TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
5,239
Reactions
108 19,497
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
France simply isn't capable of being the leader of a European confederacy whether economically or militarily unified. Even Germany isn't really the de-facto leader of the EU, they are basically a proxy for the US. I could see a UK that got its shit together being able to efficiently lead Europe but they don't really care enough plus I've noticed a curious trend among British people in that they don't really identify themselves as "European". There's almost an air of superiority present where they perceive themselves as better than and separate from the rest of the European nations. If you pay close enough attention you can even detect it among British far-right/white nationalist movements where they occasionally let the mask slip.
One of my favorite Bulgarian proverbs says "Неволята учи". This literally means "The trouble teaches". When you are facing troubles, you find a way to deal with these troubles.
 

Tabmachine

Active member
Messages
79
Reactions
115
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Pakistan
The problem here is that Turkiye is more of a wildcard for NATO than a country which can lead NATO's efforts. An increased cooperation in the Black Sea and the Balkans (Kosovo, Bosnia) is to be expected, but what about Caucasus, Africa and the Middle East?

Turkiye and the other members in NATO have totally different goals there and they don't like the fact that Turkiye starts to exercise more pro-active policies towards these regions by directly going into a clash with the interests of countries like France which is one of the few EU countries that actually is both militarily capable, active and also has this pro-active approach towards their objectives despite the recent fails which are partly due to Turkiye's role in their areas of influence.

Turkiye entered a revisionist mode which will guarantee the State's right to have a stronger card in the decision making mechanisms in the West and guarantee that Turkiye's national interests and national security concerns are actually considered before making a move. We saw what happened in Libya and how Turkiye and France actively supported different sides of the conflict. We saw what happened with the whole Operation Irini fiasco and the event where a Turkish warship actually illuminated a French warship with its radar. We also saw the German role in the operations there. We also know that Turkiye had a major role in what happened in other African countries where France had interests. Karabakh was another major event with smaller secondary events including the role of the Azerbaijani intelligence in popular unrest or separatism activities in places like New Caledonia, Corsica, Martinique, French Guiana and French Polynesia. When it comes to the Middle East as the events are more recent we see what is Turkiye's position on the Israel-Palestine issue, the fact that Turkiye doesn't participate in the Operation Prosperity Guardian where France and even Greece actually participate (France prefers to put its ships under national command) is evident. There is not even a passive support for the defensive part of the operation despite Turkish business also being targeted. And lastly Syria is a hot topic even in this hour and minute. France is supporting Turkiye's grave enemy by directly involving its forces on the ground on the pre-text that they are fighting DEASH.

Many of the issues listed above were lying in a deep status quo, but by the looks not anymore.

The US is a major factor in establishing the link between the other NATO countries and Turkiye and due to the US's increased balancing role in all these events we managed to turn back from great dangers. As I listen to recent US rhetoric especially when it comes to areas of contact with Russia and the Middle East (Turkiye's areas of interest) we see that they basically say "Guys, you are already big enough to look after yourselves, papa will support you every time you need it , but you should already take more responsibility regarding your life and the decisions you take".

If we accept that NATO is a family then we should know that the US is like a dad in a patriarchal family, Europe is an entity consisted of good aunts, bad aunts, spoiled children and a big sister in her 30s looking like a grandma, both psychically and physically in a bad shape. Turkiye is like a step-child in this family.

Whatever the US did was to prepare its children for the challenges in life, but also intervene in the interest of the spoiled children and when dad says "You are big enough to run the show" both sides gain a level of independence including the responsibility it comes with, but the difference is that the spoiled children will always come first. When dad abdicates from part of his responsibilities, there is a power vacuum to be filled and this is where the sons start fighting. Of course the family always comes together on Christmas or in the face of important events including the Muslim step child, but everybody in the family knows that actually no one cares about the Muslim step child out of a couple irrelevant aunts and uncles when it comes to this whole process. When the children were small and fought only one word coming out of the mouth of dad was enough to bring an end to the fight and he imposed his position on both regardless of their opinion, ensuring the peace for a day according to his taste, but what about now when both of the sides are grown ups and they are supposed to be more independent... not to forget that dad's decisions usually are in a quality of temporary containing measures so the children can basically shut up, but the problems are still there.

