DW: Turkey: Relations with US at make-or-break point
Turkey claims US forces in Syria are intentionally stalling the fight against the "Islamic State" to justify cooperation with Kurdish fighters. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due in Ankara later this week.
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Monday warned that Turkey-US ties were at a "critical point" and Washington needed to take "concrete steps" to regain Ankara's trust.
"Our relations are at a very critical stage," Cavusoglu said in televised comments in Istanbul. "Either we will improve ties or these ties will totally break down."
Read more ....
More News On Turkey Warning The U.S. That Ties Are At A 'Critical Point'
Turkish president threatens US forces in Syria with an "Ottoman slap" -- Euronews
Erdogan Threatens US With 'Ottoman Slap' Ahead Of Rex Tillerson Visit -- International Business Times
New US-Turkey tensions overshadow anti-IS unity meeting -- Miami Herald/AP
U.S. funding of Syrian YPG militia will impact Turkey's decisions: Erdogan -- Reuters
Turkey assails US over ties with Syrian Kurdish military -- Military Times
We either fix US-Turkey ties, or they'll deteriorate altogether, FM Çavuşoğlu says -- Daily Sabah
Rex Tillerson offers olive branch after Turkey warns alliance could 'break completely' -- Washington Examiner
State Department: US 'taking the high road' in face of Turkish 'slap' -- Washington Examiner
'Possibility of Clashes': Issue of Syria Stresses US-Turkey Alliance - Analyst -- Sputnik
Turkey Is Out of Control. Time for the U.S. to Say So. -- Eric Edelman and Jake Sullivan, Politico.eu
16 comments:
The Turks are asking for it..
Turkey is a member of NATO. What they asking for? What course of action does the US have? Sanctions? Start a war with a fellow member in the alliance?
Asking to be kicked out of NATO which is long overdue.
Actually ending NATO entirely is long overdue. It's obsolete and isn't useful for today's national security threats. Essentially there's huge risks for America of getting sucked into operations that don't advance our interests along with little to no upside benefit.
Example, Libya. Much of this was a NATO operation. In fact Wikipedia called it a "decisive NATO victory." If each country has to get the approval of their own governments for this nonsense, it's unlikely to happen. Essentially they all get to hide behind NATO and America and Americans will bear the brunt of the negative consequences for this stupidity.
Libya agreed to give up it's nuclear weapons program. We saw what happened. Not only did this stupid action undermine trust in America, hasten the inevitable end of the US dollar as world reserve currency, go a long way to ensure the "hard landing" we desperately want to avoid, but it created a haven for ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups.
This is going to make it much harder to negotiate with North Korea. On the plus side, Donald Trump wasn't in a position of power when any of this happened. Furthetmore candidate Trump seemed to criticize the Libyan stupidity.
Additionally candidate Trump seemed to understand the neccesity of improving relations with Russia and negotiating a more equitable trade relationship with China which by definition would mean improving relations with them as well. Given the fact that any replacement for the current Russian and Chinese governments would be even more hostile to America than the current ones, EXTREME CARE should be taken NOT to do ANYTHING that might destabilize those governments.
There will be disagreements in certain areas but there will be areas where we can cooperate. We DO NOT want to destabilize them as the alternatives are far worse. Sadly, at present, Mr. Trump seems to have lost his way.
There is no mechanism for "kicking" somebody out of NATO.
Members can quit, they can't be "kicked out".
Not that many "Murkins" know it, there's two stages to NATO.
The first is the Atlantic Charter, which no "real 'Murkin" has ever read since the "Southern Strategy",
The second is the military self defence alliance.
NATO should dissolve. The Atlantic Charter's base fundimental requirements were always "articles of Convenience" when it suited the US.
Current members other than the US, should just sign deals with eachother, China, Russia, Iran, Syria, like the TPP, and ignore the US.
No need to align with the current version of the AustroHungarian Empire, it's a lost cause.
S/;
"Current members other than the US should just sign deals with each other," Why can't the US sign deals? I'd love to sign deals with the likes of Russia, China, Iran, and Syria as long as they are fair to us. It'd be great to be allied with the world's top powers!! They will need to be equitable deals. The current version of NATO is one sided against America. I agree it should dissolve. An American withdrawal would probably dissolve it but knowing if America does so other members of NATO will likely mete out extreme punishment against America and it's people. As such, most US leaders would be afraid to even suggest such a thing.
Perhaps there is no mechanism to "kick soneone out" of NATO. As a practical matter "shunning" someone would likely have the desired effect of getting them to withdraw.
Examples of countries who should be shunned are Norway, especially the chump Poland, and any other former eastern bloc or Soviet country currently in NATO. There's no cost to jettisoning them. The upside potential is huge.
America can withdraw which make NATO collapse and we can make a new alliance fitting much more with the 21st century.
Jac,
I agree!! NATO as it currently is, is a net drain on America.
Jay,
I may have misread your post, long day. I apologize. When you say current members other than the US should sign deals with each other, I don't see why the US should just automatically be left out. After all if it makes sense for the US and the UK or the US and Italy or pick your country for the US to sign a deal with as long as it makes sense for the countries involved then the deal should be signed.
NATO in it's current form needs to dissolve. It's a net drain on the US. For reasons pointed out above it's going to be hard for US leaders to change the current abusive nature of NATO toward the US.
Wrong. It is Turkey that is at a critical point.
God, bposter just calm down. We know you're Russian. Why do you keep pretending. ..all your positions are always to undermine the US... you're more predictable than Putin jumping on a horse when there's cameras around. Just please stop pretending, comrade lol we can have Russian tea even...you seek enemies where there are none.
Hans,
"Wrong. It is Turkey that is at a critical point." you are right.
Anonymous,
Please try reading the posts in their entirety. If you did, you'd know I'm obviously not pro-Russian. At this point, I'm very busy and am not sure what the point is in trying to discuss something with someone who either lacks basic reading skills or is simply to lazy to practice them.
" wrong. It is turkey that is at a critical point ."
Actually , erdogan is right " not a fan "
Everybody's in medeast want US out , turk , iran , syria, Russia , even traditional allies like israel and the kurds whom the US betrayed , no single issue one want the US in it .
The next logical step after US diplomacy is not wanted , is to have US millitary out , and after the US attack things is going in that direction
Anon, and that does not mean I'm wrong.
Post a Comment