Turkey, US, NATO agree on defense shield

Turkey, US, NATO agree on defense shield

www.jpost.com

ISTANBUL - Turkey announced on Friday it would host a NATO early warning radar system, which the United States said would go online this year to help spot missile threats coming from outside Europe, including, potentially, from Iran.

Turkey, with NATO's second biggest military, has a geo-strategic importance to the alliance dating back to its role as a front-line state in the Cold War era.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.upi.com
online.wsj.com

So today Turkey expels the Israeli diplomat, and agrees to be part of the defense shield. Very interesting moves here, I wonder what role Turkey will play in the shortly coming Syrian intervention? Will they continue to lay back as they have over the last 6 years, or begin to take a more aggressive approach?

www.jpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Skerrako


We'll have to wait and see.

But from all the different articles I've read on the situation, Turkey is quickly tiring of Syria's shenanigans.

What is the defence sheild sheilding them from. It is a long way from home and Russia is not silly enough to throw a nuke your way. It is pointless and a waste of tax payers money in my opinion.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by Skerrako

 

We'll have to wait and see.

But from all the different articles I've read on the situation, Turkey is quickly tiring of Syria's shenanigans.

Turkey certainly does seem to be finding it's place in the region after years of being a backstage player. I think you're right that Syria will be the first place we likely see Turkey flex it's muscles. The talk makes it sound like it may come fairly soon, too.

reply to post by michael1983l


Have you looked at a map? Turkey is in a key Missile Defense location for the Western Society's from Pakistan and Iran's retaliation for the upcoming UN invasion.

reply to post by NewsWorthy


Yes but the US is not and they are driving it. Because of this you have to question their motives. The US looks after number one and has a relationship with anybody else if it is benaficial to them. The US doesn't care about Europe.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by Skerrako

 

We'll have to wait and see.

But from all the different articles I've read on the situation, Turkey is quickly tiring of Syria's shenanigans.

Turkey certainly does seem to be finding it's place in the region after years of being a backstage player. I think you're right that Syria will be the first place we likely see Turkey flex it's muscles. The talk makes it sound like it may come fairly soon, too.

But how would a massive war with its neighbor be good for Turkey? They have been largely non-interventialist with the large exception of the PKK kurds in Southern Turkey northern Iraq.

Unless they have truly made a back room deal with NATO to take their share of the syrian resources, I dont see why they would 'flex' any military muscle.

reply to post by Skerrako


Turkeys forces are mostly conscript, they would have nothing to gain by attacking Syria. Syria will be done by Israel nobody else as will Iran.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by NewsWorthy

 

Yes but the US is not and they are driving it. Because of this you have to question their motives. The US looks after number one and has a relationship with anybody else if it is benaficial to them. The US doesn't care about Europe.

Apart from the fact that they are members of NATO and station forces in Europe. The defensive shield is to protect US and allied forces.

TJ

Originally posted by tommyjo

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by NewsWorthy

 

Yes but the US is not and they are driving it. Because of this you have to question their motives. The US looks after number one and has a relationship with anybody else if it is benaficial to them. The US doesn't care about Europe.

Apart from the fact that they are members of NATO and station forces in Europe. The defensive shield is to protect US and allied forces.

TJ

If the US cared so much about europe they would have entered the last world war sooner. All nations are consumed by self interest, the USA is no different. NATO is just a treaty that hardly means anything these days. Nations pick and choose when they get involved whereas origianally it was agreed that when any nation is under attack we are all under attack.

Originally posted by Skerrako

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Darkrunner
reply to post by Skerrako

 

We'll have to wait and see.

But from all the different articles I've read on the situation, Turkey is quickly tiring of Syria's shenanigans.

Turkey certainly does seem to be finding it's place in the region after years of being a backstage player. I think you're right that Syria will be the first place we likely see Turkey flex it's muscles. The talk makes it sound like it may come fairly soon, too.

But how would a massive war with its neighbor be good for Turkey? They have been largely non-interventialist with the large exception of the PKK kurds in Southern Turkey northern Iraq.

Unless they have truly made a back room deal with NATO to take their share of the syrian resources, I dont see why they would 'flex' any military muscle.

From some of the things I've read, they are tired of the streams of Syrian refugees coming across the Syrian-Turkish border. Whether they choose to do anything about it, like I said, we'll have to wait and see.

reply to post by Skerrako


Turkey? I think they are playing a game in which they don't know the rules...rules that are made up as time goes on, by the way.

They are the next domino to fall in my opinion after Syria, and that they do know. And they are trying to negate the fallout.

I think that we may actually be seeing the beginning of change within the Islamic world mindset, but were that will take the rest of us, I have no clue. It could go either way.

Originally posted by Skerrako
But how would a massive war with its neighbor be good for Turkey? They have been largely non-interventialist with the large exception of the PKK kurds in Southern Turkey northern Iraq.

Unless they have truly made a back room deal with NATO to take their share of the syrian resources, I dont see why they would 'flex' any military muscle.

Fair question and if one assumes Turkey is operating in isolation, a war would be insanely self defeating for Turkey. They're still trying to buddy up to the EU powers, the last I checked, despite being kicked pretty hard in the teeth a few times regarding their Membership application for full E.U. standing.

I'm simply not looking at Turkey in isolation. We've been watching truly unrelated and competing agendas moving in that region for all our adult lives. Since January though, the pieces on that regional board have been moving so fast it's almost impossible to keep track of without a score card. I personally see a pattern, even if it isn't perfectly clear yet. Perhaps Turkey has had some whispered offers that beat what the EU is offering? Exxon sure got a sweet offer from Putin here real recently. So many moving pieces....and I'll bet most have relation to each other at some level.

reply to post by Skerrako


Over the next ten years I think we will see Turkey rise as the dominant player in the region. If NATO intervenes in Syria, Turkey will be leading the way as France did in Libya. From there they will only expand influence and power in the region. If the Persians, Israelis, and Arabs ruin each other in a major regional war, the Turks will be there to pick up the pieces, i.e., a 21st century Ottoman Empire.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Or Turkey may be used to take out all it's neighbors and then find themselves alone and next on the chopping block..

Picking sides is a dangerous game.

Originally posted by michael1983l

If the US cared so much about europe they would have entered the last world war sooner. All nations are consumed by self interest, the USA is no different. NATO is just a treaty that hardly means anything these days. Nations pick and choose when they get involved whereas origianally it was agreed that when any nation is under attack we are all under attack.

That is only your interpretation and is based on revisionism. The fact still remains that the US as part of NATO has forces stationed and is entitled to provide a missile defence system as part of that organisation. Of course the defence shield is not some magical 100% umbrella. It couldn't for example blunt the Russian strategic arsenal, but is designed as a defence against those who have, or will develop in the future, a lesser ballistic missile force capable of striking NATO nations.

TJ