Turkey Is Already Lost to NATO, Time for Washington to Make It Official

Instead of sanctioning Turkey it would make more sense to revoke its NATO membership

Pro-Erdogan election material

Foreign and military policy needs to change along with circumstances. During the Cold War, it made sense for Washington to forge the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and make Turkey a member. Today, an American-dominated NATO makes little sense, and Ankara’s membership even less so.

Bringing in Turkey, which no one ever mistook for a liberal Western-style democracy, was always a bit of a stretch. That nation has proven over the years to be politically unstable, with occasional military interference in governing affairs. In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus and almost came to blows with Greece, another NATO member. Subsequent weak coalition governments were little inclined to address the country’s serious problems.

Thankfully, confrontation with Russia never came, and after the Soviet Union collapsed, alliance officials worked overtime to concoct new duties, finally settling on “out of area” operations largely unrelated to Europe’s defense. Turkey played little role in any of them (though it did contribute a small non-combat continent to Afghanistan).

As for U.S. actions, Ankara showed poor alliance relations—but good geopolitical judgment—in refusing to allow the U.S. to open a northern front against Iraq from Turkish territory in 2003. This created a rift with the Pentagon, previously Ankara’s strongest advocate in the United States. More recently, Turkey has played a largely malign role in Syria.

Early in the Syrian war, the Erdogan government allowed Islamic State personnel easy passage across its border. Smuggling was rife: Erdogan’s son-in-law and oil minister was accused of being involved in the profitable though illicit trade. In early 2018, Ankara launched an offensive against Syrian Kurds who had cooperated with U.S. forces against ISIS. In demanding the creation of a buffer zone, Erdogan even threatened to confront American personnel.

Erdogan also turned against Israel, costing him support from that nation’s advocates in America. Ankara continued to spar with Greece militarily, refusing to recognize Greek airspace surrounding islands near Turkey, and remained a major obstacle to a settlement in Cyprus. The discovery of undersea natural gas fields in Cypriot waters led to further conflict between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey, eliciting retaliation by the European Union.

Erdogan also routinely played to widespread anti-American sentiment in Turkey, accusing the U.S. of involvement in the failed coup three years ago. Without evidence, he blamed the attempted takeover on Fethullah Gulen, an aged Muslim cleric who has lived in America for decades, and then criticized Washington for not sending Gulen to Turkey for trial, even though Ankara failed to provide the evidence necessary for extradition. Erdogan’s government also arrested several Americans, most famously pastor Andrew Brunson, on frivolous grounds, apparently to use as bargaining chips.

Misusing the judicial system was only one component of Turkey’s descent into autocracy. Ankara had already become an increasingly unfree state in which opposition to or even criticism of the president and ruling party could lead to loss of job, removal from office, and prison. The attempted coup, which some analysts suspected Erdogan of planning, provided a perfect excuse for a massive crackdown. Freedom House now rates Turkey as not free.

None of the foregoing, other than Brunson’s detention, mattered much to the Trump administration, however. The issue now threatening to break the alliance is Ankara’s purchase of Russian S-400 air defense missiles. Growing estrangement from the U.S. and Europe encouraged the Turkish leader to look east, especially after Russia’s Vladimir Putin quickly backed him during the 2016 attempted coup, and he chose the highly touted Russian anti-aircraft system over American Patriot missiles. Trump unsurprisingly blamed the Obama administration, but it was Erdogan’s decision; he may have desired better protection against American aircraft should the military again attempt his overthrow.

The Pentagon feared that the simultaneous operation of S-400s and F-35s, which Turkey planned to purchase, would improve Russia’s ability to target American aircraft in any future conflict. Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Ellen Lord explained: “We seek only to protect the long-term security of the F-35 program.” Despite months of U.S. complaints, demands, and threats, however, Ankara accepted the initial shipment from Russia. Washington responded by barring Ankara from purchasing the F-35.

