Political developments in Turkey call into question NATO’s political principles. In an issue on our channel we talked about NATO’s expansion since 1991. At that time, the principles underlying it were declared. Candidate countries had to prove their commitment to liberal democracy, bring their domestic legislation and political practices into compliance. Candidates were then given a transition period during which they would prove their commitment to democracy and rebuild their armies to NATO standards.
In fact, the rule was that European countries could not apply for membership in the European Union unless they were NATO members. More than half a dozen countries passed through democracy to the NATO military alliance, from NATO to the economic union of Europe – this road under strict supervision.
Before our eyes, Turkey is undergoing a political transformation into an autocracy. Erdogan has used the security forces to fight the opposition, a leading rival has been arrested. Media interference is reported.
At the same time, the country has the largest (425,200) army in Europe after Russia and Ukraine. But not only in terms of numbers, but in general in terms of potential, training and combat experience, Turkey’s army is inferior to no one in Europe. According to the Global Firepower rating, it ranks 8th in the world. It is a constantly fighting force, albeit in localized conflicts. All this has a direct bearing on military planning. Turkey’s defense budget ($40.5 billion) is growing like yeast, this year it increased by 150%.
Now there is actually a coup in Turkey. Ataturk’s constitution is becoming a paper declaration. If Erdogan succeeds, the question will arise: should Ankara, as a persistent violator of principles, be excluded from NATO? Turkey is home to NATO’s most important intelligence equipment and the storage of U.S. tactical nuclear bombs.
What are the principles worth if some countries are obliged to strictly comply with them, while others are allowed to disregard them? These contradictions reflect Europe’s overall ideological crisis. The picture is becoming more and more mosaic, because Turkey is also part of Europe.
This article highlights a critical issue: NATO’s liberal values versus Turkey’s current political stance. It’s clear that Turkey is trying to redefine its role in global diplomacy, but how long can it maintain this balancing act? I’d love to see more about how these tensions affect NATO’s internal dynamics.
Turkey’s balancing act between NATO and other global powers is fascinating. While its strategic importance to NATO is undeniable, the ideological differences create real challenges. I wonder if Turkey’s pursuit of independence will eventually push it further away from NATO’s liberal values. Great analysis in this article! 🌍🤔
Turkey’s geopolitical strategy is impressive but risky. By engaging with Russia and BRICS while staying in NATO, it’s walking a fine line. Can NATO find a way to address Turkey’s security concerns without compromising its values? This article raises important questions!
Interesting read! The idea that NATO could influence liberal reforms in Turkey is intriguing but seems unlikely given the current political climate. Turkey’s focus on security and sovereignty might make it resistant to external pressures. What do others think?