Turkey threatens to leave NATO

[Berengil]

The United States has a friendly, generous, cooperative face. But never forget, it also has a nightmarishly vicious side that looks at how Europeans talk about "proportionality" and think it as quaint as an English garden.

Lol, gddmt that put a smile on my face. True and definitly sig worthy.

[Yvaelle]

Honestly, I don't think it will happen during my lifetime.

The quick change of direction under Erdogan was incredibly scary, and what's worse is that he does have most Turkish citizens backing him. Even if we assume that the election in Turkey is partially rigged, no one can deny that a large part is perfectly okay with what happens there currently.

I also think he doesn't even care anymore. Now it's full-blown dictatorship, China style.

You don't man, Erdogan might die soon and Kuntantee might take over Turkey as Ataturk II. You'd be surprised how fast things can change like that - Glasnost policy transformed Russia from Communists to Ultra-capitalists in the span of like 5-10 years.

[ComputerNerd]

The only turkey NATO needs is the stuff they put in their sandwiches at the cafeteria.

[Yvaelle]

The only turkey NATO needs is the stuff they put in their sandwiches at the cafeteria.

Yea but to be fair, they need a lot of it. Like, a Turkey sized amount of turkey

(because it's delicious)

[Independent voter]

Turkey has been our ally since WWII I think.

[JohnBrown1917]

Man you leave NATO people are delusional in the extreme. I hope many of you are continental Europeans.

I think it's going to be so hilariously deserved... all of you will deserve it... when the US redistributes it's B60 nuclear bombs in Turkey to your countries, and you don't even know about it until some newspaper blows the lid on it five years later.

I bet you all didn't even think of that. You didn't think about the cascading effects. You just want to make yourselves feel better, kicking out the Muslim country with a crazy leader that's been a pain in the ass on refugees. You don't give a shred of thought as to why Turkey does matter and how things will change if it left, for your countries, as that gap is filled.

I knew something was missing from the Turkey debate, a stereotypical American!
Hope Trump gets elected, you guys deserve it.

[Kuntantee]

@Skroe

If we aren't talking about a land invasion, does "Russia's soft underbelly" matter? All the power and shit of interest in Russia is near the Baltic Sea - so Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Norway/Poland/Ukraine are worth 10x more each than Turkey - because they give you closer air access: if that's even a consideration given the force projection of our carrier battle groups from sea - in which case all the world's oceans are basically on our side.

If we are talking about a land invasion of Russia (I want to say, "Fucking lol?" but somehow I think this is what you're seriously talking about) - then what good does occupying the urals, via Turkey, do us? It's the Russian equivalent of Wyoming - the whole place could be under Neo-Soviet Occuptation right now, and nobody would know - because nobody lives in Wyoming: that's the Russian Urals (except moreso, because Russia is ginormous, and the emptiest place on earth).

The only real explanation for Turkey's importance in Ulmita's nuke fantasy threads - is that it gets us in range of their bases: fair point. But that was all based on early cold war era first strike capability. I'm sure we have sufficient range and tech nowadays to put a nuke on a Russian launch site from further away than Ankara: and that's entertaining the fairly hilarious idea that the US would decide to perform a nuclear first strike on Russia with the aim to completely cripple their ability to respond, under the impact of dozens of nuclear explosions. Which just to repeat, is some Call of Duty-calibre war-fantasy-masturbation.

He writes long, but he's generally wrong on many topics he expresses his opinion. I've never stated this before, because he writes too long for me to answer back. The only way for USA to deal with Russia is collapsing it with covert operations or economics and not direct military confrontation. This was well-know right after WWII and this is precisely why we haven't seen a USA/Russia fight. Turkey's real value is about controlling Middle Eastern energy, not controlling Russia. Here I said it, without writing a wall of text. USA's entire Middle Eastern policies are based on having Turkey as an ally. It's entire bet is based on Turkey. This is why they conduct military coups in Turkey regularly. Whenever a regime stops serving American interests, a coup happen. By the way, I am not bullshitting you. CIA's involvement in '60 and '70 coup was admitted by officers. In '80, USA itself admitted with "our boys in Ankara did it".

- - - Updated - - -

You don't man, Erdogan might die soon and Kuntantee might take over Turkey as Ataturk II. You'd be surprised how fast things can change like that - Glasnost policy transformed Russia from Communists to Ultra-capitalists in the span of like 5-10 years.

