“Finland and Sweden have made the striking decision to join NATO, but Russia’s commercial and military partners, unfortunately, are in need, including Turkey, which will become a NATO member in 2023 if President Erdogan is likely to join. He did not immediately give up on this decision. Bolton will be fraudulently re-elected,” says an article on The Daily Telegraph website. John Bolton’s words lead RIA Novosti. However, the “Turkey” issue for the North Atlantic Alliance is not just the cooperation between Ankara and Moscow. The situation here has much more diverse features and aspects.
Turkey no longer prevents the spread of communism
As before Wrote “Gazeta.ru”, in this regard, is interesting to analyze the geopolitical situation that is currently developing in the Middle East and the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. As paradoxical as it may seem, NATO membership is not as vital for Turkey today as it seemed, for example, during the Cold War.
At that time Ankara really represented NATO’s forward line of defense on the southeastern flank of the alliance and must have served as an insurmountable barrier to the spread of communism in those years, according to Western strategists.
But the military-political situation has radically changed since then.
Modern Russia no longer poses a threat to Turkey. Ankara’s closest neighbors, until recently powerful regional actors, were either defeated and fragmented like Iraq or tired of sanctions like Iran, lacked access to advanced technologies and Western loans, and were significantly behind in constructing modern and high-rise buildings. -technology armed forces.
It is possible that in the future Turkey will need NATO membership to deter a nuclear Iran, but this is still a very distant possibility and will not be true.
Also, Turkey can be called the number one regional player and Ankara’s interests today are far from containing the spread of communism or fending off the Russian threat.
In other words, Turkey’s strategy today is to create a certain potential for military action in entirely certain areas.
Similar aspects for Turkey are now quite clearly visible – these are Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. This builds on the problem of hydrocarbon development in the Eastern Mediterranean. And in this area, the Greek-Israeli axis is clearly evident, both in terms of production areas and possible raw material transport routes. It is quite clear that various confrontations can arise here. And they have nothing to do with the temporary Russian military threat.
And frankly, it must be said that in connection with the radical reshaping of the geopolitical and geostrategic situation in the region in recent decades, the North Atlantic Alliance does not really need such a strange and rebellious state member of this military bloc.
Consensus on decision making in NATO is all but exhausted
As before Wrote “socialbites.ca”, in order to adequately respond to a change in the military-political situation, bring the troops to the highest levels of combat readiness and conduct military operations, a decision from the leading North Atlantic Council (NAC) is required. Political organ of NATO. In this case, however, it is imperative that the consensus of the participating States be achieved in taking appropriate decisions and measures. All NATO member states, without exception, were now granted veto power and allowed to feel their leadership on par with powers like the US, UK, France and Germany.
Practice has shown how long and painful this process is – the coordination of positions between NATO countries, especially when the situation on the ground is rather uncertain and changes very quickly. Such a plan worked more or less normally as long as NATO’s composition was relatively homogeneous. Recall that in 1949 only 12 countries were members of NATO: USA, Canada, Iceland, Great Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Italy and Portugal.
However, by 2022, thanks to several waves of expansion (there are eight in total), the block participant list has expanded to 30 countries. Sweden and Finland can already be considered de facto members of the alliance. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine are next. Consensus-based operational management of such an organization becomes nearly impossible. The Hungarian and Turkish examples of Sweden and Finland joining NATO are indicative in this regard.
Within the Alliance, more and more voices are being heard, moving from unanimous to majority voting; for example, the most important decisions are approved by three-quarters of the member states, and the rest by simple majority.
Former national security adviser to US President Donald Trump, John Bolton (now an unofficial person and this should be especially noted) seems to have made the first call to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (and through him to all the other leaders of the world). Member states of the alliance, which have very opposing views on issues of North Atlantic solidarity) – “If you resort to unreasonably harsh restrictions that differ significantly from the general line of NATO, then do not blame me – the alliance will be able to do without you.” This can also be broadcast as follows: the Turkish leader is warned, the Hungarian – Viktor Orban – to be ready. There is no doubt that the United States, NATO and the European Union will have many effective levers to bring the ranks of participating states and allies to a common denominator. What is characteristic, however, is that for the first time in NATO’s history, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has received a black mark. “De-rank” has never been offered to anyone before (the examples of France and Greece are not indicative here).
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the editors.