TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

Gessler said:

I've read about this back when it first appeared in media, but as far as I can gather, all the reports are just regurgitating from a single unnamed source based in Pakistan. There's been no evidence of aircraft/missile deployment. Aircraft are easy enough to spot with satellite imagery of airfields, but there's been some embargoes on imagery of US-allied airfields so there's scope for ambiguity. But a Chinese HQ-9 system going online in an airspace where the US had F-35s/F-22s (maybe even B-2s) flying around without luneberg lenses? I don't see how CENTCOM would've been okay with that.

Smallish ADS like Pantsir/FK-2000 with short-range radars are one thing (easy to map & avoid), but systems like HQ-9 or S-400 with theatre-level radar surveillance (hundreds of kms) create huge OPSEC problems. I'm not sure if that part is believable.

A hypothetical Turkish deployment of aircraft/missiles to KSA would integrate much more smoothly with the US defence networks already sitting there.

As of Pakistani troop deployment, that is certainly possible and likely to have been done. But the thing is, Pakistan has been deploying troops (around ~15,000 or more) to KSA since at least the 1970s. Troop levels have routinely surged during times of war/crises (like the earlier Gulf Wars) and subside afterwards (see link below). So linking troop deployment to the Sep 2025 agreement would be a mischaracterization.

The signal and substance of the new Saudi-Pakistan defense pact | Brookings

Countries across the region may rightly view the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact as a hedge against over-dependence on great powers, and may well seek to do the same.

www.brookings.edu

Not to mention, invoking a mutual defence agreement after a ceasefire had already been reached doesn't really make much sense...unless of course, Pakistan had made it clear to KSA beforehand that they will not be getting involved in active hostilities with Iran. So the ceasefire period was the only time it could be invoked.



If I was Saudi, I wouldn't invoke anything publicly until & unless I've privately received assurances as to what the response is going to be. Otherwise I'd risk looking like a fool (and making the other party look untrustworthy/unreliable). I wouldn't want that.

Click to expand...

I agree infantry has been deployed at various times during the last 50 years or so.
PAF aircraft is a possibility but without integration with US systems however PAF has developed their own Link-17 which can talk to the Erieye AEW&C available. The Chinese HQ-9 is a stretch only because the Saudi were interested in the Chinese system at one time.
Pakistan assets will always be used in a "defensive " mode. Land and air.

What has been defined so far is the following.

"While the agreement provides a framework for deeper military cooperation, including areas such as joint exercises, defense-industrial collaboration, technology transfer and intelligence sharing, its detailed operational mechanisms, specific military commitments and implementation provisions have not been publicly disclosed."

I doubt if they have been fully finalised.

Sanchez said:

Last few days were interesting.

"Mecca Agreement", is not a military pact at this stage. It's clearly a framework agreement with specifics to be covered in the future. But, this shouldn't make one think that it's something ordinary. It is monumental in its own right. There will be many naysayers from multiple parties of course, from atlantic, Israel, Russia, Iran, subcontinent, but making these three countries to put out an agreement and asking others to join in is very important.

I actually agree with the politicians that it is neither anti Iran nor anti Israel. In an ideal world both Israel and Iran would also join the pact in the next decade, this probably won't happen.

Turkey won't send aircraft to Pakistan to fight India when India is fighting "terrorists" next time, nor will it send commandos to Yemen. Pakistan won't deploy fighters to Aegean, Saudi won't cut its hefty relationship with India. But in time we will probably see more TR/SA support to Pakistan both financially and in ISR, Turkey will probably send assets to Red Sea, Saudi will probably invest more heavily in Syria, help curtail Iran in Iraq and support development road and not IMEC. I wouldn't call IMEC dead just yet, but its importance is lowered considerably starting from this week.

Click to expand...

Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi security analyst and researcher, agreed that neither country was likely to engage offensively in the short term, but drew a distinction between what the agreement “can deliver now versus what it aspires to become.”

“If proxy attacks on Saudi territory continue and escalate, I would expect Pakistan to deepen its air defense and advisory role inside the kingdom, and Turkey to accelerate defense-industrial transfers,” he said.

He added that the “pact changes the calculus for anyone considering continued strikes on Saudi infrastructure.”

Gessler said:

I've read about this back when it first appeared in media, but as far as I can gather, all the reports are just regurgitating from a single unnamed source based in Pakistan. There's been no evidence of aircraft/missile deployment. Aircraft are easy enough to spot with satellite imagery of airfields, but there's been some embargoes on imagery of US-allied airfields so there's scope for ambiguity. But a Chinese HQ-9 system going online in an airspace where the US had F-35s/F-22s (maybe even B-2s) flying around without luneberg lenses? I don't see how CENTCOM would've been okay with that.

