Στις ΗΠΑ η συζήτηση για την αποβολή της Τουρκίας από το ΝΑΤΟ, τη μετατροπή της δλδ σε «μέλος κατά όνομα μόνο» συνεχίζεται σε δεξαμενές σκέψεις και υποστηρίζεται από αξιωματούχους.
Ο Michael Rubin πρωτοστατεί.
Turkey Humiliated NATO; If NATO Can’t Expel It, Here’s Plan Bby Michael RubinMiddle East Forum ObserverJanuary 24, 2024
https://www.meforum.org/65488/turkey-humiliated-nato-if-nato-cant-expel-it-here
Defense historian Kori Schake notes an example from the second Berlin Crisis in 1958. As the Soviet Union again challenged the status of West Berlin, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France implemented “Live Oak.” The idea was to involve in planning cells those NATO members most likely to fight, effectively creating a fait accompli for other NATO members.
Such a concept today would mean privileging reliable NATO members over potential filibustering from TurkeyJohn Maurer, professor of strategy at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at the Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, speculates that NATO reformers could interpret France’s voluntary separation from NATO command in 1966 as indicating that being party to the NATO Treaty does not necessarily guarantee participation in all NATO structures, especially at the military level.NATO could also move its Land Command (LANDCOM) out of Izmir.
Should Turkey veto transfer through its presence within the North Atlantic Council, NATO could respond by setting up a parallel command and then slowly letting LANDCOM whither. Either way, NATO might signal its displeasure with Erdoğan’s antics by assigning the new or relocated structure to Alexandroupoli or Stockholm.
NATO might make Turkey’s presence in NATO uncomfortable in other ways. NATO members could informally lock Turks out of certain organizations by refusing Turks appointments. Here, there is also precedent, as Turkey regularly uses its veto to forbid speakers critical of Erdoğan from attending the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Likewise, just as “Five Eyes” formalizes intelligence sharing among Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, a “NATO Minus One” code might prevent regular intelligence sharing with Turkish officials.
Such a move is prudent given both Turkey’s willingness to target dissidents across Europe and its support for the Islamic State.
Effective defense requires an appreciation of reality. Turkey no longer provides NATO the foundation or value it once did. Denial about Erdoğan’s ideology or his impact on the Turkish military can be deadly.
Rather than embrace wishful thinking and recognizing the impossibility of giving Turkey the boot, it is time to quarantine NATO’s Trojan horse.
