Thread: What Turkey's S-400 missile deal with Russia means for Nato

Should be fun to see how this ends. Just can't trust them

What Turkey's S-400 missile deal with Russia means for Nato

The US and Turkey - one of Washington's key Nato allies - appear to be on a collision course this summer.

Turkey insists it will go ahead with the purchase of an advanced Russian S-400 air defence system. The first missiles and their associated radars could start to be delivered in July.
The US is urging Ankara to re-consider. It is warning that if the deal goes ahead then Turkey will be cut out of the F-35 warplane programme - the advanced US aircraft that will equip many Nato air forces over the coming decade.
So this is a controversy that has security, strategic and industrial dimensions. It raises questions about Turkey's reliability as a Nato partner and the diplomatic course that it is pursuing. And given its key geographical location on the alliance's southern flank - not to mention its role in the Syrian crisis - Turkey is not a country that Nato can turn its back on.
Washington's concerns about Turkey's purchase of the S-400 stem from both practical and security considerations.
The S-400 is a generic name for a variety of air defence systems configured in slightly different ways. But whatever version Turkey is buying, the simple fact is that the Russian system cannot be easily incorporated into the wider Nato air-defence system in the region.

This matters because air defences - and we are talking here about defending against both manned aircraft and ballistic missiles - comprise a variety of radars and missiles, each tailored to dealing with particular kinds of threats at particular altitudes.

So the whole is more than just the sum of the parts. Remove one crucial element from the mix by insisting upon a stand-alone system, and the overall defence is weakened.
Russia makes very good air defences. But installing a new system in a Nato member like Turkey is going to require trainers and on-the-ground support which raises all sorts of security concerns. What else might the Russians learn as they help to install and calibrate the weapons?
This is especially worrying for the Americans because Turkey is planning to deploy advanced US-built F-35 warplanes. Indeed, the first couple have already been handed over to Turkey in the US, where Turkish pilots have already been training on them.

The US fears that a Russian presence and involvement in Turkey's air defences, operating alongside the F-35, could enable Moscow to glean all sorts of useful intelligence.
Turkey insists that the missiles and the bases where the F-35 will operate will be geographically separate. It is also clear that Russia already has the means to gather all sorts of useful data on the F-35. It is already in operational service with the Israeli Air Force and its activities are being closely monitored by Russian radars in Syria.
But the US is far from happy at the Turkish decision. It is not willing, as one US commander put it, "to share the capabilities of the F-35 with Russia". Efforts to try to integrate the S-400 into Turkish defences could indeed reveal all sorts of details about Nato air defences and the capabilities of its aircraft.
And earlier this month the Trump administration made its response crystal clear. A letter from acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan to his Turkish counterpart warned that if the deal goes ahead then all Turkish pilots training in the US would have to leave the country by 31 July.

The US has already halted delivery of equipment related to the F-35 programme to Turkey and there will be industrial implications as well.
Turkey is a partner in the programme manufacturing some elements of the aircraft and designated as one of several maintenance sites for its engines. Some 937 separate parts for the F-35 are manufactured in Turkey, about 400 of which are made exclusively there. The US is already taking steps to source these parts elsewhere. Turkey is effectively being frozen out of the F-35 project, although US officials insist that all of this is reversible if Turkey changes its mind.
This is an extraordinary row between two Nato allies and, if Turkey insists upon going ahead with the deal, raises all sorts of questions about Ankara's standing within the Atlantic alliance.
This will not in itself precipitate Turkey's departure from Nato. But Turkey is already at loggerheads with the US over Washington's support for the Kurds in Syria while the increasingly authoritarian style of the Turkish leadership puts it at odds with the liberal values of many other Nato members.
Its tactical flirtation with Russia - obviously another key player in Syria - only adds additional tension to the mix.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48620087

Just another part of Trump's economic war on the world and Trump's desire for global domination.

Interesting that Germany is still not on-board with the F-35. It is meant to replace the Tornado as the nuclear deterrent but Germany would like to have the Eurofighter for that role as well. The US won't certify the nukes for Eurofighter in an attempt to force F-35 purchase. The immediate answer is prolonging Tornado lifetime.

Not convinced the UK did the right thing buying the F-35 except to keep close ties with the US, especially when losing it with its European neighbours.

Originally Posted by Norton

The argument re secrurity issues is simply bullshit to stop the sale of the S-400 system to Turkey.

No the issue is clear ! Can't trust them !
Just look at Turkey's resent actions and staments towards the West/Europe.

The toilet bowl is turning.

Turkish lira drops as Erdoğan says S-400 purchase already completed

Turkey’s lira fell against the dollar after President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said the country’s purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia was complete and the subject closed.
The lira dropped to as low as 5.85 per dollar in Istanbul and was down 0.2 percent at 5.82 against the U.S. currency at 11:25 a.m. local time.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

What Turkey's S-400 missile deal with Russia means for Nato?

Diminishing hegemony of (please no names here)...

