Tweet
Will Turkey Intervene?
NATO is reviewing the policy and position of Turkey but this discussion is
still an informal conversation with a certain extent of openness and
scrutiny, rather than official or working discussions.
NATO member states which have certain agreements on common and other
political issues have launched relevant consultations, involving also the
military. Earlier the main initiators of this discussion were France and
Greece but now basically all NATO member states are interested in it. NATO
cannot be isolated from common political problems and processes and is
involved in the political discussion in one way or another which dwells on
the problems of behavior of different states.
Recently the United States has been interested in spreading this discussion
but is trying to stay an outsider, enabling other states to take the
initiative on the problems of the Turkish policy.
The opinion that Turkey formally observes NATO statutes is not true. Turkey
is setting forth increasingly more unrealistic demands on behalf of NATO,
first of all on the issues of activities of the alliance regarding
different defense and security issues. Besides the problems of Cyprus,
Turkey demands from NATO major efforts to ensure its defense and security
although there are no real threats. For instance, it has demanded
assistance to attend to minor misunderstanding on the
borderwith Syria.
In other words, not only is it trying to involve NATO in the regional
conflict but gets involved in these processes itself, using the legitimate
decision of NATO. During the preparation of NATO summit in
ChicagoTurkey
demanded not to change the communiqué on conflicts and crises,
including the Karabakh conflict. It totally contradicts to the goals of
NATO and the nature of its policy. A more important problem is the
destructive position of Turkey on the Security Pact signed between the EU
and NATO.
Experts think NATO and the EU are becoming increasingly worried about
Turkish activities in the Balkans where it supports unilaterally the Muslim
countries and ethnicities, which is contrary to the principles and policy
of the West. According to experts, NATO's activities in the Mediterranean
and the Near East could
be more active were there not the threat of Turkey's military intervention
as a member of NATO.
The military maneuvers of the United States, Greece and Israel in the
Mediterranean did not involve Turkey on the latter's wish. At the same
time, new interests of different countries and groups are forming in the
Mediterranean who are creating new regional blocs. In the West
Mediterranean new realities will emerge in defense and security areas.
Currently the relations between Greece and Turkey in the areas of defense
and arms are transparent, they know about each other everything they need.
But it does not mean that there are no problems in these relations. Turkey
wants to lead the race for weapons and Greece has reported this to NATO for
a number of times.
Greece is not trying to form a military or a political bloc in the Balkans
against Turkey. That would be absurd and impossible, considering the
legality of Greece to NATO and the European Union. Nevertheless, it is
impossible to overlook Turkish expansion in the Balkans. Greece thinks that
it has played an important role in defending the rights of orthodox people
in the Balkans with war and missions of NATO. The situation in the region
could have been different, much fairer if Greece did not participate in
NATO discussions and peacekeeping missions.
The key issue in the relations of the EU and NATO with Turkey remains the
issue of Cyprus. At the same time, there is a more serious issue with a
long-term and strategic meaning, namely the regional policy of Turkey which
worries the West. This aspect of the problems will render the Turkish
policy a leading factor of the new crisis in NATO. This crisis has already
begun.
Considering the recent developments, of interest are the reflections on a
possible Turkish intervention in a possible conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan and NATO's point of view on the Turk-Azerbaijani treaty on
defense and security. Nothing can be ruled out in the large-scale war,
especially if Azerbaijan is defeated. NATO has no evaluations. There are
evaluations of the state of the military forces of the South Caucasian
states based on information from different sources of the region.
Despite considerable acquisition of weapons by Azerbaijan, Armenia and
Azerbaijan still maintain the balance and to some extent Armenia continues
to have advantage in terms of both arms and effectiveness of military
personnel. Azerbaijan has a lot of problems in the army and is not ready to
launch a war in accordance with the plans it has worked out. Turkey knows
about this.
The key external preventive factor is the cooperation of Armenia with
Russia and CSTO. In the regions of the Black Sea and the Caucasus the
balance between the key states of Russia and Turkey is maintained.
NATO and the EU do not approve Turkish interference in the possible
development, and if Turkey makes up its mind, the issue of its stay in NATO
will be brought up automatically. However, it will have big trouble because
it will thus lose its role in international and economic relations, tough
sanctions will be imposed which will be difficult to overcome. NATO and the
EU, as well as the United States and France are interested in Armenia, and
they are ready to help not only the preparation of Armenia to war but also
hold a pro-Armenian position in the dialogue with Turkey.
