NATO, Greece and Turkey (NOT another Greco-Turkish Thread)

[gabriel]

boots on the ground

[Rastagir]

I am asking this question because, the way I see it, there is no positive outcome for NATO itself. No matter what happens, if Greece and Turkey go to war, one way or the other, the Alliance will suffer (and I don't mean only in the form of losing the armies of Greece and Turkey from it's midst)

I understand that NATO is primarily composed of US forces, but it is a different thing to talk about NATO and another to speak of US army ONLY. The very existence of an alliance is useful for the US in the way that it gives legitimacy and shows the world that every move NATO does is in agreement with more than one state alone. If this is lost, then what?

Also, if the US (and NATO by extend) didn't really need the other members, why is NATO expanding?

As I said, I only see disaster coming from such a scenario. But any other opinion is more than welcome

[chakos]

boots on the ground

Proportional or absolute?

[Big K]

...Also, if the US (and NATO by extend) didn't really need the other members, why is NATO expanding?

1- to gain some control over stragtegic areas

2- the need of newer clients for their weapons

but that just me

[Mobbme]

The question should not be whether NATO would back up Turkey, the question is how long would Greece be able to stand guard against Turkey's army until the rest of the World pressures Turkey into a cease fire.

Only chance Greece has with a war against Turkey is if they put up 300 Spartans.

[tuaf1]

Let's just say the US and NATO are too weak to react due to other headaches and Turkey and Greece escalate into a border war. US and NATO could just cut off all supplies of arms and spare parts. Let's see how long those shiny F-16s and tanks and ships can continue to function without parts. What happens after all the missiles are finished? I doubt Turkey and Greece can sustain a long conflict without a source of parts and high tech arms. It would descend into a low tech infantry war and people would be annoyed at their respective government.

Turkey has endured embargoes from the US before (the last being in 1974 due to the Cyprus Peace Operation). It managed to survive. I personally think the Turks have smartend up since then. They have invested in excess of $160 billion in order to develop a local defence industry and they are still investing large chunks of money as we speak. The money Turkey is investing in Defence technology exceeds some of the European countries GDP.

Add to this the following:

Turkey is currently 50% self-sufficient in terms of arms. This percentage will be increased to 80% in 5 years time according to the Turkish Parliament. From quick research it is evident that it currently produces or is in the process of producing the following military platforms:

Short Range Balistic Missiles (Project J)
Anti-Tank missiles (UMTAS)
Laser guided missiles (Cirit)
Attack helicopters (TAI T-129)
Fast Attact Craft (MRTP range)/Corvettes (MILGEM)/Frigates (F-100)/Destroyer (Tf-2000)- Note these naval platforms will not use US made Anti-ship missiles but rather licence produced European alternatives such as Norway's Naval Strike Missile.
Next Generation Tank (MITUP ALTAY)
Licence production of Type 209 Submarine/80% indegenous systems in Type 214 AIP sub
Howitzers (Panter)
Naval Cruise Missile (In development by ASELSAN and ROKETSAN)
Licence production of the F-16 (includes indegenous production of self-protection suites, mission computer, targeting and navigation pod- ASELPOD etc etc)
MALE UAV's (TIHA- with indegenous engine)
Indegenous 20,000 Ton LPD- Levent class

(If required PM me for sources evidencing the existence of the above platforms)

In addition to this, IF the US stops arms supply to Turkey; Russia, China and South Korea are already lurking around Ankara for defence co-operation projects. The most recent example is how the US company Raythoen was "forced" to make Turkey's Roketsan a major sub-contractor for the Patriot missiles after Russia said it was ready to further develop the S-400 with Turkey.

In summary Turkey today is a influential regional power which many blocs would love to get on board. Turkey's withdrawal from NATO would be very unfortunate for US Stategy. Turkey's withdrawal from NATO would mean European dependence on Russia for energy.

[tuaf1]

The question should not be whether NATO would back up Turkey, the question is how long would Greece be able to stand guard against Turkey's army until the rest of the World pressures Turkey into a cease fire.

Only chance Greece has with a war against Turkey is if they put up 300 Spartans.

It depends on which party is the aggressor.

But then again the world stood silent and watched Turkey during the Cyprus Peace Operation.

Afterall, a large scale war with Turkey will almost immediately equate to WWIII.

[Officer of Engineers]

Afterall, a large scale war with Turkey will almost immediately equate to WWIII.

Horse Puckey! Khan_Han ... and don't come back.

[PeterPan]

Comparable in what way?

important, appreciated but not necessarily vital, decisive

*edit, as for how long Greece can withstand Turkey, I think the terrain would give them enough of a defensive advantage until Turkey is eventually pressured into the negotiation tables.

Wait a minute, doesn't the US Air Force have an Air Base at Incirlik??? I have a feeling that place would play a role in this hypothetical conflict.

*edit2,i have a question: if NATO would be forced to choose, would it go for Turkey or Greece? Which country would be more...shall we say,expendable, in the Alliance's point of view?

[Rastagir]

The way I see it? Greece would be expendable. It's a much smaller nation, and Turkey right now is the gateway to areas of interest of the US.

On the other hand, Greece is a part of E.U. but that doesn't say much. I seriously doubt that the E.U. would mind if the Aegean changed hands. It would be the perfect excuse, however, for those who oppose the entry of Turkey in the E.U. to strenghten their position.

My guess? We will have Cyprus all over again. Turkey occupying territories using the banner of protecting itself and it's interests (if we assume that the conflict will turn on turkeys favour), and the world first condemning and then accepting the status quo. And we will all have another gordian knot on our hands, with noone the winner.

If Greece is the victor? I honestly don't see any gains. Only "not losses".