*suddenly starts praying

[Mafic]

NATO should kick out Turkey.

[JohnBrown1917]

If they want to fuck their country's future into the dirt, they can have a party.

Execpt that we don't want the Turks to threaten us, so why stop them?
Not to mention turks living In Europa bring that shit here.

As for Gulen, the US should wrap him up in a bow and put him on the first plane over. Turkey's cooperation is worth more than one frail old man who will be dead in the next few years anyway.

Must be fun to lack any backbone and don't have any principles.

[Skroe]

@Skroe

If we aren't talking about a land invasion, does "Russia's soft underbelly" matter? All the power and shit of interest in Russia is near the Baltic Sea - so Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Norway/Poland/Ukraine are worth 10x more each than Turkey - because they give you closer air access: if that's even a consideration given the force projection of our carrier battle groups from sea - in which case all the world's oceans are basically on our side.

... Did you even read my post? And look at the maps? Or did you like speed read it? Not to be a dick but I actually answered just this.

The Russian NATO border is heavily defended and getting throw it would require a big SEAD, which the US could do, but not quick enough.

The soft underbelly is much less defended and crucially allows strategic bombers - not power project carriers or things like that - go deep into Russian territory, namely where htey keep their road mobile nuclear weapons, and go after them.


Sure if you want to go after Russia's conventional ground forces, can't really beat bombing from poland. But they keep their global-range ballistic missile much deeper in their territory. Those maps I posted, the ones you evidently did not look carefully at, should lay it out pretty clearly - most of their major nuclear weapons facilities and location of road mobile icbms are in the south, much closer to Turkey than other places.

If we are talking about a land invasion of Russia (I want to say, "Fucking lol?" but somehow I think this is what you're seriously talking about) - then what good does occupying the urals, via Turkey, do us? It's the Russian equivalent of Wyoming - the whole place could be under Neo-Soviet Occuptation right now, and nobody would know - because nobody lives in Wyoming: that's the Russian Urals (except moreso, because Russia is ginormous, and the emptiest place on earth).

Again, did you ACTUALLY read my post or not? Because I strongly suspect you didn't. I mentioned absolutely nothing about Land Invasions. I only said the word "deterrence" like six times.

The point of access to soft underbelly is to allow long range strategic bombers to destroy Russia's nuclear weapons before they get off the ground. Because under current US nuclear doctrine, we would likely be the first to strike, rather than launch a retaliatory strike. And we'd be mostly striking their ability to launch - our ballistic missiles would be mostly hitting the fixed sites that we know, while the bombers went looking for the road mobile ones. That is how it would largely work.

From that perspective, runways in Turkey are a hard item to beat.

The only real explanation for Turkey's importance in Ulmita's nuke fantasy threads - is that it gets us in range of their bases: fair point. But that was all based on early cold war era first strike capability. I'm sure we have sufficient range and tech nowadays to put a nuke on a Russian launch site from further away than Ankara: and that's entertaining the fairly hilarious idea that the US would decide to perform a nuclear first strike on Russia with the aim to completely cripple their ability to respond, under the impact of dozens of nuclear explosions. Which just to repeat, is some Call of Duty-level war-fantasy-masturbation.

It's not a hilarious idea. It is the US's nuclear doctrine. Russia's too by the way. Neither country is exactly interested in slaughtering millions of people if they don't have to. Both prioritize (in different ways) attacking their oppoenent's method of responding far, far beyond anything else, just to save their own ability to launch attacks.

The fact you think it unthinkable doesn't make it a reality. Look at what the US is about to spend a trillion dollars on. 12 ballistic missile subs armed with Tirdent II D5s, whose accuracy thanks to life extension is going from 90m to 5m per Warheads... n other words, a first strike weapon. A hypersonic cruise missile, a first strike weapon. A B-21 bomber family that has been justifyably called the "B-2.1", because that pretty much describes it. These are all first strike if needed weapons.

That is never the fantasy part and "CoD" as you put it, only draws from where AMerican and Russian taxpayer dollars go to. The Rand Corp publications on this topic are vast.

I need to challenge one point specifically.

I'm sure we have sufficient range and tech nowadays to put a nuke on a Russian launch site from further away than Ankara

We don't. At least not in the way you think.

