21–30 of 132 posts
[flagged]
military alliance is related to trade dispute..how? The US needs them more than they need the US. They're strategically placed at the bosphorous containing russia's western advances and containing the baltics. Ukraine would be the next best thing, but they're not in NATO.
Please stop. Erdogan is not in charge of what things are called in English, and Turkey has been called Turkey for hundreds of years. Calling it "Türkiye" would be as silly as switching to calling Germany "Deutschland" tomorrow because it tickles Friedrich Merz's nationalist pride.
Good news is that with allies like this we don't need enemies!
Maybe you guys should redefine who is your allies and enemies. Since the last one year or so even your allies feel like they are your enemies anyway. Tell me, who do you not have a beef with atm?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's left of it after it's dismantlement you mean? it isn't much of an alliance now. and if it is going to be used to twist arms in trade disagreements, it is already dead.
While it has its challenges, it is not dead.
[flagged]
Türkiye is a highly effective arms manufacturer and is pretty aligned with NATO most of the time. They've been one of the more surprisingly strong supporters of Ukraine. They shot down a Russian jet a few years ago just to emphasize FAFO. Yes they have their specific regional interests they will emphasize even when they offend NATO sensibilities, like giving Armenia the finger in their war with Azerbaijan, but that i…
Or when they support islamists in Syria against the kurds and annect illegally parts of it. Who cares about those things nowdays anyway.
But if we want NATO to not just be a military force, but something something freedom and human rights, maybe we should care more about it.