And again, I say that this is exactly my question: since US will have to choose, isn't the choice alone devastating for NATO?

[rj1]

This thread reminds me of a EU academic paper I read last week. Fully recommend the defense and foreign policy excerpts of this.

But Cyprus is the new member that, according to many Brussels officials, has had the most negative impact on EU foreign policy. It has created more obstacles to the accession negotiations with Turkey than any other member-state. One of Cyprus’s first acts as an EU member was to veto the implementation of the EU’s commitment to end its trade blockade on Northern Cyprus. That in turn led Turkey to refuse to honour its commitment to open ports to Cypriot shipping. This stand-off has led to the freezing of eight chapters in the Turkey-EU accession process. Of course, Turkey is not blameless, and can be as intransigent as Cyprus. But the poor state of Cyprus-Turkey relations has damaged the ability of NATO and the EU to work together on crisis management. Cyprus will not allow Turkey to participate in EU defence – for example it has vetoed Turkish membership of the European Defence Agency – while Turkey will not allow Cyprus to deal with NATO. Both Nicosia and Ankara have restricted contacts between the EU and NATO, so that the two organisations cannot even co-operate – at least formally – in places where they are both busy, like Kosovo and Afghanistan. Cyprus tends to view many foreign policy issues through the perspective of its own existential priority, which is to stop Northern Cyprus seceding. For example in 2006 it blocked an EU ‘action plan’ for Azerbaijan, because the Azeris had allowed direct flights to Northern Cyprus. And Nicosia’s views on Tibet or Taiwan – where it is a strong supporter of the Chinese position – derive from its view of the Cyprus problem.

http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/essay_905.pdf

As far as Greece, they have severe economic problems right now and their membership in the euro is becoming more questioned on whether it's possible to be sustained.

Europe’s achievement in creating the euro contributes to its soft power. During the recent financial turmoil, the currency has helped to insulate the countries that adopted it from wild exchange rate fluctuations. But the Europeans cannot yet regard the euro as an unqualified success. The economies of Southern Europe are not flexible enough to flourish in the eurozone. Their poor record on innovation, productivity, deregulation and the liberalisation of services has led to declining competitiveness and serious current account and budget deficits. The financial markets have some doubts about their long-term ability to stay in the eurozone. Greece looks like being the weakest link, and if its membership became an open question, the financial markets would quickly demand a massive premium for lending to other uncompetitive eurozone economies. To prevent the contagion spreading, the EU would bail out a government in serious difficulties – but it
would not lend money without imposing painful conditions that politicians would find hard to swallow.

if NATO would be forced to choose, would it go for Turkey or Greece? Which country would be more...shall we say,expendable, in the Alliance's point of view?

Neither. NATO would choose neutrality and sending diplomats IMO. Sometimes the best choice is not making one.

I think from the American point of view, we'd prefer the Turks because they contribute more than the Greeks to our missions and have a good military. But I think they'd hide behind the peace moniker instead of making a choice. I think the European NATO members would prefer Greece though.

The EU though does not have the Turks as a member but do have the Greeks and Cypriots, so they can't hide behind that dual membership position. But if the Greeks asked for help of any kind based on EU membership and they were seen as just at much at fault as the Turks, I think the result would be similar to the Falklands War, where Argentina said that based on the Rio Treaty everyone in the hemisphere should come to their assistance and the U.S. refused to honor it, which led to much of the Americas over time now treating the treaty as dead letter as Vicente Fox put it in 2002. I think Greece and Cyprus would ask for help from the EU based on some kind of defense pact and the help would be refused.

If the war even started though, it would be a failure of the EU's projection of power.

[chakos]

Although you have to question in todays world for the US to abandon a European, Christian country for a Muslim one would be one pill too much to bear for domestic consumption.

This isnt Serbia (and that was bad enough). There is no genocide, or killing fields or cities under siege. The fact that Greece is considered the weaker power would make the US position even more untenable if it chose to back Turkey.

It would be forced to sacrifice Turkey and face disaster in the Middle East rather than sacrifice Greece and lose Europe.

Greece, cradle of western civilization and birthplace of democracy abandoned for an Islamic country with a half-democracy and a massive army... It would be political suicide for the US to back them.

It would back noone, stay quiet and do nothing. Europe would back Greece based on civilizational ties, Russia would probably also back Greece on cultural and religious ties.

Regardless it would leave the Turks turning their back on the west and aspiring to a leadership position in the Islamic world.. something that would be scary in the long run for those who forget where the last caliphate was located.

[Big K]

Turkey is not an "Islamic" country...

but chakos's last post defines clearly the view of Christian countries: it is still "Jesus vs Muhammed" thing in their minds.

personally i am strongly against EU membership.

Turkey must adopt its reformings in democratic & technologic & other sectors but Turkey should also place itself as a fair counterweight in the international affairs and follow the Ataturk's way of "full independence".

our foreign policy (if we have one despite our high level of economic&energy dependancy) should be one different and more realistic policy and should not be homogenised in the EU's policies.

on the other hand EU's refusal of Turkey's membership have also special economic&cultural reasons and i admit that they are right.

back to the thread, i believe that NATO&EU both will remain quiet if such conflict occurs.

[Mihais]

Big K,what about the Greece's neighbours?None of them like you.Nobody forgets what happened the last time Turkey was allowed to pick Balkan countries one by one.So while you can expect the West to be neutral,you can also rest assured that you'll face Serbs and Bulgarians.Also your ally,Kosovo, would be in a delicate position.
Romania has good relations with Turkey and the general attitude towards you is neutral-friendly,but a war would be to much.

[Oscar]

Most likely the EU and US would put maximum pressure on both of them and tell the two to stop behaving like kids. With a blockade and economic sanctions if they persist.