I think currently we are in this transitional process where the US ensures everyone can stand on its own feet while being sure that the spoiled children have the advantage in "life". While the spoiled children get more pocket money, Turkiye is forced to work overtime for everything it gets and what it doesn't get Turkiye manages to either make its own or buy it from the "neighbour" everyone in the family actually hates. In fact everyone in the family has a touching point with this "neighbour" despite the conflict for land that unites the family, but when it comes to Turkiye everybody is mad and when SHTF, no one does nothing except for talking because Turkiye is simply a step-child and can never be a real part of this family.

Turkiye despite being the step-child of this family should grow strong and independent, keep the relations with the aunts and uncles in the family that supported Turkiye in hard times.

What is next... We will soon come to a moment where these partly independent children will start digging into these temporarily frozen conflicts once dad stops supervising them and while the side of the spoiled children and the step-child start fighting the only one smiling in this whole situation will be this one bad "neighbour". Very hard times are ahead of Turkiye, because while we fight for our rights we should also look for ways to contain this neighbour.

A logical solution would be for the spoiled part of Europe and the US to recognize the rights of Turkiye to coexist with them on the same level, because Turkiye earned this right, as Turkiye served NATO in the best ways possible whenever and wherever NATO needed Turkiye. The US and Europe's spoiled part should stop looking at Turkiye as a servant and instead start looking at Turkiye as a partner and an equal. If not, then the family of NATO is destined for a decline.

The US should act fast because Erdogan is currently watching "Cinderella", gets more inspired by the day and while the story may not end with a beautiful marriage, this rising "Cinderella" with a population of 85+ million people, a growing independent defence industry, diplomatic and military power can be a very serious pain in the butt if forced. This will not be a positive scenario for no one and the damage that can be done to this whole family is a doom scenario for the whole neighbourhood. My hopes are not high tho...

The thing is assuming and maintain an assertive stance, in such a contentious environment, would not only require sophisticated political institutions and military capabilities, but also economic strength.

At the moment, does Turkiye have the requisite energy independence, industrial base, loyal/neutral trade partners (with secure logistical connections) , etc. to be able to withstand the economic pressures that come along with such a state of competition?
 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
5,239
Reactions
108 19,497
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
The thing is assuming and maintain an assertive stance, in such a contentious environment, would not only require sophisticated political institutions and military capabilities, but also economic strength.

At the moment, does Turkiye have the requisite energy independence, industrial base, trade partners (with secure logistical connections) , etc. to be able to withstand the economic pressures that come along with such a state of competition?
This is the reason why I defend cooperation with countries like Qatar and don't condemn our role in the Middle East. With these relations come hardships, but we also get a lot of positives trough them. This is also why I don't support rapid escalations with countries in the EU, our most important economic partner.

I also defend a more moderate approach when it comes to the US presence in the Middle East. There are guys that defend the unconditional and urgent US departure from the Middle East. For Turkiye this means crumbling under the weight of Russia and their partners like Iran because as hard as it sounds we are not ready to face these challenges not economically, militarily or even on the diplomatic side of things. The US if not directly supporting Turkiye then it is at least an actor that keeps our regional competitors busy while we do our thing.

A lot of people think of the unconventional threats in the region as the old school guys in sandals and AKs, not realizing that unconventional warfare as everything regarding military actions is evolving. Yesterday we were talking about MANPADs and ATGMS and today we are talking about loitering munitions and ballistic missiles with thousands kilometers of range and capable warheads enough to destroy a whole block of buildings. These are evolving threats which we should adapt to and we need time in order to be able to face these threats.

What I support is keeping the balance of allowing threats and limited intervention in order to keep these forces busy while Turkiye improve and build upon a stable base.