Smallish ADS like Pantsir/FK-2000 with short-range radars are one thing (easy to map & avoid), but systems like HQ-9 or S-400 with theatre-level radar surveillance (hundreds of kms) create huge OPSEC problems. I'm not sure if that part is believable.

A hypothetical Turkish deployment of aircraft/missiles to KSA would integrate much more smoothly with the US defence networks already sitting there.

As of Pakistani troop deployment, that is certainly possible and likely to have been done. But the thing is, Pakistan has been deploying troops (around ~15,000 or more) to KSA since at least the 1970s. Troop levels have routinely surged during times of war/crises (like the earlier Gulf Wars) and subside afterwards (see link below). So linking troop deployment to the Sep 2025 agreement would be a mischaracterization.

The signal and substance of the new Saudi-Pakistan defense pact | Brookings

Countries across the region may rightly view the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact as a hedge against over-dependence on great powers, and may well seek to do the same.

www.brookings.edu

Not to mention, invoking a mutual defence agreement after a ceasefire had already been reached doesn't really make much sense...unless of course, Pakistan had made it clear to KSA beforehand that they will not be getting involved in active hostilities with Iran. So the ceasefire period was the only time it could be invoked.



If I was Saudi, I wouldn't invoke anything publicly until & unless I've privately received assurances as to what the response is going to be. Otherwise I'd risk looking like a fool (and making the other party look untrustworthy/unreliable). I wouldn't want that.

Click to expand...

Bogeyman said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2042246615751065868

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2042271851452228066

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2042286238929928434

Click to expand...

Two things,

First, the presence of PAF C-130s at Abdulaziz AFB is not in dispute. But they could be there for any reason (rapid transport of personnel, advisors, material etc.), sending unarmed transport planes into a potential warzone typically does not happen without escorts (fighters). C-130 can fly that distance unrefueled but fighters can't. so will need tankers to accompany them. Now whether those fighters stayed in KSA or flew back is not known. No imagery confirms presence of JF-17s at Abdulaziz. But like I said there are embargoes on updated imagery, besides it's also possible fighters were sent into shelters (either makeshift or hardened) to preserve them in case of attack, so there's certainly room for ambiguity. Cannot rule out presence of JF-17s in KSA.

Second, this wouldn't be the first time PAF deployed combat aircraft to KSA to perform air defence and/or other missions on behalf of the Saudis. So again, attributing these deployments as only having been possible due to the Sep 2025 agreement would be a mischaracterization.



I'm afraid the thread is going off-topic though.

Sanchez said:

and Turkey to accelerate defense-industrial transfers

Click to expand...

What does that means exactly ?

I_Love_F16 said:

What does that means exactly ?

Click to expand...

It means they want our weapon systems produced in SA with all the blueprints.
That is what this is mostly about.
Money for Pakistan and Turkiye in exchange pakistan provides man power and a nuclear umbrella while we provide the modern weaponsystems,set up their military industry and ''sell'' the blue prints.
The problem with all this is that any change in government in Türkiye and Pakistan could nullify this agreement.

TR_123456 said:

any change in government in Türkiye and Pakistan could nullify this agreement.

Click to expand...

Which is unlikely imo.

Afif said:

Which is unlikely imo.

Click to expand...

You can never know in both countries.

TR_123456 said:

It means they want our weapon systems produced in SA with all the blueprints.
That is what this is mostly about.
Money for Pakistan and Turkiye in exchange pakistan provides man power and a nuclear umbrella while we provide the modern weaponsystems,set up their military industry and ''sell'' the blue prints.
The problem with all this is that any change in government in Türkiye and Pakistan could nullify this agreement.

Click to expand...

So we’re potentially creating another competitor in the region, by giving them our hard-won knowledge. Got it.

TR_123456 said:

It means they want our weapon systems produced in SA with all the blueprints.
That is what this is mostly about.
Money for Pakistan and Turkiye in exchange pakistan provides man power and a nuclear umbrella while we provide the modern weaponsystems,set up their military industry and ''sell'' the blue prints.
The problem with all this is that any change in government in Türkiye and Pakistan could nullify this agreement.

Click to expand...

As far as modern military history goes, no country has ever handed over full blueprints of its frontline weapon systems to another state. Not even the US gives complete designs to its closest allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, or Israel. Blueprints contain decades of R&D, classified materials science, manufacturing secrets, and electronic warfare logic ...it’s basically the entire national security package. Giving that away would destroy a defence company’s value and erase a country’s technological advantage. Licensed production or assembly is possible, but full blueprints have never been transferred in modern history.

