Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Tuesday that Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty are nonnegotiable for Turkey, as Ankara positions itself as a potential host for talks between Russia, Ukraine and the United States. Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency reported.
I don’t think so. Turkiye has invested a lot in its military the past years and they are also heavily using it to fight Kurdish “terrorists” and establish “security buffer zones” in Syria. Also Turkiye while on difficult terms with the rest of NATO is controlling the Bosporus, which is vital for controlling the Black Sea. Russias Navy can easily be locked in in the Baltic and the Black Sea, which is why they were so eager to keep the Tartus base in Syria, as its only direct access to the Mediterranean Sea.
Finally for invading Turkiye Russia has to go through the Kapart Mountain range or along the coast through Turkiyes and Israels lapdog Azerbaijan and then Iran, or try a naval invasion from the Black Sea. Both are a logistical headaches.
So NATO is stronger on this flank, has a much stronger strategic interest and logistics are a pain. The other way round the Mountains and the Sea offer some cover, so Russia can defend on that flank. It makes more sense to go for the Baltic states next, if Russia wants to expand into this direction. Bonus points for having Ukraine and Belarus as a buffer zone to Poland and then Slovakia and Hungary as kind of Russian assets, further keeping that front safe.
It is. But as we see with both the response to Turkyie and Israel pulling this crap, Syrian sovereignty has no relevance for many NATO countries like the US, UK, France and Germany.
My key argument is that the Turkish army doesn’t only have the equipment but also has combat veterans, which makes it more difficult to fight. When we look at Saudis failed attempts at putting boots on the ground in Yemen, or how the North Korean soldiers sent to Ukraine did at first, it is a strong reminder how important actual experience is, compared to just fancy equipment.
absolutely; we’re in no disagreement! my comment was intended as a “yes and” for something that seems to be a particular focus for conflict in modern history
I don’t think so. Turkiye has invested a lot in its military the past years and they are also heavily using it to fight Kurdish “terrorists” and establish “security buffer zones” in Syria. Also Turkiye while on difficult terms with the rest of NATO is controlling the Bosporus, which is vital for controlling the Black Sea. Russias Navy can easily be locked in in the Baltic and the Black Sea, which is why they were so eager to keep the Tartus base in Syria, as its only direct access to the Mediterranean Sea.
Finally for invading Turkiye Russia has to go through the Kapart Mountain range or along the coast through Turkiyes and Israels lapdog Azerbaijan and then Iran, or try a naval invasion from the Black Sea. Both are a logistical headaches.
So NATO is stronger on this flank, has a much stronger strategic interest and logistics are a pain. The other way round the Mountains and the Sea offer some cover, so Russia can defend on that flank. It makes more sense to go for the Baltic states next, if Russia wants to expand into this direction. Bonus points for having Ukraine and Belarus as a buffer zone to Poland and then Slovakia and Hungary as kind of Russian assets, further keeping that front safe.
this buffer zone shit is such crap… if you want a buffer zone, use your own god damn country or come to an agreement to share the burden of the zone!
It is. But as we see with both the response to Turkyie and Israel pulling this crap, Syrian sovereignty has no relevance for many NATO countries like the US, UK, France and Germany.
My key argument is that the Turkish army doesn’t only have the equipment but also has combat veterans, which makes it more difficult to fight. When we look at Saudis failed attempts at putting boots on the ground in Yemen, or how the North Korean soldiers sent to Ukraine did at first, it is a strong reminder how important actual experience is, compared to just fancy equipment.
absolutely; we’re in no disagreement! my comment was intended as a “yes and” for something that seems to be a particular focus for conflict in modern history