US land based ICBMs, the Miniuteman 3, will take about 30 minutes to go from where they are based, in the central US, to any target in Russia. They can only hit fixed targets.

US submarine launched ballistic missiles, our most powerful weapons, can hit targets in 5-20 minutes depending on where they are, but they cannot hit fixed targets.

Under the terms of the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty, the US (and nominally Russia, though it cheated) have no Intermediate Range nuclear missiles. The US retired it's nuclear armed Tomahawks cruise missiles. The US has no hypersonic cruise missiles. Weapon systems that were dangerous in the 1980s, like Pershing II, simply don't exist anymore.

These "sufficient range and tech" assumes something exist that doesn't

What I mentioned - the LRSO, if it is indeed a Hypersonic Air Launched Cruise Missile with a nuclear warhead - will be that. It will be exactly what you describe, but around 2025-2030 and very controversially. And probably less effectively.

The fact is, the B-2 was perfectly designed for it's job and it explains the importance of what I am talking about. The original B-2 design, from the late 1970s, was a high altitude bomber. In the mid 1980s it was redesigned to include low altitude penetration bombing (that's how it got the "shark tooth" wings). The vision was that, were World War III about to happen, the US would send B-2s (followed by high speed B-1s, which have been denuclearized by the way), into Russian airspace before the start of the conflict, and they'd be using the KH-11 and KH-12s in orbit to look for mobile launchers in real time, and hit them all at once. What are KH-11 and KH-12s? You've seen them before. One is called the Hubble Space Telescope, but unlike it's 16 brothers and sisters (4+ of which are in orbit at a given time), it is pointing outwards not downwards. Yes. We have 4 HST clones in orbit right now, mostly to look for Russian and Chinese mobile nuclear weapons and in general do electro-optical imagery.


Your reply is not credible on two fronts. First, hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars have been spent on these things you describe as "CoD" war fantasy masturbation. While Ulmita does that, the REASONS they exist and the manner in which they would be used are as real as an army needing a tank. Secondly, for those "high tech high range" systems you describe to exist, money would have had to been spent on them. Until very recently, the US simply hasn't.

And once again, even once it does, don't think for a second that putting LRSO in Germany and Italy, would somehow be "better" than B60s in Turkey. Maybe for an American they would be. But just not being able to hunt for trucks on the road like bombers, they'd be worse, and moreover, Germans and Italians will probably lose their mind if they're based there.

[Mafic]

Turkey has been very threatening to Israel and Greece, which are two of the two strongest Air Forces in the world and Turkey have been threatening Russia as well If Turkey chooses to leave NATO that would show that they have lost their composure which is why they are crawling back to ask for forgiveness with Russia.

[Skroe]

Your post involves bunch of American style empty threats to be honest. You couldn't even break the will of Iranians, what makes you think you can break the will of Turks? Instead, Iranians broke your will and you signed the deal. If Turkey becomes your enemy, now that's the when shit will go fun. Do not confuse Turks with Iranians. Turks can endure long hardship and do not mind military confrontation.

The moment you lose Turkey, Russia goes free and you will lose your power projection capability in Middle East. This was well-known since 30s or so. American Empire is an empire already in decline. You, the superpower, lost the proxy battle in Syria to a regional power -- Russia --, if you haven't noticed. Among all nations in Middle East, Turkey is one of the countries which is not intimidated by USA in the slightest.

So, please, save your "patron" narrative to someone else, and try not to lose your second confrontation in pacific. Otherwise, people will start laughing the superpower with their asses.

We didn't need to break the will of the Iranians. Just their bank accounts. Just their access to the world. Which we did. You can't quantitize will. You can quantitize the ability of a country to be a military threat, and Iran has been fairly successful contained in that regards, for decades, because we've kept them poor.

Tell me again how it's an empty threat. The United States fucking with Iran is basically our version of Michael Jordan layup.

The US wouldn't break your will. But who would be trying that? We would keep you poor, and you would comply or you would suffer. It's as simple as that.

Also the US isn't in decline. Quite the opposite really, being you know, the only engine of the World Economy right now, with military modernization proceeding apace, and with our rivals in deep trouble. It just has a President who doesn't throw punches. And the next one will, friend.

You know what this reminds me of? The Pre-Afghan War period, where everybody forgot what the US was capable of.