The events I listed in my long post will take time to come to reality and we should make sure that we are prepared as much as we can before they become reality. This means using our tools to control the gradual withdrawal of the US, filling all of the power vacuum they let in our backyard. The ride will not be smooth, but there is no other way as we are facing expansionist and revisionist forces just as hungry as us both in the face of Iran, Russia, but also countries like France that are trying to impose domination wherever we have rivalry, pursuing solely their interests, aiming at holding Turkiye a hostage or slave.

In short, we need time. The period till 2028 will be especially hard and if we manage to keep the situation manageable in Syria and Iraq I think we may have a chance to catch up with the intensity, develop the leverage tools and capabilities which will allow us more freedom and adaptability in regards to our decisions for the 2030+ period.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,761
Reactions
94 9,107
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
The problem here is that Turkiye is more of a wildcard for NATO than a country which can lead NATO's efforts. An increased cooperation in the Black Sea and the Balkans (Kosovo, Bosnia) is to be expected, but what about Caucasus, Africa and the Middle East?

Turkiye and the other members in NATO have totally different goals there and they don't like the fact that Turkiye starts to exercise more pro-active policies towards these regions by directly going into a clash with the interests of countries like France which is one of the few EU countries that actually is both militarily capable, active and also has this pro-active approach towards their objectives despite the recent fails which are partly due to Turkiye's role in their areas of influence.

Turkiye entered a revisionist mode which will guarantee the State's right to have a stronger card in the decision making mechanisms in the West and guarantee that Turkiye's national interests and national security concerns are actually considered before making a move. We saw what happened in Libya and how Turkiye and France actively supported different sides of the conflict. We saw what happened with the whole Operation Irini fiasco and the event where a Turkish warship actually illuminated a French warship with its radar. We also saw the German role in the operations there. We also know that Turkiye had a major role in what happened in other African countries where France had interests. Karabakh was another major event with smaller secondary events including the role of the Azerbaijani intelligence in popular unrest or separatism activities in places like New Caledonia, Corsica, Martinique, French Guiana and French Polynesia. When it comes to the Middle East as the events are more recent we see what is Turkiye's position on the Israel-Palestine issue, the fact that Turkiye doesn't participate in the Operation Prosperity Guardian where France and even Greece actually participate (France prefers to put its ships under national command) is evident. There is not even a passive support for the defensive part of the operation despite Turkish business also being targeted. And lastly Syria is a hot topic even in this hour and minute. France is supporting Turkiye's grave enemy by directly involving its forces on the ground on the pre-text that they are fighting DEASH.

Many of the issues listed above were lying in a deep status quo, but by the looks not anymore.

The US is a major factor in establishing the link between the other NATO countries and Turkiye and due to the US's increased balancing role in all these events we managed to turn back from great dangers. As I listen to recent US rhetoric especially when it comes to areas of contact with Russia and the Middle East (Turkiye's areas of interest) we see that they basically say "Guys, you are already big enough to look after yourselves, papa will support you every time you need it , but you should already take more responsibility regarding your life and the decisions you take".

If we accept that NATO is a family then we should know that the US is like a dad in a patriarchal family, Europe is an entity consisted of good aunts, bad aunts, spoiled children and a big sister in her 30s looking like a grandma, both psychically and physically in a bad shape. Turkiye is like a step-child in this family.

Whatever the US did was to prepare its children for the challenges in life, but also intervene in the interest of the spoiled children and when dad says "You are big enough to run the show" both sides gain a level of independence including the responsibility it comes with, but the difference is that the spoiled children will always come first. When dad abdicates from part of his responsibilities, there is a power vacuum to be filled and this is where the sons start fighting. Of course the family always comes together on Christmas or in the face of important events including the Muslim step child, but everybody in the family knows that actually no one cares about the Muslim step child out of a couple irrelevant aunts and uncles when it comes to this whole process. When the children were small and fought only one word coming out of the mouth of dad was enough to bring an end to the fight and he imposed his position on both regardless of their opinion, ensuring the peace for a day according to his taste, but what about now when both of the sides are grown ups and they are supposed to be more independent... not to forget that dad's decisions usually are in a quality of temporary containing measures so the children can basically shut up, but the problems are still there.