The agreement between Turkey and Azerbaijan is not legitimate from the
point of view of NATO statutes and rules. Turkey has not discussed this
agreement with NATO and has thus withdrawn it from consideration by the
alliance. In accordance with this agreement, Turkey must provide military
assistance to Azerbaijan, that is military intervention. However, it is
contrary to NATO statutes and rules. NATO members have no right to military
actions without a resolution of NATO or UN. No resolution is expected from
either in case of a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The result of
Turkish intervention will be its secession from NATO.
As to how decisions on defining the aggressor in a possible war between
Armenia and Azerbaijan will be made, NATO and the international community
will know who the aggressor will be but they will hardly give a unilateral
assessment. NATO and the EU will try to stop military actions, using
political levers.
The U.S. administration has good information on the situation in the South
Caucasus and has no illusions regarding the simplicity of the settlement of
the Karabakh issue. The United States will most probably try to demonstrate
to the affected side - Azerbaijan - and to its ally Turkey its readiness to
make efforts to resolve this problem. Obama administration would also like
to demonstrate its positive attitude to Armenia and the U.S.-based
Armenians.
The United States aims to ignore the French and Russian policy in the
region, first of all regarding the Karabakh issue. At the same time, there
are no significant differences between the U.S. relations with the United
States and France. The Americans allow for the political and diplomatic
efforts of France and intends to use its influence on Armenia. Russia is
given the role of an independent actor in the process of settlement,
keeping its role in the Minsk Group. Although, there may be a U-turn in the
U.S.-Russian relations on the Caucasian region.
These thoughts reflect the real state of things, and it would be wrong to
deny the main constraints on Turkish intervention in the war between
Armenia and Azerbaijan but in a big regional war the reality will be
significantly modified. The U.S. and NATO proceed from the assumption of a
controlled war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which will allow them
prevent further escalation in the region on which the current views of the
Atlantic policy makers and politicians are based.
Will Turkey be reluctant to see its protectorate Azerbaijan defeated,
especially if it understands that all its partners in NATO want the
military defeat of Azerbaijan and, at the same time, a strong
Turkish-Russian confrontation to show Turkey its real place in the regional
policy?
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26502.html
16:21:30 - 09/06/2012
NATO is reviewing the policy and position of Turkey but this discussion is
still an informal conversation with a certain extent of openness and
scrutiny, rather than official or working discussions.
NATO member states which have certain agreements on common and other
political issues have launched relevant consultations, involving also the
military. Earlier the main initiators of this discussion were France and
Greece but now basically all NATO member states are interested in it. NATO
cannot be isolated from common political problems and processes and is
involved in the political discussion in one way or another which dwells on
the problems of behavior of different states.
Recently the United States has been interested in spreading this discussion
but is trying to stay an outsider, enabling other states to take the
initiative on the problems of the Turkish policy.
The opinion that Turkey formally observes NATO statutes is not true. Turkey
is setting forth increasingly more unrealistic demands on behalf of NATO,
first of all on the issues of activities of the alliance regarding
different defense and security issues. Besides the problems of Cyprus,
Turkey demands from NATO major efforts to ensure its defense and security
although there are no real threats. For instance, it has demanded
assistance to attend to minor misunderstanding on the
borderwith Syria.
In other words, not only is it trying to involve NATO in the regional
conflict but gets involved in these processes itself, using the legitimate
decision of NATO. During the preparation of NATO summit in
ChicagoTurkey
demanded not to change the communiqué on conflicts and crises,
including the Karabakh conflict. It totally contradicts to the goals of
NATO and the nature of its policy. A more important problem is the
destructive position of Turkey on the Security Pact signed between the EU
and NATO.
Experts think NATO and the EU are becoming increasingly worried about
Turkish activities in the Balkans where it supports unilaterally the Muslim
countries and ethnicities, which is contrary to the principles and policy
of the West. According to experts, NATO's activities in the Mediterranean
and the Near East could
be more active were there not the threat of Turkey's military intervention
as a member of NATO.
The military maneuvers of the United States, Greece and Israel in the
Mediterranean did not involve Turkey on the latter's wish. At the same
time, new interests of different countries and groups are forming in the
Mediterranean who are creating new regional blocs. In the West
Mediterranean new realities will emerge in defense and security areas.
Currently the relations between Greece and Turkey in the areas of defense
and arms are transparent, they know about each other everything they need.