Wait until we have a President who doesn't order the most powerful military force in the world to drop leaflets on ISIS trucks, telling them to get out, before bombing them. Feel free to protest in front of our embassy or something stupid nobody cares about.

[Skandulous]

... Did you even read my post? And look at the maps? Or did you like speed read it? Not to be a dick but I actually answered just this.

The Russian NATO border is heavily defended and getting throw it would require a big SEAD, which the US could do, but not quick enough.

The soft underbelly is much less defended and crucially allows strategic bombers - not power project carriers or things like that - go deep into Russian territory, namely where htey keep their road mobile nuclear weapons, and go after them.


Sure if you want to go after Russia's conventional ground forces, can't really beat bombing from poland. But they keep their global-range ballistic missile much deeper in their territory. Those maps I posted, the ones you evidently did not look carefully at, should lay it out pretty clearly - most of their major nuclear weapons facilities and location of road mobile icbms are in the south, much closer to Turkey than other places.




Again, did you ACTUALLY read my post or not? Because I strongly suspect you didn't. I mentioned absolutely nothing about Land Invasions. I only said the word "deterrence" like six times.

The point of access to soft underbelly is to allow long range strategic bombers to destroy Russia's nuclear weapons before they get off the ground. Because under current US nuclear doctrine, we would likely be the first to strike, rather than launch a retaliatory strike. And we'd be mostly striking their ability to launch - our ballistic missiles would be mostly hitting the fixed sites that we know, while the bombers went looking for the road mobile ones. That is how it would largely work.

From that perspective, runways in Turkey are a hard item to beat.






It's not a hilarious idea. It is the US's nuclear doctrine. Russia's too by the way. Neither country is exactly interested in slaughtering millions of people if they don't have to. Both prioritize (in different ways) attacking their oppoenent's method of responding far, far beyond anything else, just to save their own ability to launch attacks.

The fact you think it unthinkable doesn't make it a reality. Look at what the US is about to spend a trillion dollars on. 12 ballistic missile subs armed with Tirdent II D5s, whose accuracy thanks to life extension is going from 90m to 5m per Warheads... n other words, a first strike weapon. A hypersonic cruise missile, a first strike weapon. A B-21 bomber family that has been justifyably called the "B-2.1", because that pretty much describes it. These are all first strike if needed weapons.

That is never the fantasy part and "CoD" as you put it, only draws from where AMerican and Russian taxpayer dollars go to. The Rand Corp publications on this topic are vast.

I need to challenge one point specifically.



We don't. At least not in the way you think.

US land based ICBMs, the Miniuteman 3, will take about 30 minutes to go from where they are based, in the central US, to any target in Russia. They can only hit fixed targets.

US submarine launched ballistic missiles, our most powerful weapons, can hit targets in 5-20 minutes depending on where they are, but they cannot hit fixed targets.

Under the terms of the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces treaty, the US (and nominally Russia, though it cheated) have no Intermediate Range nuclear missiles. The US retired it's nuclear armed Tomahawks cruise missiles. The US has no hypersonic cruise missiles. Weapon systems that were dangerous in the 1980s, like Pershing II, simply don't exist anymore.

These "sufficient range and tech" assumes something exist that doesn't

What I mentioned - the LRSO, if it is indeed a Hypersonic Air Launched Cruise Missile with a nuclear warhead - will be that. It will be exactly what you describe, but around 2025-2030 and very controversially. And probably less effectively.

The fact is, the B-2 was perfectly designed for it's job and it explains the importance of what I am talking about. The original B-2 design, from the late 1970s, was a high altitude bomber. In the mid 1980s it was redesigned to include low altitude penetration bombing (that's how it got the "shark tooth" wings). The vision was that, were World War III about to happen, the US would send B-2s (followed by high speed B-1s, which have been denuclearized by the way), into Russian airspace before the start of the conflict, and they'd be using the KH-11 and KH-12s in orbit to look for mobile launchers in real time, and hit them all at once. What are KH-11 and KH-12s? You've seen them before. One is called the Hubble Space Telescope, but unlike it's 16 brothers and sisters (4+ of which are in orbit at a given time), it is pointing outwards not downwards. Yes. We have 4 HST clones in orbit right now, mostly to look for Russian and Chinese mobile nuclear weapons and in general do electro-optical imagery.


