Old NATO vs New NATO - Talking Turkey

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), May 3, 2017 at 14:17

In the aftermath of a World War Two Europe still feeling the heat of war after the Soviets turned their turrets from the Reichstag to the western counterparts of the defeat of the Nationalist Socialist dreams of empire, NATO was the only conclusion the West felt would counter the communistic styled totalitarian replacement of the world threat of imperial domination. Turkey, defeated again in its western styled replacement government and wondering how it would survive yet another go around between the east and the west, has been in a push-me pull-you tug of ideological wars for most of this observer's common memory and Erdoǧan's push for that country's own identification under his consolidated rule actually now makes more sense than the waffling insecurities from before; not that it makes Turkey more secure, but it will make it easier to set blame in failure.

Turkey under Erdoğan is no longer a NATO asset; its liability as a combatant along the Syrian border and into Kurdish influenced regions is more easily seen and the Russian influences versus western influences makes a NATO alliance less palatable for Erdoğan.

All of the principle facts place Turkey plainly in sight of Russia's ambitions in the region and the missing greater influences of the former presence of the United States makes any NATO presence ultimately inconsequential in the defense of the greater European community.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".