That doesnt matter, CAATSA had one purpose and that was to scare countries away from purchasing Russians arms, irrelevant if the countries are part of NATO or not. The fact that Turkey is the only one country being embargoed while a handful of countries receive a free pass isnt that surprising lol
Hm........
It seems to me that the main problem is the fact that you dont know the "exact" details for CAATSA sanctions, my friend
The CAATSA sanctions clearly states that ANY Country which buys sophisticated Russian equipment that can pour billions into russian economy and defemse industry will be sanctioned! In the CAATSA sanctions, there was never a clause stating that such punishments were only applicable to "NATO Countries"
Thus, as a country which portrays itself as the epitome of justice, democracy, and rule of law, India must be sanctioned just like Turkey as well. In fact, the bill doesnt care whether the US wanna keep India to prevent China's growing influence. The law is the law and the law doesnt care about your feelings, as they say.
If this is how the CAATSA sanctions will be interpreted, then the GULF, India or any other nation can just initiate a genocide and sit calmly knowing that the US wont punish them since they are too important for the US to punish
This is why US 's dominance is waning. Justice is nothing more than a thing in the past and in the long term, such actions will prove suicidal to the US foreign policy
Now that India isnt punished, they will just keep strengthening Russia by buying more weapons and Russia will indirectly support China when push comes to shove
And another proof that Hulusi Akar was right when he said that the CAATSA sanctions imposed on Turkey was way deeper than the bullshit F35-espionage argument. They are just trying one way or another to slow down the Turkish defense industry
The point I was trying to make is I do not understand why you have to put any country on some pedestal (just because you perceive them to have said so).
Simply treat every and any country as regular as any other (tribalist-default foreign policy) and it all makes much more sense.
You have to discard any notion of (another's or one's own) exceptionalism first thing
So of course the bigger+powerful versions of countries can have different approach to fellow big+powerful ones...and very often do.
It can be consistent or it can be hypocritical or a mix in between.
It can all swing around 180 degrees within a generation sometimes....given it is about maximising ones (perceived) interests at the juncture in question.
That is all part of human psyche....how the power structures and powerful in society develop and take cues of tribalism from the larger society for application in foreign policy (with other societies).
Getting stuck on CAATSA to try use as cudgel (particularly) is not going to be productive (for Turkish foreign policy makers and think tanks etc)...as you simply hand over the basis of argument and overton window to the power-wielder that asserts the default reference in a layer far above the higher relevance (to understand whats going on).
The issue is to study the full contexts and details of the power-dynamics in foreign policy over last 100 years or so at least.
CAATSA is bad foreign policy bill (for a number of reasons as I see it that will take very long to explain in detail)...but it is not the first or the last...and such things are not particular to the US (or any country) alone.
I mean there isnt a consistent equivalent bill on far larger threat to US (PRC)....that should already tell you the limits of the consistency of the argument.
There have been a very large list of bad foreign policy bills all around the world at large over time.
You really want to go through it all? Even just for the US case?
Just look at UN p5 setup and NPT for starters....and what/how US looked other way at certain times and made big issue over same countries in later times (depending on varying interests and objectives at each different juncture).
There is stuff in the base layer that is of much greater relevance to study and understand.
Stuff like NATO-inertia vs non-NATO inertia that I mention.
It is huge part of the inherited reality governing billions worth of assets, productive material and process, and man hours.
If the reality of your armed force is X% integration/reliance/networked/inertia with other powers and a superpower over not just 10 or 20 years, but more like 70 or so...
....what is the impact on their potential leverage on you in raw real terms?
That is all stuff the particular country has to understand first if it wants to steer to a different foreign policy setting in future.
How to develop core autarky and resolve in certain things over time at the relevant pace given it cannot be done overnight...but you also dont want to draw it out too long either.
You need to fully understand where you have been, where you are and where you want to be.
If turkey was a billion people and India was 80 million people, a lot of the things can likewise change too on that front in the alternate-U from US foreign policy.
i.e India has huge non-NATO inertia and is far bigger country than Turkey.
US policy makers (different to legislators in hierarchy) respond to that.
It is also best Turk policy makers understand their country and objectives in relevant time frames too.
It is best policy makers of any country understand this stuff deeply...and as many laypeople as possible too.
If US (and west) relationship is to be distanced from compared to before (by any country), that is the larger thing to work on slowly and methodically...but it needs internal consolidation of that objective.