Your reply is not credible on two fronts. First, hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars have been spent on these things you describe as "CoD" war fantasy masturbation. While Ulmita does that, the REASONS they exist and the manner in which they would be used are as real as an army needing a tank. Secondly, for those "high tech high range" systems you describe to exist, money would have had to been spent on them. Until very recently, the US simply hasn't.

And once again, even once it does, don't think for a second that putting LRSO in Germany and Italy, would somehow be "better" than B60s in Turkey. Maybe for an American they would be. But just not being able to hunt for trucks on the road like bombers, they'd be worse, and moreover, Germans and Italians will probably lose their mind if they're based there.

Russia has already successfully launched a hyper sonic cruise warhead capable of delivering a nuclear payload that will be launched from the new Satan 2 which is slated to go into operation in 2018. It can penetrate any missile defense shield in the world. The Satan2 has a 6000 mile range and carries up to 15 MIRV hyper sonic nuclear warheads that can be individually operated to go anywhere so there is no ballistic trajectory and no missile defense can even catch them if locked on.

[Deleted]

You don't man, Erdogan might die soon and Kuntantee might take over Turkey as Ataturk II. You'd be surprised how fast things can change like that - Glasnost policy transformed Russia from Communists to Ultra-capitalists in the span of like 5-10 years.

No. Turkey is done. At least completely done in most of our lifetimes. Its very democracy, and it is (currently) democratic, is what will kill it.

Unlike the Soviet Union and the most developed countries, it has to contend with a force that considers itself more powerful and more worthwhile than the nation state, i.e. Islam. Erdogan himself is just one more enabler in that context, there will be others.

In the presence of either too slow development or gaps in power, there will be no way to keep back forever the ever threatening rise of theocratic Islamic interference within a secular democratic state due to an overwhelming majority Muslim population (98%). The military was their last protector and one of their last bastions of secular values. The other being institutions such as education, the justice system and some of the public sector. All these have been and are currently being dismantled by Erdogan piece by piece, especially post-coup.

Another example: Erdogan has already explicitly said he would quickly back a Death Penalty bill. When that passes, the EU accession bid would be automatically cancelled. In fact, it may cancel other EU associations.

[Azutael]

I say let them. It would be enjoyable to see how long they would last without any true allies.
Seriously though, who would Turkey turn towards? they've got plenty of enemies and spiteful neighbors on all fronts.

[madokbro]

Turkey is an ideal location to store your nuclear deterrents against Russian interests. We are, or were(possibly will be again) a stabilizing element in the region, though you should take that with a grain of salt. In any case, we still can be considered as a staging ground into the Middle East, as far as I can tell. We do lock down the Russian navy behind the bosphorus as well, not sure how relevant that remains.

Turkey can be replaced. It is expensive and time-consuming to replace. So, your leaders will simply keep saying "meh, fuck it" and won't do shit about it.

As for the Turkish side of things; the year of hell on earth we just experienced showed us very well what happens without hands-on Nato support and attendance. The talks of leaving Nato are, as usual, publicity stunts. People kinda need something other than coup attempts and daily bombings to talk about here.

My personal opinion though, is that the vast majority of my people partake in a culture that actively shuns progress of any kind. Ignorance is valued and imposed, causing us to fall out of sync with our allied nations to an irreperable degree. We do have our uses, i admit; but you would do well to rid your diplomatic structures of alliance and solidarity from the tendrils of Turkey. It is beyond saving; and at this point, I'm not entirely sure it should be saved.

[Skroe]

He writes long, but he's generally clueless on many topics he expresses his opinion. Poor illiterates of mmo-c thinks he's knowledgable, just because he writes on geopolitics. I've never stated this before, because he writes too long. The only way for USA to deal with Russia is collapsing it with covert operations or economics and not direct military confrontation. This was well-know right after WWII and this is precisely why we haven't seen a USA/Russia fight. Turkey's real value is about controlling Middle Eastern energy, not controlling Russia. Here I said it, without writing a wall of text. USA's entire Middle Eastern policies are based on having Turkey as an ally. It's entire bet is based on Turkey. This is why they conduct military coups in Turkey regularly. Whenever a regime stops serving American interests, a coup happen. By the way, I am not bullshitting you. CIA's involvement in '60 and '70 coup was admitted by officers. In '80, USA itself admitted with "our boys in Ankara did it".

