Turkey’s decision to join NATO in 1952 was a pivotal moment in its history and had a significant impact on its relationship with Russia.
Without NATO membership, Turkey would have been more vulnerable to Soviet influence and pressure but it would not have guaranteed a direct military confrontation.
The specific dynamics of their relationship would have depended on various factors, including the changing geopolitical landscape and the leadership of both countries.
The Soviet Union had historically sought control over the Dardanelles and Bosphorus straits, which are crucial for shipping traffic between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.
In 1946 Stalin did demand that Turkey cede territory in Anatolia to the Soviet Union.
Stalin also demanded that Turkey hand over control of the Golden Horn to the Soviet Union, so that a Soviet Military base could be built there.
That would have given Stalin complete control of the access to the Black Sea.
Turkey refused and even before NATO, the USA backed them up by sending a Naval task force to Turkey.
NATO membership provided Turkey with a security guarantee and deterred Soviet aggression.
The documentary was most likely funded by an anti-Turkish lobby (such as Armenian or Greek groups) because a documentary that is so far from reality and unaware of international laws could not be made otherwise.
Indeed, in a world that is becoming increasingly polarized, Turkey is arguably the country that NATO needs the most. The real threat to NATO comes from two of its own members, Greece and France, which, by violating international treaties and attempting to usurp Turkey’s rights, are driving Turkey away from NATO. Such behavior could lead to Turkey leaving NATO, which would significantly weaken the alliance. Turkey’s importance to NATO exceeds the combined importance of these two countries. Therefore, France and Greece should promptly align themselves and stop being an impediment to Turkey.
Over the recent years, Russian and international media have been actively writing about various contracts of Uzbekistan for the purchase of Russian military equipment, some of them are the most modern, and the other part are a legacy of the USSR. The numerous deals indicate Tashkent’s determination to take arms sales talks with Moscow to a higher level. In 2017, Uzbekistan committed to modernizing its armed forces as part of a five-year development strategy. Another factor that may have spurred Uzbekistan’s Defense Ministry recently was the intra-Afghan conference in Qatar, which resulted in the adoption of a nascent peace resolution. Tashkent has a lot at stake in this process, since any withdrawal of Western (particularly American) troops as a result of the resolution will have direct security consequences. Thus, Uzbekistan will take sole responsibility for protecting its border with Afghanistan.
In addition, in 2019, Uzbekistan purchased 12 Mi-35M military helicopters. These transport helicopters, which can also be used to attack ground targets, have been in production since the 2000s. Besides, Uzbekistan has ordered an unspecified number of BTR-82A armored personnel carriers (APCs), capable of carrying three crew members and seven soldiers. Previously, Tashkent also purchased “several dozen” special-purpose armored vehicles VPK-233136 “Tiger”, capable of transporting up to seven military personnel (according to TASS).
In addition to modernizing equipment for its ground forces, Uzbekistan plans to enter into contracts for the Air Force and order new fighter jets and a radar system. In particular, Tashkent is negotiating the purchase of Su-30SM multirole fighters, which Russia has deployed in Syria. Uzbekistan has also expressed interest in acquiring Sopka-2 radar systems, which monitor airspace, as well as upgrading the country’s existing military radars to Sopka-2 levels.
Closer-than-usual military cooperation between Russia and Uzbekistan began with President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s first trip to Moscow in April 2017 and President Vladimir Putin’s return visit to Tashkent in October 2018. During these meetings, the parties discussed issues of military cooperation and modernization of Uzbekistan’s military equipment using Russian assets; the real details of these conversations are only surfacing now. And, no doubts, Uzbekistan’s recent purchases of Russian weapons, along with ongoing negotiations between the two sides, are directly related to these aforementioned summits.
A number of factors indicate that Uzbekistan’s efforts to update its military arsenal are related to the dynamically developing situation in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of Uzbekistan, Major General Pavel Ergashev, spoke about the movement of “centres of instability” in northern Afghanistan (i.e. areas close to or bordering Uzbekistan), which, in his opinion, threatens stability in Central Asia. The fact that these purchases came after intense peace negotiations in Afghanistan, which were supported by Uzbekistan, is not a mere coincidence. Assuming a subsequent withdrawal of US troops from the theater of operations in the short to medium term, the burden of defending the Afghan-Uzbek border will now fall solely on Tashkent.
Despite the fact the Turkish drones such as the Bayraktar TB2 have become extremely popular due to their successful deployment in multiple conflicts around the globe and have also popped up in Central Asia, Uzbekistan seems to rely more on the Russian drone system. In August 2021, Uzbek armed forces performed a readiness drill with Russian-made drones in an area near the country’s southern border. The Yug-2021 exercise was held jointly with the Russian army against the backdrop of worsening stability in neighboring Afghanistan.
Uzbekistan has tried to develop domestic defense capabilities elsewhere too. In October 2021, the State Defense Industry Committee announced it had developed its own remote-controlled heavy machine gun. A month later, the same body said it had begun production of a domestically designed light-armored vehicle called Qalqon (Shield).
