Turkey to reject Sweden and Finland's bid to join NATO | Hacker News Reader

Turkey to reject Sweden and Finland's bid to join NATO

reuters.com

4 pointsmetadat4 comments

It might be quicker to just invite all non-Turkey NATO members to join a new treaty, and then plan to secede from NATO some time in the next 10-20 years (so that Putin can't claim to have ended NATO).

The new body could even be called the Not Accepting Turkey Organization just to make it clear which country is the problem. However, if Turkey relents and allows Sweden and Finland to join (original) NATO, then the replica NATO can disband instead.

Except this isn't a competition of popularity, but geographic-politics.

If you lose Turkey, consequences are:

- Lose in max 20 years for good all of the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaidjan, etc) and the access to oil and gas which US and UK have fought for hard over 30 years (BAC pipeline, Chechnya War, Ossetia War, Ingushetia War, Dagestan War, etc, as well as chaos around Burisma Corp & Hunter Biden, all to create a second huge pipeline through Ukraine, etc)

- Loose all east-Turkic airfields and nuke missile sites, as a consequence lose > half the pressure on Iran, part of pressure on Russia

- Loose the Black Sea to Russia almost in full, even without losing Odessa in this war.

- Loose for good the ring of all originally Gokturkic nations around Russia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tadjikistan, Ouzbekistan, etc).

- Lose for 100 years Syria, Lebanon and Iraq

- Only Israel will be left to protect the Suez Canal, as Egypt is being lost to Russia (again) and China as we speak. Transforming Israel it into a greater Massada fortress it already is : great plan, no worries there.

- Loose all access the newly discovered oil and gas below the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean: problems for Greece, North Macedonia, Albania, Italy in 20 years.

- In 30 years see Turkey restarting the Ottoman empire against Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. UAE is already gone (see new Sheiks declarations).

That gains China the almost totality of the new silk road. Also, this loses gains what's missing to China's Belt and Road initiative. It cementis its Eurasian economic influence for 200-300 years.

All of that in 30-50 years max loses the modern Anglo-Saxon influenced economic-cultural-political system the European Union wholesale due to economy.

Worldwide UK then US maritime empires ? Who'll care. At best North+South American influence for the Anglos.

I take your point that NATO needs Turkey more than vice versa, especially as it is now hard to imagine Russia deciding to invade Turkey.

On a 20 year time scale, though, I don't think that gas and oil will see high demand from NATO members. Which countries' oil supply do you think would no longer reach them if Turkey refused to allow transit? For comparison, here[0] are the oil details for Georgia, including the statistics: "Georgia [ranks] 80th in the world and accounting for about 0.0% of the world's total oil reserves".

I agree that it would be very costly from a geopolitics perspective for the West to have Turkey as an adversary rather than an ostensible ally, so I suppose my (non-serious) "two NATOs" plan should have involved both NATOs continuing to exist indefinitely.

Still, I don't think Turkey can demand an unlimited price from NATO, and Erdogan shouldn't try to over-play his position.

[0] https://www.worldometers.info/oil/georgia-oil/

> Which countries' oil supply do you think would no longer reach them if Turkey refused to allow transit?

- Current oil and gas from the Caspian Sea Basin, from the Azeris and Iranians[0]

- Future oil and gas from the Caspian (Azeris, Khazaks) [1] [3]

- Future gas from Qatar. The project was frozen due to Syria's Russian and Iranian gas pipeline dalliances. The cynic in me says it's the reason for the Syrian war [2]

> For comparison, here are the oil details for Georgia

Georgia is indeed not important as a producer - depending on whether you count Abkhazia as still in Georgia, or in Russia as there were new discoveries of oil in Ukraine [4].

(note the date of the discovery, note the date of when troubles started in Ukraine... again, paranoid cynic in me says there's a smell to this Burisma thing).

But it IS very important as the location for the existing Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline [5].

> Still, I don't think Turkey can demand an unlimited price from NATO, and Erdogan shouldn't try to over-play his position.

I believe he shouldn't. But I believe he will.

There's been very recent vocal public discussion in his party about Greece and the danger of American bases there (i.e. they're not against Russia, so against whom are they?) and the US being a long-term trustworthy partner (see coup attempt years ago, for which it was Russia who warned Erdogan of the danger).

If Russia manages their "all-in" gamble (win in Ukraine, win at the economic/monetary game), and China extends the Belt and Road, Turks (not just Erdogan) won't hesitate to turn against NATO, attack, and at a minimum get the whole of Cyprus, if not parts of Thrace.

I believe they can allow themselves that, because as much as the Gulf is the economic brain of the elite of the Muslim world, Istambul and Ankara are the heart and center of the vascular system for middle-and low classes. They are litterally the centerpoint of logistics for that system (i.e. Turkish airlines).

--------

References

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabucco_pipeline

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=12911

[1'] https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-oil-and-gas-kaza...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar%E2%80%93Turkey_pipeline

[2'] http://kurultay.fr/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/maxresdef...

[3] https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-oil-and-gas-kaza...

[4] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Ukraine-Unexpected-Oil...

[4'] https://budsoffshoreenergy.com/2022/03/08/most-of-ukraines-b...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80%93Tbilisi%E2%80%93C...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com