mubarak would do the same, but honestly that role has long since eroded. "Regional leadership" (such as it is) has shifted to the Gulf. Turkey has had a growing role, but there will be no "next Egypt" because there was never really an "old Egypt" in the sense of "holding the region back from outright war." It's propaganda.
I'm not saying Turkey will get kicked-out of NATO but that they might leave.
Yes, I know.
Currently Turkey is a base to spy Russian communications. One can learn a lot from "idle" chatter over the air waves. This is still, as I understand, very important to the US.
And it's a potential base for US deployment and logistic support for military operations in the 'stans, Levant, and OPEC nations. The use of Turkish airspace is, I guess, especially important. (?)
The Turkish military is the second largest in NATO after the US. It is fully modern, trained, supported, NATO capable force not to be sneezed at.
The only modern weapon system the Turks lack, as far as I know, is nuclear weapons. It's possible they could "borrow" some from Pakistan or, perhaps, the PRC if push came to shove.
Last, if Turkey leaves NATO then the US loses a goodly dollop of control over Turkish foreign policy.
"Losing" Turkey would be a Big Deal.
IIRC, the standard doctrine is for the US to retain Command and Control until the nukes are released to the Theater Commanders Command but NEVER Control. The US & etc. keep their toys firmly in their mitts.
It is my understanding Turkey and Pakistan are BFF and we know Pakistan has nukes so I think it's safe to projection, with a high degree of certainty, if Turkey and Israel start slugging it out Pakistan won't stand by and let Israel blackmail 'em nuclear strategic wise.
H'mmmm.
Just about anyway I play it, Israel's nuclear forces will be countered through our good old friend MAD.
So this can boil down to a show-down between the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex and the Likud Lobby. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
I don't know what the arrangements are for allowing warships through the Bosphorus but I bet that turkey could make life difficult if they wanted. keep to the Fen Causeway
After the hostilities in Georgia in August 2008, Turkey prevented the US, its NATO ally, from sending large naval ships into the Black Sea. Ostensibly, the US wanted to use these ships to transport humanitarian aid to Georgia, even though it was more convenient, and quicker, to bring the aid in by air. In reality, the US wished to make a show of support for Georgia, in circumstances in which coming to the aid of Georgia militarily had been ruled out.
Ostensibly, the US wanted to use these ships to transport humanitarian aid to Georgia, even though it was more convenient, and quicker, to bring the aid in by air. In reality, the US wished to make a show of support for Georgia, in circumstances in which coming to the aid of Georgia militarily had been ruled out.
However, they impose very severe restrictions on the entry of warships belonging to non-Black Sea states and on how long they can remain in the Black Sea. Thus, under Article 18(1), a limit of 45,000 tons is imposed on the aggregate tonnage of warships belonging to non-Black Sea states that can be present in the Black Sea at any time. Out of that 45,000 ton limit, each individual non-Black Sea state is restricted to 30,000 tons.
By and large, NATO needs Turkey onside if something bad happened. keep to the Fen Causeway