It is much more profitable for Uzbekistan to purchase military equipment from Moscow rather than from NATO for a number of reasons. Firstly, in the current conditions of logistical difficulties, the delivery of military equipment from Russia is much safer and cheaper than from NATO countries. Secondly, given Uzbekistan’s Soviet past, many standards and the language of instructions for Russian equipment are clearer than Western ones. Thirdly, the United States is gradually curtailing its geographic scope of military operations, since it cannot support them financially, and accordingly, supplies of depleted equipment to Uzbekistan will cost more, and their effectiveness is quite low. Finally, Uzbekistan is also aware of the strategic risks of purchasing military equipment from NATO – ultimately this will lead to the deployment of NATO military bases on the country’s territory under the pretext of “maintaining and monitoring” equipment in proper condition, joint exercises, etc.
Thus, these factors and global changes are motivating Uzbekistan to quickly acquire military equipment from the country where most of its obsolete military equipment originally came from.
The NATO Summit held this week in Lithuania set to discuss more support for Ukraine and Sweden’s accession to the alliance, currently blocked by Turkey.
Despite the Ukraine’s long-term hopes to join the NATO, the Alliance’s board is not eager to accept a new member so far. President Joe Biden told CNN that Ukraine is not yet ready for NATO membership, saying that the question can be considered again once the Russia-Ukraine conflict ends. According to the U.S. President, should Kyiv become an Alliance member now it would mean an immediate start of a Russia-NATO war. But there are some other reasons beyond this official agenda. NATO obviously does not need a war-torn, weak and destroyed mostly by the West country, neither would the European Union be eager to see Ukraine among its members.
Ironically enough, Zelensky looked like an uninvited guest at the party adding even more shame to himself by thanking the NATO members for agreeing to consider Ukraine’s NATO membership once the Kyiv’s conflict with Russia is over.
Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Zelensky deserves NATO. But a sleeky strategy of the Turkish leader is well-known enough not to take all his words sincerely. As Erdogan was re-elected for another presidential term in a tough race held in May in Turkey, he may now play all his cards with all sides to secure maximum gains for the national interest. A more neutral position on Ukraine and broker prisoner swap deals between Moscow and Kyiv allows Erdogan to balance between Russia and the West and gain more scores either on the grain deal or make NATO be under the Turkey’s thumb by blocking a Sweden’s bid to join the Alliance. Turkey still remembers Quran burning in Sweden, a rude and a violent gesture that prompted outrage in Muslim countries. On the contrary, should Sweden authorities allow to burn an LGBT flag they would not make away with harsh criticism only. However, after closed-door negotiations between NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg and the leaders of the two countries ahead of a NATO summit in Lithuania Turkey has agreed Sweden to join NATO. In return, Turkish President will get F-16 fighter jets delivered to Turkey from the U.S. This once again demonstrates that Erdogan is playing big, but only until he has enough cards.
Is kicking out Turkey from the F-35 fighter program the reason why the F-35 has become a failure?
Former Operations Specialist at United States Navy (USN) Eric Wicklund answers this question on quora as:
The F-35 is far and away the most successful stealth aircraft in the world. There are 890 of them in service with various nations. No other stealth fighter has matched production numbers like that.
There have been more F-35s placed into service than ALL of the F-22s, Chinese J-20s, Russian Su-57s, B-2s, B-21s, and F-117s…combined!
Yes, Turkey should have got some of them, and they would have. The US and NATO asked only that Turkey not import the Russian S-400 air defense system. Easy as that. And to all who claim that NATO members must follow the orders of the USA, well…Turkey is proof positive that NATO members don’t have to listen. Turkey bought the S-400 anyway, and that’s why they’ll not get the F-35. Yet Finland, who only now is joining NATO, already had a signed contract to get the F-35, prior to joining NATO.
To all who will claim that the F-35 is too expensive, citing the oft-published 1.5 Trillion price tag, well, that’s the cost of acquisition, maintenance, and upgrades for thousands of aircraft for the next 50 years. You show me another plane that has costs covered over that same period of time, and tell me what the number is. I’ll bet you can’t even find it.
Other detractors will mention that one F-16 or Rafale or Typhoon has shot down an F-35 in exercises. Well yeah, they did. There isn’t a single aircraft on this planet, that cannot “ever” be shot down. The West believes in “test until failure.” That means creating scenarios that are harder and harder, until the system of man and machine fails, then figure out how to avoid that failure. Then, once again, test until failure. What no detractor of the F-35 ever mentions is how many F-16s, Rafales, and Typhoons were shot down by the F-35 in exercises in response. Well, the answer is “hundreds.” I don’t have the exact number, but it’s very high, and that’s the whole point. If I shoot down many more of your guys before you shoot down mine, my guys/planes didn’t fail…yours did.
So, no, the F-35 is not a failure, it’s a stunning success. And Turkey not receiving the F-35 has no bearing whatsoever on that fact.
And if you don’t believe it coming from me, listen to Alex Hollings, who’s makes his living studying this stuff. Listen to what he has to say.
The F-35 is the most SUCCESSFUL stealth aircraft in HISTORY
The F-35 may have been an acquisition nightmare, but the resulting fighter is the most technologically advanced tactical aircraft ever to fly… and with creeping up on 900 airframes built, it’s also one of the most prolific.
Both Finland and Sweden are set to join the NATO alliance this year.
The two countries, previously neutral, changed their minds after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Finland and Sweden will both have to rejigger their armed forces away from territorial defense and toward helping defend an entire continent.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created an unwanted situation for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and one of the most unexpected effects of his actions is the flipping of former neutral states Finland and Sweden into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Instead of intimidating his Scandinavian neighbors into accommodating his demands, Putin’s invasion has pushed them into the waiting arms of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, where they will join 30 other countries in the collective defense of Europe.
