NATO's purulent, poisonous wound in its south-eastern flank

[Jimbuna]

I could be wrong but I believe I read an article quite a few years ago explaining that Turkey was a useful NATO member because at the time they were the only member to have a substantial land border with Russia.

I'm not certain mind.

[Moonlight]

There's no land border with Russia now, but they have a sea border, Georgia and a few other countries were former republics of Russia and therefore the land border existed.
Since Georgia and the other countries gained independence there hasn't been a border between Russia and Turkey since the former Soviet republic broke up.

[Bilge_Rat]

what is the old saying? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Turkey is a handful, but it is easier to maintain some influence on its behavior if it is in NATO rather than out of it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

what is the old saying? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Turkey is a handful, but it is easier to maintain some influence on its behavior if it is in NATO rather than out of it.

Is it? The past years tell me the opposite.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

what is the old saying? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Turkey is a handful, but it is easier to maintain some influence on its behavior if it is in NATO rather than out of it.

That's pretty much the same thinking that got West Germany into NATO.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I could be wrong but I believe I read an article quite a few years ago explaining that Turkey was a useful NATO member because at the time they were the only member to have a substantial land border with Russia.

I'm not certain mind.

I do not argue abiout the relations in the cold war and in pre-Erdoghan, pre-AKP times. But these times are conditions are over. Dead. No more. And you have to calculate the advanatges against the costs. The final total reads out in bright red with a big minus before it. We have only problems with them since years and only react to their ongpoing aggressiosn nand provocations. Basic values and princicples obviously are not shared. The fundamentalists and nationalists who have destroyed the Kemalist constitutionial order obviously have put Turkey on completely different rails leading at a completely different direction.

More and more powers i the Middle East have subscriobed for more and more aggressive, expansionist polciies. Last but not least this is also owed to Trump's destruction of political stabilizers. The US is no more interested in the region, and who could criticise them. In the second half of this century all bigger countries in the region will become holders of nculear wepaons. Turkey. Saudi arabia. Egypt. Iran. If they can: Iraq. Maybe Algeria. And depending on what b ecome sof it: Libya.

Hooray. Religious fanatism meets racism meets open bills from centuries meets nationalism merets sweet water conflicts meets shortening ressoruces meets peacock'S narcisstic egos - meets nucleas arsenals. Dinner will be ashow to see.

I want back the cold war. It was safe, stable and predictable, in comparison.