Moreover, Washington plans to kick Turkey out of the F-35 production program, denying it some $10 billion in business. That should be sanction enough, but two years ago Congress enacted legislation instructing the president to punish nations that purchase weapons from Russia. So the administration is considering economic penalties on the Turkish government and officials.

The British Independent’s Ahmed Aboudouh apparently assumed that Ankara would fold when he insisted that “Trump’s failure to punish Erdogan further will be a lost chance to reverse Putin’s malicious agenda to implode the EU, NATO and every entity helping to keep Russia’s ambitions in check in the post-Cold War landscape.” However, backed by a nationalistic population, Ankara is unlikely to capitulate. Sanctions would just increase the bilateral hostility and possibly lead Turkey to close Incirlik air base to American operations. Turkey also could occupy Kurdish territory in northern Syria, expanding on its 2018 invasion of Syrian borderlands.

A better approach would be to eschew further sanctions and press for suspension of Turkey’s membership in NATO, with expulsion likely to follow. (Also, America’s nuclear weapons should be withdrawn from Incirlik irrespective of the resolution of the current controversy.) That would be a long overdue first for the alliance, which until now has demonstrated an unseemly desire to expand.

The only serious potential security threat to Europe today is from Russia. Yet Turkey cannot be trusted to take NATO’s side in a conflict.

Ankara’s foreign policy now diverges greatly from that of the Western states, and its relationship with Russia, including cooperation in Syria, would discourage it from challenging Moscow there or elsewhere.

Indeed, just as Erdogan decided that he could not trust his nation’s NATO-centric officers after the attempted coup, NATO cannot trust Turkish staff who may be budding Russophiles.

The thought of dropping Ankara creates consternation among some members of the foreign policy establishment. An unnamed “senior State Department official” insisted that “Turkey has been and remains an important NATO ally, an important partner to the United States. Our relationship is not being defined by the single issue of the S-400.” However, defenestrating Ankara would only formalize the changing relationship. In practice, Turkey has already been “lost” to the alliance.

Abandoning any illusions about the relationship might better enable the U.S. to negotiate a modus vivendi with Ankara in Syria and elsewhere.

Of course, Erdogan will not be president forever. Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead argued that “Washington should remember that Turkey is bigger than one man and focus on the long term.” Yet the U.S. should also not feel the need to chase after dubious allies whose importance has faded. Especially since, even after Erdogan’s eventual hostility dissipates, disputed interests will remain and undermine any alliance ties.

The Turkish population is already one of the most hostile to America in the world, with only 18 percent of Turks viewing the U.S. favorably in 2017. An incredible 72 percent viewed us as a “major threat.” That’s the highest level among the 30 nations polled by the Pew Research Center.

Moreover, growing Islamization in Turkey reflects popular beliefs more than government policy. That makes antagonism toward America more likely and reconciliation with Israel less likely. Previous nationalist governments have treated Greece and Cyprus more coldly and Kurdish citizens more harshly than have Erdogan’s.

The Brookings Institution’s Amanda Sloat observed: “Ankara wonders if Washington cares about its security needs, and Washington wonders if Ankara is a reliable ally.” Both answers are no. But that won’t change. It is unlikely that NATO, despite being so eager for new members, would invite Turkey to join today.

Ankara has effectively chosen to leave the alliance. The U.S. and other members should ratify that decision and work with Turkey to create a new cooperative framework when their interests align. New circumstances require new policies.

Source: The American Conservative

  1. Garry Compton says

    Sorry , but the serious threat to Europe is the EU – not Russia. Ask any Greek pensioner.

  2. Tick Tock says

    Poor Doug is really dumb. But he keeps getting paid for republishing the same garbage. He could just poop on a page and they might publish that too. Kind of pathetic. Turkey was only a place for the US to place Nuclear Weapons in short distance to Soviet Russia and now Russia Russia. Now they think they can place them all over Eastern Europe. Everyone knows lots of East Europeans are quite dumb and clueless. Hence their Love Affair with Nazi’s. Maybe it is genetic I don’t know but I do know that the Russian Military will just target some of the 1,000’s of Nuclear Devices on these countries.