I think currently we are in this transitional process where the US ensures everyone can stand on its own feet while being sure that the spoiled children have the advantage in "life". While the spoiled children get more pocket money, Turkiye is forced to work overtime for everything it gets and what it doesn't get Turkiye manages to either make its own or buy it from the "neighbour" everyone in the family actually hates. In fact everyone in the family has a touching point with this "neighbour" despite the conflict for land that unites the family, but when it comes to Turkiye everybody is mad and when SHTF, no one does nothing except for talking because Turkiye is simply a step-child and can never be a real part of this family.

Turkiye despite being the step-child of this family should grow strong and independent, keep the relations with the aunts and uncles in the family that supported Turkiye in hard times.

What is next... We will soon come to a moment where these partly independent children will start digging into these temporarily frozen conflicts once dad stops supervising them and while the side of the spoiled children and the step-child start fighting the only one smiling in this whole situation will be this one bad "neighbour". Very hard times are ahead of Turkiye, because while we fight for our rights we should also look for ways to contain this neighbour.

A logical solution would be for the spoiled part of Europe and the US to recognize the rights of Turkiye to coexist with them on the same level, because Turkiye earned this right, as Turkiye served NATO in the best ways possible whenever and wherever NATO needed Turkiye. The US and Europe's spoiled part should stop looking at Turkiye as a servant and instead start looking at Turkiye as a partner and an equal. If not, then the family of NATO is destined for a decline.

The US should act fast because Erdogan is currently watching "Cinderella", gets more inspired by the day and while the story may not end with a beautiful marriage, this rising "Cinderella" with a population of 85+ million people, a growing independent defence industry, diplomatic and military power can be a very serious pain in the butt if forced. This will not be a positive scenario for no one and the damage that can be done to this whole family is a doom scenario for the whole neighbourhood. My hopes are not high tho...

That's it. There needs to be a 'NATO friend & family strategic therapy directorate.' with director general @Kartal1 at the helm.
 

Iskander

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
482
Reactions
10 1,340
Nation of residence
Azerbaijan
Nation of origin
Azerbaijan
NATO is discussing the possibility of preemptive high-precision strikes on Russian territory in the event of an armed conflict with it by the alliance countries. This was stated by the head of the bloc's military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, at a conference in Brussels.

1732556417278.png


"It is wiser not to wait, but to hit the launchers in Russia if Russia attacks us. A combination of high-precision strikes is needed that will disable the systems that are used to attack us, and we must strike first," the head of the committee believes. (Haqqin az)

The reaction of the Russians will be violent. I will cite one article from the Russian military publication Topwar. comments


 
Last edited:

GoatsMilk

Experienced member
Messages
3,451
Reactions
14 9,116
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
NATO is discussing the possibility of preemptive high-precision strikes on Russian territory in the event of an armed conflict with it by the alliance countries. This was stated by the head of the bloc's military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, at a conference in Brussels.

View attachment 72331

"It is wiser not to wait, but to hit the launchers in Russia if Russia attacks us. A combination of high-precision strikes is needed that will disable the systems that are used to attack us, and we must strike first," the head of the committee believes. (Haqqin az)

The reaction of the Russians will be violent. I will cite one article from the Russian military publication Topwar. Do not miss the comments :)



If they were serious about defeating/attacking Russia it wouldn't have taken 3 years to send Ukraine a dozen old and shitty F16's. It took 3 years to "ok" basic nato munitions to be used by Ukrainians against Russian targets on Russian soil.

