You are only thinking purely of international politics in peacetime.
First of all, let me remind you of the importance of strategic depth and reliability in the points you missed.
It is not possible for Turkey to target deep ties in the defense industry with both countries. Because if you deepen ties with one side, this will be seen as insincerity in the other country. This reduces you to average country status for the other side.
None of the countries that are our so-called allies in NATO are really sincere about fighting with us against Russia. This was tested and seen when we shot down the Russian plane in 2015.
However, unlike them, Pakistan has a sincerity in fighting shoulder to shoulder with us. And you cannot defend the Pakistan-India balance policy when nuclear weapons are on the table.
If Pakistan is going to put the nuclear option on the table, it will want to see our clear stance on Kashmir.
Even if Turkey's hand is not guaranteed in this regard, it is obvious that we are in a much better situation than the strategic advantages that India can provide against us.
Moreover, the deepening of Türkiye-India relations would lead us into a dangerous impasse. Because the USA will ask India to embargo us if we go to war with Greece. The USA can't impose the same on Pakistan, can it?
That's why I prefer not to believe that India will come to help Turkey in difficult times.
Military balances also have a weight in peacetime. Turkey has long-term and large-scale plans with Central Asian countries. It is possible that Pakistan will also be included in the equation during Turkey's efforts to establish unity with the countries in the region. We can expect Pakistan to be a military deterrent against Russia. However, while India has deep ties with Russia, it is impossible to think that it will support the Central Asian countries, let alone go to war for them.
Therefore, the ties we can establish with India are doomed to reach a dead end. And the Pakistan-India balance policy may result in us losing the bulgur we have.
I understand where you are coming from. Yes I am speaking more of the peacetime relationship rather than military strategic one.
The latter tends to slot in firmly and persist for its various reasons.
However any country must also analyse and weigh other side of the coin with countries it finds itself in such relationships (in past and present to manage/hedge the future)....to the highest degree possible.
Proof of action weighed past words when it comes to gauging things like sincerity.
Some are microcosms and some are macrocosms, some are combinations:
A) Pakistani participation in this forum versus Turkish participation in the other forum. Manner of things that happened and why.
Why things like this came to head the way they did if everything is firm at even strategic apex level.
One would expect any trivialities smoothed over easily and effectively....yet certain things stuck in the craw especially when it came to (especially) Iran and its "games" (forum level reflecting the geopolitical level). Unsurprisingly also the big country in between Pakistan and Turkiye.
B) If aid was severely lacking in the 71 war (given what they lost, the manner in how they lost it... and how it sticks in their memory, heavy chip on shoulder and axe grinding), how can the Pakistanis be assumed to act in the end in some direct way regd. Greece/NATO/US et al w.r.t some conflict/war with Turkiye?
It needs proof again in the past to be harnessed in present and future rather than words right? If A was not done, why would the mirror reciprocity B be assumed to be fait accompli done? i.e what is actually transactions in the end (since no one runs a charity, especially in geopolitics) with veneer of sincerity for the feeling of warmth.
C) What has Pakistan's relationship been with the Turkic groups of Afghanistan in that conflict? One with Turkish and Central Asian Turkic interests? Or?
D) Putting aside the heavy impact of Persian in language, culture, islamist ethos and so on within Pakistan (the basic script chosen vs script Ataturk chose to move away from)... what was the side Pakistan took in the Syria war to begin with you mention?
Did mercenary fighters get sent to help the Turks or Assad (on behest of Iran)? Pakistan come clean and take accountability on this? Or shrug its shoulders?..like with AFG (and now AFG shrugs its shoulders at TTP).
What has the continued relationship been like with Assad (upsetting many Turks right in this forum that I saw a few times)...while Turkish forces and allies blood still fresh on his hands?
E) If you are bringing up a nuclear angle, what exactly was the extent of Pakistani involvement in the Iranian nuclear program given Pakistan knowing full well what the Ayatollah regime and larger Iranian relationship and security threat was and is to Turkey?
Was there a basis for Turkiye to develop something independently over timeframe needed on its own strategic accord anyway (and proof to show for this)? Why was it not done? Why NATO/US NWS at incirlik instead all this while? These all have no inertias and momentums for Turkiye?
F) Regd Russia, did Imran Khan (while PM) actually attend the much vaunted meeting with Erdogan and Mahathir? Or KSA was able to put some pressure that overrides things?
Where was he (quite strangely) when Russia-Ukraine war broke out? What is the nature of leverage Iran and KSA enjoy in Pakistan (especially since the 80s) and why compared to Turkiye?
What to make of relationship now where lot of asserted pro-Turk PTI (IK supporters) Pakistanis say any country in the world dealing with current Pakistani (army backed) regime is doing Pakistan great harm?
They say that any country helping this regime is helping the US in the end (as they say US were complicity in Pakistani army removing IK).
regd Kashmir issue stance, economy, foreign relations, internal security etc... (decisions and results by that regime so far compared to IK as they see it)?
Has Turkiye heeded their (most "pro Turk" mass of Pakistanis, that of course also deliberately avoid this biraader forum for its lack of vice) call sincerely? What is the correlation of this asserted pro-Turk mass on largely just a pro-Erdogan basis too?
There's lot more I could go into, but I'll stop here.
Again putting aside everything Turkiye has leveraged with and continues to leverage with (in its military development, putting aside economics) the NATO forces you say will be on the other side in any war with Greece. If the approach is good for goose (NATO, West), should it not be for the gander (Russia, India, China other entities etc).
Putting that aside, I'm just saying absolute proven sincerity would need a considerable amount of proof to have been built in complete different ways on these matters...as simply talk is cheap.
Now gauged relative sincerity given the real imperfect world, that I can understand. But it must be understood to be a relative one, with flaws to analyse and build up own resilience to counter and hedge.
Because actual patriot and soldier blood on line when its wartime is something only any country can count on only itself for....papers, treaties, words, promises all go out the window, and you are left with transactions completed (if these were actually advantageous all things considered, you will find out only in the war)...as any other (wherever asserted vs actually on spectrum) friend-ally-partner-acquaintaince (or enemy of enemy) has to make the call if sticking out their neck too is worth it for them.
Not understanding this, means countries just sell themselves short in the end (and suffer for it in war, sanctions etc), as relations are not properly hedged and balanced optimally. i.e too many IOUs accumulating on one side that wont be cashed in a war....and by the lopsidedness you also forewent some manner and number of things you could have bulked up instead in peacetime (and related transfer coefficient to a future war effort that way).
