Tweet
TURKEY'S DEPENDENCE ON U.S. MISSILE POLICY GROWS
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/28611
14:35 11/01/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
Land troops no longer have a crucial role in defense, as well as global
and regional issues. Even navy's function is limited to transportation
of missiles. The relations between the United States and Eurasia
(geographic, not political region is meant), first of all with Russia,
are practically based on missile-related issues.
Soon China will be a leading direction of proliferation of missile
forces but now the key tryout focuses on Iran, and tactical tricks
relating to Russia are ending.
It is difficult to imagine the current system without the current
policy of the United States and NATO on missile forces but the missile
factor is increasingly playing a role in the solution of political
issues. (In April 2001 the meeting of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Key
West was also initiated in the context of the U.S. objectives relating
to missiles, and the relations with Russia regarding missiles.)
Turkey is viewed in the context of solution of the missile problem
in the region, and there are no doubts that "threats" from Syria
are conventional. NATO would certainly like to show that its ally's
interests are taken into account and "pay its debt" to Ankara but
missile excellence in the region, especially legitimate, has a
crucial role.
Now it is difficult for a country interested in these developments
to offer counterarguments but some states of the Near East had a
positive attitude to the solution of missile issues, even those who
do not want to strengthen Turkey's foothold.
But is Turkey's foothold strengthening or does it depend more on the
United States and NATO? There is no doubt, especially considering
that NATO and Turkey have contrary interests. Turkey wants to change
its tactics and carry on its foreign political doctrine in line with
its interests with the support of the United States and NATO, while
the Western community is trying to increase control over Turkey.
In this alignment of interests Russia has no prospects of establishment
of more of less reliable relations with Turkey. If the issue of
missiles is built up, the Russian-Turkish relations may be based on
economic interests only.
Certainly, now both Russia and Iran, as well as the Arab states, are
nervous in their reaction to the normalization of the U.S.-Turkish
relations but in the nearest future the states surrounding Turkey
will be interested in growing control by the United States and NATO.
Unfortunately, real politics is far behind analyses. What is the
reason of this phenomenon which is becoming a chronic condition? Most
probably, the reason is the deep and hopeless economization of politics
and the ruling elites.
At the same time, new global elite has emerged and is stepping on
the arena which revives pragmatic idealism as a form of thinking,
motivation of behavior and a means of working out and making
decisions. From this point of view, the elites of small countries
have some advantages and can benefit from it.
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/28611
14:35 11/01/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
Land troops no longer have a crucial role in defense, as well as global
and regional issues. Even navy's function is limited to transportation
of missiles. The relations between the United States and Eurasia
(geographic, not political region is meant), first of all with Russia,
are practically based on missile-related issues.
Soon China will be a leading direction of proliferation of missile
forces but now the key tryout focuses on Iran, and tactical tricks
relating to Russia are ending.
It is difficult to imagine the current system without the current
policy of the United States and NATO on missile forces but the missile
factor is increasingly playing a role in the solution of political
issues. (In April 2001 the meeting of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Key
West was also initiated in the context of the U.S. objectives relating
to missiles, and the relations with Russia regarding missiles.)
Turkey is viewed in the context of solution of the missile problem
in the region, and there are no doubts that "threats" from Syria
are conventional. NATO would certainly like to show that its ally's
interests are taken into account and "pay its debt" to Ankara but
missile excellence in the region, especially legitimate, has a
crucial role.
Now it is difficult for a country interested in these developments
to offer counterarguments but some states of the Near East had a
positive attitude to the solution of missile issues, even those who
do not want to strengthen Turkey's foothold.
But is Turkey's foothold strengthening or does it depend more on the
United States and NATO? There is no doubt, especially considering
that NATO and Turkey have contrary interests. Turkey wants to change
its tactics and carry on its foreign political doctrine in line with
its interests with the support of the United States and NATO, while
the Western community is trying to increase control over Turkey.
In this alignment of interests Russia has no prospects of establishment
of more of less reliable relations with Turkey. If the issue of
missiles is built up, the Russian-Turkish relations may be based on
economic interests only.
Certainly, now both Russia and Iran, as well as the Arab states, are
nervous in their reaction to the normalization of the U.S.-Turkish
relations but in the nearest future the states surrounding Turkey
will be interested in growing control by the United States and NATO.
Unfortunately, real politics is far behind analyses. What is the
reason of this phenomenon which is becoming a chronic condition? Most
probably, the reason is the deep and hopeless economization of politics
and the ruling elites.
At the same time, new global elite has emerged and is stepping on
the arena which revives pragmatic idealism as a form of thinking,
motivation of behavior and a means of working out and making
decisions. From this point of view, the elites of small countries
have some advantages and can benefit from it.