Tweet
NATO AND U.S. AGAINST TURKEY
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27621.html
Published: 12:20:42 - 05/10/2012
Turkish parliament adopted a decision with the possibility of military
action against Syria because of the minor incident at the border,
for which Syria has already apologized. This decision, of course,
has demagogic value and it is not related to the security of Turkey
and is not directed against Syria.
Turkey has been trying for long to involve the U.S. and NATO
in a military intervention in Syria, as it understands that the
Euro-Atlantic community blocks successfully Turkey on the important
Middle East direction. In the south of Turkey a powerful barrier to
Turkey's regional expansion is being built which is highly problematic
for its geopolitical interests.
No doubt the U.S. and NATO assign exclusively operative-tactical role
to Turkey in this crisis which leads Turkey to a disadvantage, which
it does not want to accept. The problem is not even the intentions
of Turkey in the Middle East, where the Americans and the Europeans
are not going to let it in, but the intensification of the crisis in
the relations between Turkey and NATO.
It is not a secret that Turkey's policy, first of all, in the region,
became a leading factor for the increasing crisis in NATO, and after
the Chicago summit, it became more evident. At the present moment,
Turkey is facing a choice: either to agree to the role which the U.S.
and NATO assign to it and receive the dribs and drabs of the strategy
of the West in the Middle East, or to make a breakthrough in the
region and thus force its partners to reckon with it. But in Ankara,
there can be no certainty of success of the possible operation,
especially since it will lead to its automatic exclusion from NATO.
Something France is striving for (and not only France).
No war, no military intervention, at least with the participation of
Turkey. To a certain extent, the impossibility of military intervention
by NATO in Syria is explained by the fact that the West does not
agree to Turkey's participation in that operation. Syria, Iraq and
also Lebanon are seen along with other geopolitical and geo-economic
tasks of the West, as a barrier to Turkey's expansion.
Armenia has a similar role in the South Caucasus, under the accelerated
integration into NATO, and the same task is given to Georgia, which
is waiving away from it strongly. No matter how paradoxical it may
look, but Azerbaijan is considered by the West as a "circumstance"
distancing Turkey from the South Caucasus. In any case, much has been
done to discredit the Azerbaijani-Turkish relations and to form a
distance between them.
It is clear that the fate of the South Caucasus depends much on the
events in the Middle East, and one of the guarantees (not the only one)
from the negative influence is the establishment of more fundamental
relations with NATO. Armenia's parliament adopted a strange decision
on Russia's "monopoly" to own military bases in our country, which
is seen in Moscow as a guarantee to the impossibility of deployment
of military bases of third countries in Armenia.
However, it should be noted that a couple of years ago, the biggest
limitation of Georgia's integration into NATO was the existence of
military conflicts and crisis events. But after Russia solved the
issues on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, there is no more issue to keep
Georgia back from joining NATO.
It may sound extravagant, but it is logical and substantive. This
decision of the Armenian parliament would be adequate and consistent,
as well as viable, if the terms contained a point on no military
supplies to Azerbaijan by CSTO member states. Otherwise, this agreement
is a regular excuse of the Armenian political leadership under the
hysterical demands of Russia.
Moscow and Ankara are again trying to use the "windows" and "rips" in
the strategy of the Euro-Atlantic community, but even next attempts,
obviously doomed to failure, suggest agreement to the detriment of
some states of the region, especially Armenia, as well as Syria, which
Russia has reserved as exchange material in international relations.
This defiant solution of the Armenian parliament still has a logical
explanation because Armenia has not yet received what is expected
from NATO, that is, the main argument in the relationship. This
decision of the parliament on Russia's monopoly on military bases in
Armenia is very easy to get around, because in an age of scientific
and technological revolution, there are different ways and methods
to name a military base, for example, training or logistics center
or whatever. That would be fun.
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments27621.html
Published: 12:20:42 - 05/10/2012
Turkish parliament adopted a decision with the possibility of military
action against Syria because of the minor incident at the border,
for which Syria has already apologized. This decision, of course,
has demagogic value and it is not related to the security of Turkey
and is not directed against Syria.
Turkey has been trying for long to involve the U.S. and NATO
in a military intervention in Syria, as it understands that the
Euro-Atlantic community blocks successfully Turkey on the important
Middle East direction. In the south of Turkey a powerful barrier to
Turkey's regional expansion is being built which is highly problematic
for its geopolitical interests.
No doubt the U.S. and NATO assign exclusively operative-tactical role
to Turkey in this crisis which leads Turkey to a disadvantage, which
it does not want to accept. The problem is not even the intentions
of Turkey in the Middle East, where the Americans and the Europeans
are not going to let it in, but the intensification of the crisis in
the relations between Turkey and NATO.
It is not a secret that Turkey's policy, first of all, in the region,
became a leading factor for the increasing crisis in NATO, and after
the Chicago summit, it became more evident. At the present moment,
Turkey is facing a choice: either to agree to the role which the U.S.
and NATO assign to it and receive the dribs and drabs of the strategy
of the West in the Middle East, or to make a breakthrough in the
region and thus force its partners to reckon with it. But in Ankara,
there can be no certainty of success of the possible operation,
especially since it will lead to its automatic exclusion from NATO.
Something France is striving for (and not only France).
No war, no military intervention, at least with the participation of
Turkey. To a certain extent, the impossibility of military intervention
by NATO in Syria is explained by the fact that the West does not
agree to Turkey's participation in that operation. Syria, Iraq and
also Lebanon are seen along with other geopolitical and geo-economic
tasks of the West, as a barrier to Turkey's expansion.
Armenia has a similar role in the South Caucasus, under the accelerated
integration into NATO, and the same task is given to Georgia, which
is waiving away from it strongly. No matter how paradoxical it may
look, but Azerbaijan is considered by the West as a "circumstance"
distancing Turkey from the South Caucasus. In any case, much has been
done to discredit the Azerbaijani-Turkish relations and to form a
distance between them.
It is clear that the fate of the South Caucasus depends much on the
events in the Middle East, and one of the guarantees (not the only one)
from the negative influence is the establishment of more fundamental
relations with NATO. Armenia's parliament adopted a strange decision
on Russia's "monopoly" to own military bases in our country, which
is seen in Moscow as a guarantee to the impossibility of deployment
of military bases of third countries in Armenia.
However, it should be noted that a couple of years ago, the biggest
limitation of Georgia's integration into NATO was the existence of
military conflicts and crisis events. But after Russia solved the
issues on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, there is no more issue to keep
Georgia back from joining NATO.
It may sound extravagant, but it is logical and substantive. This
decision of the Armenian parliament would be adequate and consistent,
as well as viable, if the terms contained a point on no military
supplies to Azerbaijan by CSTO member states. Otherwise, this agreement
is a regular excuse of the Armenian political leadership under the
hysterical demands of Russia.
Moscow and Ankara are again trying to use the "windows" and "rips" in
the strategy of the Euro-Atlantic community, but even next attempts,
obviously doomed to failure, suggest agreement to the detriment of
some states of the region, especially Armenia, as well as Syria, which
Russia has reserved as exchange material in international relations.
This defiant solution of the Armenian parliament still has a logical
explanation because Armenia has not yet received what is expected
from NATO, that is, the main argument in the relationship. This
decision of the parliament on Russia's monopoly on military bases in
Armenia is very easy to get around, because in an age of scientific
and technological revolution, there are different ways and methods
to name a military base, for example, training or logistics center
or whatever. That would be fun.