TurkWolf said:

As far as modern military history goes, no country has ever handed over full blueprints of its frontline weapon systems to another state. Not even the US gives complete designs to its closest allies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, or Israel. Blueprints contain decades of R&D, classified materials science, manufacturing secrets, and electronic warfare logic ...it’s basically the entire national security package. Giving that away would destroy a defence company’s value and erase a country’s technological advantage. Licensed production or assembly is possible, but full blueprints have never been transferred in modern history.

Click to expand...

What part of ''they want'' did you not understand?

No blueprints will be delivered to SA. We will sell them our weapon systems including KAAN in large numbers, we will show them how to use them effectively, initially mostly with our personal, we may do some technology transfer to allow them produce some parts. And we will send some troops to protect them when they really need. Not if Iran or Houthis send couple of missiles but when it gets real serious. This is still very useful for them. And for us as well. They can finance large scale production of weapons but also critical high tech projects like chip development. With Pakistan we can diversify and reduce cost of production, most importantly if their nuclear protection pledge is solid then they already did their part. We wont have any negative consequences of developing an atom bomb this way. If managed carefully the Mecca Alliance is a key milestone for Türkiye 2071!

I_Love_F16 said:

So we’re potentially creating another competitor in the region, by giving them our hard-won knowledge. Got it.

Click to expand...

Even if the degree of technology transfer is more than we expect this does not mean they will be able to develop things further to the same extent as we do. You still need new ideas, deep understanding and skill to implement these ideas, and the whole ecosystem which takes time to build. And I don’t think they will want to challenge us after all that collaboration. We should just leave them the „symbolic“ religious leadership and try to benefit as much as possible.

Pakistan should increase its Nuclear warhead production by a lot. 170-180 ain't enough, 500+ and let the Saudis pay for it and after that share it.

The three founding countries form a strong foundation with their capacities, historical backgrounds, and geopolitical characteristics. However, while these three are founding states, the alliance will soon enter a process of expansion once the necessary institutional framework is established. There is a potential for a much larger goal than what is immediately apparent; we don't know what the grand strategy is, but the situation will become clearer when the institutional mechanisms become functional.

This security agreement is actually the first major step in aligning national interests under a common security umbrella, following numerous workshops over the years and many recent economic, logistical, and energy agreements or joint vision statements. There will be truly challenging phases here. Especially under the heading of expansion, if the Egyptian issue, the integration of Indonesia and Malaysia on both sides of the Strait of Malacca, and the expansion into North Africa and the Caspian Sea are successfully overcome, a military security alliance controlling all waterways, straits, trade routes, energy resources, and human resources between the China-EU blocs will be indispensable globally.

-A small side note regarding Turkiye;- We need to start interpreting the next 30 years of the navy in the context of this new security paradigm. Because the weak point of this newly formed alliance will be its naval power. The high pace at MUGEM, which many naval analysts find baffling, and the NUKDEN vision—which, technically, might be a topic for the 2040s—or, to give a more comprehensive example, the fact that we can now launch three ships in six months for alliad states, don't seem like unrelated issues to me.

Even considering the potential first wave of expansion of this alliance, the only serious naval power is TN. I'm not talking about paying for the construction of frigates; I'm talking about the training and combat capacity of its Navy Staff, its naval tradition, and, equally importantly, its ability to design and rapidly mass-produce these ships, including their subsystems, within its own doctrinal approach; and to maintain all these systems at a very high level of combat readiness. With its accumulated experience and industrial capabilities, the Turkish navy can quickly transform into a "blue navy" and become a key player in improving the naval capabilities of other elements of the alliance. So, while everyone is looking at KAAN, Kızılelma, or combat aviation, the real major capacity contribution will be opening up a wider area of military-industrial support for our allies within this alliance. I believe this could open up a vast area that cannot be squeezed between hesitations regarding technology transfer and could become a huge leverage for the Turkish defense industry. If managed correctly, the progress that would take 30 years can be achieved in 10-15 years.

All going according to the plan.

Bogeyman said:

Well, at least our alliance has three members. That should make decision-making easier.

Click to expand...

The alliance bring more questions than answers.

TR_123456 said:

What part of ''they want'' did you not understand?

Click to expand...

I want to date Sydney Sweeney doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Sanchez said:

All going according to the plan.

US troops prepare to leave Iraqi Kurdistan by September 30 | The National

Iraq government spokesman says 'work is proceeding' to meet deadline

www.thenationalnews.com

Click to expand...

well they don't need to be there anymore to babysit the PKK seeing as the islamists and traitors in parliament are inviting them all back to Turkiye free and clear.