The reality is they want to keep the meat grinder going on in Ukraine for many many years to come. I suspect everything they say is meant to deceive both Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine in the sense that the americans are serious in defeating Russia, while by the same token all the other messages outside are meant to make the Russians think the Americans are not really interested in supporting Ukraine. That way you get both sides killing each other for many years to come thinking a solution isn't far away.

They played a similar game on Turkiye over Syria, lots of promises, then lots of threats, then they turned Turkiye into the bad guy in the war. Meanwhile the americans and russians were working together against Turkiye, so much so that when Turkiye moved on the PKK the americans handed control of the regions they had to Russia just to stop a "NATO ally" from securing them. While increasing the tension between Turkiye and Russia. Infact their actions in sryia only contributed to tensions and the potential for war between Turkiye and Russia. And remember Turks NATO will not side with you in a war with Russia. Arguably the only nation that would have pre their war, was Ukraine. As far as the ummah is concerned, most of them if not all them would support Russia.

Ideally the two global shit stirrers america and russia can have at it while the rest of the world just sits out of it.
 
Last edited:

blackjack

Contributor
Moderator
Russia Correspondent
Russia Moderator
Messages
1,422
Reactions
8 818
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
NATO is discussing the possibility of preemptive high-precision strikes on Russian territory in the event of an armed conflict with it by the alliance countries. This was stated by the head of the bloc's military committee, Admiral Rob Bauer, at a conference in Brussels.

View attachment 72331

"It is wiser not to wait, but to hit the launchers in Russia if Russia attacks us. A combination of high-precision strikes is needed that will disable the systems that are used to attack us, and we must strike first," the head of the committee believes. (Haqqin az)

The reaction of the Russians will be violent. I will cite one article from the Russian military publication Topwar. comments


1732569320589.png
I would have taken him more seriously if the US hit airbases filled with aircrafts and not airbases that are just 100kms away from the frontlines with enough time for the Russians to evacuate most of their aircrafts.
 

Tabmachine

Active member
Messages
79
Reactions
115
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Pakistan
This is the reason why I defend cooperation with countries like Qatar and don't condemn our role in the Middle East. With these relations come hardships, but we also get a lot of positives trough them. This is also why I don't support rapid escalations with countries in the EU, our most important economic partner.

I also defend a more moderate approach when it comes to the US presence in the Middle East. There are guys that defend the unconditional and urgent US departure from the Middle East. For Turkiye this means crumbling under the weight of Russia and their partners like Iran because as hard as it sounds we are not ready to face these challenges not economically, militarily or even on the diplomatic side of things. The US if not directly supporting Turkiye then it is at least an actor that keeps our regional competitors busy while we do our thing.

A lot of people think of the unconventional threats in the region as the old school guys in sandals and AKs, not realizing that unconventional warfare as everything regarding military actions is evolving. Yesterday we were talking about MANPADs and ATGMS and today we are talking about loitering munitions and ballistic missiles with thousands kilometers of range and capable warheads enough to destroy a whole block of buildings. These are evolving threats which we should adapt to and we need time in order to be able to face these threats.

What I support is keeping the balance of allowing threats and limited intervention in order to keep these forces busy while Turkiye improve and build upon a stable base.

The events I listed in my long post will take time to come to reality and we should make sure that we are prepared as much as we can before they become reality. This means using our tools to control the gradual withdrawal of the US, filling all of the power vacuum they let in our backyard. The ride will not be smooth, but there is no other way as we are facing expansionist and revisionist forces just as hungry as us both in the face of Iran, Russia, but also countries like France that are trying to impose domination wherever we have rivalry, pursuing solely their interests, aiming at holding Turkiye a hostage or slave.

In short, we need time. The period till 2028 will be especially hard and if we manage to keep the situation manageable in Syria and Iraq I think we may have a chance to catch up with the intensity, develop the leverage tools and capabilities which will allow us more freedom and adaptability in regards to our decisions for the 2030+ period.
Great extended answer.