It just gets more challenging the less raw size leverage you have generally...but you also ride under the larger waves too overall.
Its a trade off all correlated to size of the "tribe" that is the nationstate in foreign policy.
Things like if alliance with US (that NATO brings in very large proximity) is not working out for Turkey (and not looking like its going to get better)....how does Turkey exit it then?...while not damaging itself in process unnecessarily?
France left the command structure of NATO under Degaulle and didnt enter back till his great rival (Mitterand) was president much later.
All largely over perceived power concentration (and thus policy dictation + steering) in NATO by the 2 large "anglo saxon" powers.
What of it is applicable and relevant to Turkey?...to then plan over time and sustain over time? It is not so simple.
Is there even consolidated Turkish consensus over it?
Was S-400 flashpoint worth that....considering the context of the origin country of S-400 w.r.t Turkey (both in history and in the present in e.g syria)
Or is there a better way to have handled this in the past 10 - 20 years?
Only if you have enough powerful+wise people going deep enough on the issues will you have disciplined logical results over time in foreign policy (given the amount of people, time and space represented).
As only with depth do you get the largest scope.
You stay at ta higher tenuous layer of it (CAATSA etc), it is simply not useful as there is larger force guiding all that.
==============================================================================
I don't know why we meander to topics like genocide past that.
That again imbues absolute exceptionalism to some reference-asserter (in something of the tribal exercise that is foreign policy on top).
CAATSA is literal tiny ignoble drop compared to ocean of whats been done in foreign policy "hypocrisy" regarding that (in all directions).
US and West readily accepted PRC as free market country with free market participation after cold war ended.
Should I go into the accumulated trade volumes and investments poured into PRC by it?....that make any going to russia in same timeframe (and thus what CAATSA is supposed to act upon at some smaller %) look downright puny?
Consider the genocides PRC inflicted on its people from 1949 till now (which I hope I do not need to list out).
Yet Nixon was willing to hypocritically ignore that all and start process of rehabilitating China relations with US and West in thick of cold war.
So of course its all hypocrisy and (perceived maximisation of) interests in the end isnt it?
PRC likewise also ignored: Native american genocide, history of black slavery and continued racism in US, asserted capitalist society evils etc (and fact US was largest anti-marxist force present in world)
...in order to further its perceived expedient interests as well correct?
It has already been done is what I am saying....so why bring up "if A B C do a genocide"?...as though US stops trading + investing completely with PRC and vice versa over uighur genocide and uighur genocide denial back and forth?
And now US seemingly complains (and grows fearful) about the frankenstein it helped to grow.
PRC fears a whole array of things too. But that is all different larger conversation (obviously with impact on their current foreign policy of course).
The whole issue is any large powerful country (since they steer most of world foreign policy) hypocrisy free?...to be the exceptional absolute reference?
Even with medium powers (say 50 - 100 million people generally).... like Turkey (since genocide was brought up)....has and does Turkey maintain relations, strong trade, and even alliances with countries that recognise what they call as the "Armenian genocide"?
How does Turkey stay in alliance with US....while US supported YPG in syria recently?
It is done as there is a certain balance to maximising own interests first thing right? with the current realities + inertias w.r.t objectives later....i.e to grow wealth and power optimally and then assert more interests later with time.
Does Turkey put relations with PRC on hold over (fellow turkic muslim) Uighur rights issues? Or is another approach taken given (again) the raw population differentials and larger immediate interests involved by such?
Every country does this in the end. Why treat US differently?
You only treat them differently if you hold them up differently....I don't and neither should you or anyone else....as human beings averaged out are the same stuff in the psyche.
It is simply best to learn the good and bad, weak and strong, poor and rich.... of every society, culture, country or entity in general....and strive to be more good+rich+powerful based on those lessons yourself (individually and collectively).
I hope my earlier reply now makes more sense, I am approaching from a deeper layer.
In that you should not hold US to be exceptional (esp in something like foreign policy which is interests-based) just because you perceive it as saying so.
I do value judge far more on the present (since we do all have same world history to learn from) w.r.t things like genocide (taking of human life or identity/culture in large concentrated and systematic scale)...and hence why I hold uighur one as serious issue...
In contrast to say holding past genocides to current downstream generations....as far as I am concerned, sins of father die with the father....they do not transmit to progeny. Progeny are accountable for their own decisions in their time.
But that is all longer topic to get into....let us stay on foreign policy.