Go Russia !!! Russia is Europe security future, it's the logical thing

USA days are over,

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Go Russia !!! Russia is Europe security future, it's the logical thing

USA days are over,

I think all those former Warsaw Pakt nations will strongly disagree you.
But you might have a good chance with those french low life speaking belgiums who were unable to form a government for over 589 days.
They can surely use a firm stick (some even up their ass).

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Go Russia !!! Russia is Europe security future, it's the logical thing

USA days are over,

Are you drunk or just knob gobbling another brewery worker again.

Why would anyone trust the fucking turks I ask you.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

I think all those former Warsaw Pakt nations will strongly disagree you.

What gives you the certainty?

^
Atlantic Council
The United States and Central Europe:
TASKS FOR A SECOND CENTURY TOGETHER

GLOBSEC does not necessarily endorse recommendations and opinions expressed in this publication and assumes
no responsibility for their subsequent use.
Cover: Collage of photos within a map of Central Europe. Photo Credits: Pavol Demeš; Wikimedia Commons;
Illustration: Atlantic Council
This report is written and published in accordance with the Atlantic Council Policy on Intellectual Independence.
The authors are solely responsible for its analysis and recommendations. The Atlantic Council and its donors
do not determine, nor do they necessarily endorse or advocate for, any of this report’s conclusions.
June 2019

Table of Content:

Introduction 1
The Hard Road to Success 1
What’s Gone Wrong? 6
US Leadership in Question 7
Central Europe’s Challenge of History and Transformation 7
The United States as Seen from Central Europe 9
What, Then, Must the United States and Central Europe Do? 12
Democratic Values and Politics 12
Security 15
Economics 19
Bottom-Line Recommendations

Read more
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/imag...y_Together.pdf

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

No the issue is clear ! Can't trust them !

Probably not but if you read the post you quoted from, trust and F35 secrets have nothing to do with blocking the Russian sale. 12 countries will have the F35 with more otw. Do you really believe the Russians will have any trouble getting all the F35 secrets they want?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Why would anyone trust the fucking turks I ask you.

Again, you’re pretty much alone in your unqualified trust of alternatives.

Originally Posted by Troy

It is meant to replace the Tornado as the nuclear deterrent but Germany

Germany has it's own nuclear weapons?

Is that really a wise thing? Where did they get them from?

What the Turkey does not buy Poland will

Poland signs $4.75bn deal to buy US Patriot missiles
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43574308

Trump: US to send 1,000 troops to Poland in new deal
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48585045

More exceptional tripwire targets.

Presumably Russia, China, France, Israel and UK will have to retarget some of their nuclear missiles at Poland now.

Luckily Iran can be scrubbed as they don't have any nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by cyrille

Again, you’re pretty much alone in your unqualified trust of alternatives.

What have alternatives got to do with it?

This thread is about Turkey.

The fact is that Erdogan can't be trusted and I'm pretty sure most if not all NATO members feel the same way.

There might be some need to keep them on board because of their geographical location, but giving them the crowns jewels?

Git tae fuck.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What have alternatives got to do with it?

This thread is about Turkey.

The fact is that Erdogan can't be trusted and I'm pretty sure most if not all NATO members feel the same way.

There might be some need to keep them on board because of their geographical location, but giving them the crowns jewels?

Git tae fuck.

Of course nobody trusts Erdogan but so what, like he cares a toss, Turkey is still a member of the club and therefore has access to 'sensitive' data and strategies just like any other.

I reckon if he decides to play the fiddle and make leave noises the rest of NATO would walk over hot coals to keep him sweet.

Over to you, squirrel...

Originally Posted by Neverna

and Trump's desire for global domination.

with his history of failures , we know the ending already

it is interesting to see the number of countries that are arming themselves with new advanced systems - I wonder how much money globally is now being spent on weaponry - has it been increasing and what does it mean ?

Originally Posted by baldrick

with his history of failures , we know the ending already

it is interesting to see the number of countries that are arming themselves with new advanced systems - I wonder how much money globally is now being spent on weaponry - has it been increasing and what does it mean ?

More people living in poverty.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Germany has it's own nuclear weapons?

Is that really a wise thing? Where did they get them from?

No, Germany doesn't have its own nuclear weapons despite being able to create them if it wished. However, Germany is part of the NATO nuclear sharing scheme and is capable of delivering US made nukes.

Originally Posted by Troy

Germany is part of the NATO nuclear sharing scheme and is capable of delivering US made nukes.

Interesting. Turkey too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

Nuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which involves member countries without nuclear weapons of their own in the planning for the use of nuclear weapons by NATO. In particular, it provides for the armed forces of those countries to be involved in delivering nuclear weapons in the event of their use.

As part of nuclear sharing, the participating countries carry out consultations and make common decisions on nuclear weapons policy, maintain technical equipment (e.g., nuclear-capable airplanes) required for the use of nuclear weapons and store nuclear weapons on their territory. In case of war, the United States told NATO allies the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would no longer be controlling.

Of the three nuclear powers in NATO (France, the United Kingdom and the United States), only the United States is known to have provided weapons for nuclear sharing. As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.