I'm currently in the process of reading up on these topics academically, currently prospecting a reading list on realist IR, and natural resource topics. Really wish I took some PoliSci electives in undergrad rather than economics electives which were a pile of bs (on industrial policy though I'd recommend new structural economics by Justin Yifu Lin). I don't like to comment too much without having enough knowledge but...

I agree that Turkey is going to need friends in its near abroad in order to compete with Iran and their advantages in terms of proxies, energy resources and geographic positioning. The departure of the US might actually be golden opportunity in that regard, if the Gulf countries are looking for a new security guarantor. Hopefully Turkey will be able to recover from the damage in relations from the early Erdogan administration when the FETO-ists were still around. I think one positive development in this regard is that while these countries were trying to play Machiavellian and line up with Israel against Iran, Israel hasn't looked too hot this past year in its ability to respond to Iran. So that devils alliance might not play out in the medium-long term.

I said earlier that the Arab countries are not ready to be reliable partners, and I think most people here would agree frankly. It's tough, all your good (and relatively more advanced) friends are on the other side of Iran unfortunately or even further.

I can't comment too much on the specifics your overall foreign policy prescription, I'm no expert, but obviously I generally agree with the jist of it.

For example though, I remember reading a paper some time ago that Turkey was heavily dependent on the import of intermediate goods. This was years ago, but according to chatgpt today Turkey stands around 30% whereas your typical industrial power is closer to %20. Obviously this is a more simplistic metric, but the idea is that when it comes time to exert hard-power the country is going to need to shift to an autarkic/semi-autarkic mode.

Honestly man I feel obligated to say something since you came through with such effort, but my grasp of these topics is a WIP.
 

fushkee

Committed member
Messages
174
Reactions
4 257
Nation of residence
Qatar
Nation of origin
Turkey
Well good luck. No country with an open border conflict can join NATO and than of course good luck in convincing us to let you join. But I see this is an opportunity to solve the Cyprus problem. We would finally have some leverage of our own.
Do you really believe that it is a dream or unrealistic approach for them to be a NATO member especially while this akp-based government in place?
I really laugh at that :D
 

Asena_great

Contributor
Messages
883
Reactions
20 1,806
If they were serious about defeating/attacking Russia it wouldn't have taken 3 years to send Ukraine a dozen old and shitty F16's. It took 3 years to "ok" basic nato munitions to be used by Ukrainians against Russian targets on Russian soil.

The reality is they want to keep the meat grinder going on in Ukraine for many many years to come. I suspect everything they say is meant to deceive both Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine in the sense that the americans are serious in defeating Russia, while by the same token all the other messages outside are meant to make the Russians think the Americans are not really interested in supporting Ukraine. That way you get both sides killing each other for many years to come thinking a solution isn't far away.

They played a similar game on Turkiye over Syria, lots of promises, then lots of threats, then they turned Turkiye into the bad guy in the war. Meanwhile the americans and russians were working together against Turkiye, so much so that when Turkiye moved on the PKK the americans handed control of the regions they had to Russia just to stop a "NATO ally" from securing them. While increasing the tension between Turkiye and Russia. Infact their actions in sryia only contributed to tensions and the potential for war between Turkiye and Russia. And remember Turks NATO will not side with you in a war with Russia. Arguably the only nation that would have pre their war, was Ukraine. As far as the ummah is concerned, most of them if not all them would support Russia.

Ideally the two global shit stirrers america and russia can have at it while the rest of the world just sits out of it.
ukranian leadership is an example of dreamer people without vision. the US goal is not to defeat russia but to weaken it via Ukraine they already got what they wanted sweden and finland are in nato and russia is landlocked in European side. with the fraction of US millitary budget US destroyed thousands of russian equipment saw their real capability in technology military and intelligence and tested their own weapons and capability on live russian targets they will never supply ukraine enough to defeat russia and if russia is winning then they will give more weapons to ukraine to balance it. ukranian leadership should have better vision then this for their chldren now they are nothing but cannon fodder for the west. anyone trusted US always got betrayed by them in turkey that would be turgut özel and erdoğan
 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
5,239
Reactions
108 19,497
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
Great extended answer.