    Russia is certainly not a threat to NATO. Only NATO is a threat to humanity and of course NATO itself. Give them a gun maybe they can shoot themselves.

  3. thomas malthaus says


    Tayyip Erdogan’s support for Palestinians and anti-Israel sentiment.

    How does he feel about Christians within Turkey?

  4. Grand Nagus Zek says

    Agreed – turkey needs to be out of NATO; preferably it should be a part of SCO

    but the article is atlanticist garbage

  5. JNDillard says

    While new aggravations could hurry the divorce process, I doubt if either side wants to push it. The US knows the rest of the world would take the departure of Turkey from NATO as a sign of its diminishing influence, and Turkey has had success playing the US and Russia off against each other and probably wants to keep it that way, because that maximizes its leverage. But will it continue to inch closer to the SCO? Yes. And how much of that will the US tolerate? More, but how much more?

    1. DarkEyes says

      Don’t think so. The Russian are playing the game with a different ball and own rules.

  6. John C Carleton says

    Time to disband NATO, the Rat run zionist warmongering and illegal war making organization.

    Fair Common Law Trials, Fair Hangings for the war criminal guilty of NATO!

  7. thomas malthaus says


    I suspect President Erdogan will give NATO about two months or less to depart Incirlik. NATO’s Article 13 would make departure a year long process following Turkey’s notice.

    When has the US ever respected rules?

    Considering what is occurring around Cyprus, Russia and China will become Incirlik’s new tenants and their navies will occupy Turkey’s military port facilities.


    Another global flashpoint? Should the Americans gain access to said oil and gas reserves, I doubt the unrefined products will be exported to Europe.

    The US’ energy and economic deficit is that crucial. Producing a predominant light grade shale oil usable for blending with thicker crude doesn’t bode well for domestic medium grade crude production needed to power trucks and autos.

    “Of course, Erdogan will not be president forever.”
    President Erdogan has few doubts the US is planning another coup.

    “Islamizing Turkey out of NATO.” Interesting title when considering the US and Europe have been Islamizing their own countries and support Islamic terror (ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc).

    If you go the American Conservative, you’ll notice a title change the conspicuously involves the word “Islamizing.”

  8. robertmb says

    NATO still considers Russia he biggest threat, all because the corrupt governments of the Baltic states. These went from being subsidised Soviet republics with higher living standards than the rest,to being states subsidised by the EU.
    Failed states,hungry for money from EU/NATO.
    And NATO has no reason to exist, but the industrial-military complex needs a captive client!

  9. Augustus says

    From Turkey’s perspective it is certainly to its advantage to turn East toward China/Russia and the SCO. Since Europe made it plain that Turkey was not welcome into the European Union what other choice did Turkey have. And, it is a near certainty that the Obama/Hillary administration was involved in the 2016 coup against Erdogan.
    Who can blame him for going for the S400 system to defend his interests.

    It’s a shame because Turkey with its strategic position and large NATO army is …or was…a much more important ally than Israel. Israel is a parasite. We would have done better to throw Israel over the side and ally with Turkey. Too late now.

    1. DarkEyes says

      Why do so many people want all these “military groupies” be formed.
      A belongs to C, B belongs to G, Turkey belongs to NATO.

      When we think about the ridiculous soldier games to protect against L etc.

      Who the hell is attacking Europe?
      Who the hell is attacking Russia?
      Who the hell is attacking China?
      Who the hell is attacking USA?

      Nobody is attacking another country and still they have weaponry up to their throat to protect …. right …. Big Money. That is all.

      The Yankees had the motto around 1900 that when we have an army there must also be a provision for wars.
      This is pure insanity.

      This bloody game is going on up till the very day.

    2. Tick Tock says

      Yep, Jewland is a blood sucking Pig. But a Kosher one though…

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.