But it does not mean that there are no problems in these relations. Turkey
wants to lead the race for weapons and Greece has reported this to NATO for
a number of times.
Greece is not trying to form a military or a political bloc in the Balkans
against Turkey. That would be absurd and impossible, considering the
legality of Greece to NATO and the European Union. Nevertheless, it is
impossible to overlook Turkish expansion in the Balkans. Greece thinks that
it has played an important role in defending the rights of orthodox people
in the Balkans with war and missions of NATO. The situation in the region
could have been different, much fairer if Greece did not participate in
NATO discussions and peacekeeping missions.
The key issue in the relations of the EU and NATO with Turkey remains the
issue of Cyprus. At the same time, there is a more serious issue with a
long-term and strategic meaning, namely the regional policy of Turkey which
worries the West. This aspect of the problems will render the Turkish
policy a leading factor of the new crisis in NATO. This crisis has already
begun.
Considering the recent developments, of interest are the reflections on a
possible Turkish intervention in a possible conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan and NATO's point of view on the Turk-Azerbaijani treaty on
defense and security. Nothing can be ruled out in the large-scale war,
especially if Azerbaijan is defeated. NATO has no evaluations. There are
evaluations of the state of the military forces of the South Caucasian
states based on information from different sources of the region.
Despite considerable acquisition of weapons by Azerbaijan, Armenia and
Azerbaijan still maintain the balance and to some extent Armenia continues
to have advantage in terms of both arms and effectiveness of military
personnel. Azerbaijan has a lot of problems in the army and is not ready to
launch a war in accordance with the plans it has worked out. Turkey knows
about this.
The key external preventive factor is the cooperation of Armenia with
Russia and CSTO. In the regions of the Black Sea and the Caucasus the
balance between the key states of Russia and Turkey is maintained.
NATO and the EU do not approve Turkish interference in the possible
development, and if Turkey makes up its mind, the issue of its stay in NATO
will be brought up automatically. However, it will have big trouble because
it will thus lose its role in international and economic relations, tough
sanctions will be imposed which will be difficult to overcome. NATO and the
EU, as well as the United States and France are interested in Armenia, and
they are ready to help not only the preparation of Armenia to war but also
hold a pro-Armenian position in the dialogue with Turkey.
The agreement between Turkey and Azerbaijan is not legitimate from the
point of view of NATO statutes and rules. Turkey has not discussed this
agreement with NATO and has thus withdrawn it from consideration by the
alliance. In accordance with this agreement, Turkey must provide military
assistance to Azerbaijan, that is military intervention. However, it is
contrary to NATO statutes and rules. NATO members have no right to military
actions without a resolution of NATO or UN. No resolution is expected from
either in case of a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The result of
Turkish intervention will be its secession from NATO.
As to how decisions on defining the aggressor in a possible war between
Armenia and Azerbaijan will be made, NATO and the international community
will know who the aggressor will be but they will hardly give a unilateral
assessment. NATO and the EU will try to stop military actions, using
political levers.
The U.S. administration has good information on the situation in the South
Caucasus and has no illusions regarding the simplicity of the settlement of
the Karabakh issue. The United States will most probably try to demonstrate
to the affected side - Azerbaijan - and to its ally Turkey its readiness to
make efforts to resolve this problem. Obama administration would also like
to demonstrate its positive attitude to Armenia and the U.S.-based
Armenians.
The United States aims to ignore the French and Russian policy in the
region, first of all regarding the Karabakh issue. At the same time, there
are no significant differences between the U.S. relations with the United
States and France. The Americans allow for the political and diplomatic
efforts of France and intends to use its influence on Armenia. Russia is
given the role of an independent actor in the process of settlement,
keeping its role in the Minsk Group. Although, there may be a U-turn in the
U.S.-Russian relations on the Caucasian region.
These thoughts reflect the real state of things, and it would be wrong to
deny the main constraints on Turkish intervention in the war between
Armenia and Azerbaijan but in a big regional war the reality will be
significantly modified. The U.S. and NATO proceed from the assumption of a
controlled war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which will allow them
prevent further escalation in the region on which the current views of the
Atlantic policy makers and politicians are based.
Will Turkey be reluctant to see its protectorate Azerbaijan defeated,
especially if it understands that all its partners in NATO want the
military defeat of Azerbaijan and, at the same time, a strong
Turkish-Russian confrontation to show Turkey its real place in the regional
policy?
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26502.html
16:21:30 - 09/06/2012