- - - Updated - - -



*suddenly starts praying

I write long because what I write is detailed and these are complicated. You can read them and be informed, you can not.

And my posts are usually always well sourced. In that last post, I even provided the maps. In other threads, I've provided actual DoD Slides. I've included other places, actual Congressional Research documents that inform Congress on the pure facts. Somebody made those, pal.

I have no fear about being wrong about anything. I'm a scientist by training. Being wrong and learning what is the truth is a gift. That's also why when I present my arguments that are apparently, too long for you to read (your loss), I'm careful with what I write and where I source it from, because I _expect_ it to be challenged.

Look Kunantee, I don't care about your country. You're a bit player on the other side of the planet. Whatever you people do to either proper or wreck yourselves is your business. America should not be in the business of telling people how to live. I have faith of the great things my country will accomplish in the decades ahead, and I really don't care that in all liklihood, your country will be spinning its wheels the next thrity years much as it has the last thirty. That goes for most countries on Earth. That's fine. Everybody is from somewhere.

But never forget what you are. You're not our peer. You're our partner. But the lesser partner in an unequal relation. We need something you have. You are compensated for that. It is transactional. If you don't want that, the US will take it's business elsewhere. it has before. Your best friends ever, Greece, bailed on NATO in the 70s, but they cam back. But don't think for a second that crossing us will in any way work out for you. The US holds grudges. And more than that, the US has a way of coming up with alternatives. What if, instead of basing B60s in Turkey we (just imagining here), flew bombers out of Qatar. And in the scenario describe above nuclear missiles that went right over your territory? What's better for Turkey? Being a part of the conversation as to their role in deterrence, or being a country whose airspace we violate because because, not being our ally, we don't really care what you think? Certainly the former.

The US figured this out years ago, but most European countries and Turkey, never have, and it's pathetic. Holding your nose and diving into the muck... compromising... but having a seat at the table is better, than you being outside the room on some stupid fucking principle (the absolutely WORST princple being national pride) and having decisions made without you in that room. Kind of an American analog of Turkey leaving NATO would be the ever present "US out of the UN" movement here. It is potentially the dumbest fucking thing that provincial American yokels have come up with. The US being out of the UN wouldn't mean the UN stop existing. it would mean the US wouldn't be in the room in the UNSC to influence global agreements and protect itself and its interest with a veto., Inf act, Russia/The USSR figured this out early on, when they walked out of the UN over the Korean War, and as a result the Korean Conflict was given a UN Mandate without their Veto to protect their interests. You can bet the Soviets never walked out of the UN like that ever again.

In other words, fuck principle. Do what is in your cold blooded national interests. And ask yourself, does that mean pissing off the world's only superpower? Probably not.

[Kuntantee]

@Skroe
The blocked bank accounts that by passed through Turkish banks? Reza Zarrab, you don't know him? Yes, because while you were stroking your ego reading how powerful USA is, that Turkish "business man" was by-passing American embargo using Turkish banks, feeding Iran. It was very well-known by Americans. What did you do about it? Nothing.

This time, you don't have Soviet Union. You have nation-state Russia that is highly unlikely to collapse. You also do not have Russia alone, you have a growing China as well. What you can't do (aka not in your power) is losing Turkey when one of the most challenging tasks, if not the most challenging task, of American Empire is incoming.

Turkey is not a country which has high export rate. Assuming that Europeans are willing to lose a 80-million market, in favor of American interests against their own, Turkey will be poorer but not as poor as Iran. Isolated Turkey will also develop its own military systems instead of going lazy and buying from USA. What you will lose, however, is entire Middle East.

Everyone needs to know their capabilities indeed.

[Ealyssa]

Cya Turkey. Good luck with your chinese and russian overlords.

[Kuntantee]

@Skreo
First of all, I was a bit disrespectful in that post, I edited it. It was a bit too late. Sorry for that. Now, you might be a scientist in training, I am a scientist in action with several publications under my belt so far. I am smart enough to not wasting time sourcing random discussion in a gaming forum (not saying you are not smart, I just find it waste of time). If you want source, go read retired CIA employees and their take on Turkey. Not one, but many former USA secret service employees suggest the vital importance of Turkey.

I do not mind your style other than being too fucking long, you are straight on your opinion. That's how I would be as a materialist person if I was an American. However, you still keep repeating empty threats when you obviously need Turkey to "empire" in this region.