I'm currently in the process of reading up on these topics academically, currently prospecting a reading list on realist IR, and natural resource topics. Really wish I took some PoliSci electives in undergrad rather than economics electives which were a pile of bs (on industrial policy though I'd recommend new structural economics by Justin Yifu Lin). I don't like to comment too much without having enough knowledge but...

I agree that Turkey is going to need friends in its near abroad in order to compete with Iran and their advantages in terms of proxies, energy resources and geographic positioning. The departure of the US might actually be golden opportunity in that regard, if the Gulf countries are looking for a new security guarantor. Hopefully Turkey will be able to recover from the damage in relations from the early Erdogan administration when the FETO-ists were still around. I think one positive development in this regard is that while these countries were trying to play Machiavellian and line up with Israel against Iran, Israel hasn't looked too hot this past year in its ability to respond to Iran. So that devils alliance might not play out in the medium-long term.

I said earlier that the Arab countries are not ready to be reliable partners, and I think most people here would agree frankly. It's tough, all your good (and relatively more advanced) friends are on the other side of Iran unfortunately or even further.

I can't comment too much on the specifics your overall foreign policy prescription, I'm no expert, but obviously I generally agree with the jist of it.

For example though, I remember reading a paper some time ago that Turkey was heavily dependent on the import of intermediate goods. This was years ago, but according to chatgpt today Turkey stands around 30% whereas your typical industrial power is closer to %20. Obviously this is a more simplistic metric, but the idea is that when it comes time to exert hard-power the country is going to need to shift to an autarkic/semi-autarkic mode.

Honestly man I feel obligated to say something since you came through with such effort, but my grasp of these topics is a WIP.
Don't take my analysis as a done fact.

I am also not an expert and these are just my assumptions and thoughts.
 

Tabmachine

Active member
Messages
79
Reactions
115
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Don't take my analysis as a done fact.

I am also not an expert and these are just my assumptions and thoughts.
Honestly haven't been super sharp lately, came down with some covid-like stuff this last few weeks, so wasn't really well-equipped to break down your write-up. I'll revisit it sometime as food for thought.

Something you guys here may be interested in:

The MIT recently started up a National Intelligence Academy, and they have website here where they publish articles: https://mia.edu.tr/

"A European Union Stuck Between Ambition and Reality: THE DRAGHI REPORT": https://mia.edu.tr/uploads/f/10102024_1.pdf
 

Lool

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,924
Reactions
14 5,034
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Albania
The greatest joke i ever read today
Now, the USA is permitting F35 slaes to Turkey? Why? Didnt the Americans bitch and whine for years about how the Russian S400s are a threat to the F35s cyber security? Didnt they distort the relations with turkey for years over such a stupid excuse? Now, they are offering the F35s again? As far as I know, the Turks didnt throw the S400 systems away and yet they are offering the F35 again

Ppl now need to believe that the reason the West increasing hostility to Turkey isnt because of Erdogan or whatever they say on their media but the Turkish defence industry. Having a top of the line defence industry that isnt controlled by the few globalist elites in the West is a pure threat to their authority and their respective countries. For years, they have been using military sales as a way to threaten nations but when they see that their competitors are developing better products, they cry about how you arent buying their products

Just wait, sooner or later Germany will beg Turkey to purchase German-made tanks and engines after the BATU power group is completed

It was never about Erdogan or Turkish foreign policy...... it was, is, and will always about subordination. Fqing western countries, I swear

Thankyou for the beautiful news, Mr. YASAR Guler


Translation:
"We have 6 planes there regarding the F-35s. Now, when the Americans saw that we will make the Kaan plane now, that we can make it, and that it is flying, their thoughts have changed a little bit. They are now stating that they can provide the F-35. There has been no such development on this issue yet. Now we insist that our production share be given back to us and we have submitted our request to purchase the F-35." — Yaşar Güler | Minister of National Defense
 
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom