L’ex segretario generale della NATO Stoltenberg: “Quando la Turchia ha abbattuto un aereo russo, Francia e Italia non hanno sostenuto la Turchia, e la Germania è stata cauta. Sebbene abbiamo sostenuto pubblicamente la Turchia, c’era un significativo disaccordo interno.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/corn-canapes-and-shouting-matches-how-erdogan-and-stoltenbergs-bromance-saved-nato
di NovaTR6
13 commenti
The former secretary-general’s first major test involving Turkey came in November 2015, when the Turkish military shot down a Russian Su-24 attack aircraft for repeatedly violating Turkish airspace.
While Stoltenberg issued a statement supporting Turkey’s territorial integrity and saying that Nato stood with Ankara, he reveals that not all Nato countries agreed with him.
“But the truth is that there was deep disagreement within the alliance,” he writes.
“Turkey received support from the Eastern European countries in its demand that Nato should unconditionally support the Turkish actions, and they believed that the border violation should be followed up with the deployment of more air defenses, more aircraft and more batteries of Patriot missiles along the border with Syria.”
But the Norwegian notes that France and Italy were opposed to explicitly supporting Turkey.
“The Germans were not against support, but at the same time wanted to be more nuanced. They argued that it was one thing to condemn the border violation, quite another to justify a shooting down because of a violation that lasted 17 seconds.”
In response, Russia deployed S-400 air defence systems to Syria and sent its flagship, Moskva, to the Syrian coast.
It shows how public unity can sometimes differ from internal opinions.
So, privately, they had concerns, publicly they backed their NATO partner.
This seems reasonable to me.
>“The [Germans](https://www.middleeasteye.net/countries/germany) were not against support, but at the same time wanted to be more nuanced. They argued that it was one thing to condemn the border violation, quite another to justify a shooting down because of a violation that lasted 17 seconds.”
Imo, it shouldn’t matter if it’s 17 seconds, 1 second, or a few minutes – if a Russian jet is violating NATO airspace we should shoot it down.
You have really nice job
Just to be clear, most countries quite literally pulled their support from Turkey by pulling their Patriot systems, which were there because missiles/rockets were flying during Syrian civil war and Assad was threatening them.
That is not publicly backing a NATO member, that is virtually serving them up on a platter to Russia. And I remember quite well all the conversations about how reckless Turkey was and how they would be considered the aggressor and wouldn’t be able to invoke Article 5 if Russia attacked Turkey in response.
Lionization of what happened after Russia invaded Ukraine is one of the biggest hypocrisies of this sub and others. What happened to Turkey then is the perfect example why so many of us in Europe want a proper alternative to NATO, and why so many people in Baltics can’t just trust NATO completely.
The title is downplaying several key information about what happened.
Turkey didn’t just shot down a plane because it entered it’s airspace. They did it because they were backing Syrian rebels the Russian plane were bombarding. But the people that Turkey was backing were not really people who were liked by western powers and they also were fighting Kurds, who were themselves backed up by a lot of western powers. The reserve about supporting Turkey weren’t just about shooting down a russian plane. They were also about their involvement in the Syrian crysis and who they chose to support. And same as today, about the growing autocratic nature of Erdogan power.
Well, turkey is also, like russia, an aggressive country that invades regions thay are none of their business, and also has a history of genocides
The pilots were later thrown under the bus by Erdogan, accused of being part of the Gülen conspiracy, and thrown in jail.
And then Turkey began buying Russian air defense systems, the Buk-S400
This is being sold as “being strict with Russia,” But I think it was an accident. Incompetence on the part of the Turkish pilots or their immediate commanders. It should have been prevented by better training /clearer rules of engagement. In the immediate aftermath, ppl then pretended it was intentional, as that had more political advantages than admitting they were klutses. Then the later aftermath just shows the cynicism of the Turkish regime. Zero moral compass.
You think Putin can’t bribe high ranking people in NATO to justify why they don’t think it is necessary to shot down Russian planes?
So France didn’t support the state that was bombing the Kurds and that financially backed ISIS by buying it’s oil ?
Yeah, seems fair. Even more with everything that happened next in 2016-2020.
Turkey decided was going all in with the Syrian war. Brought them into conflict with Russia.
Imagine the population of other NATO countries being asked to get into a proxy war with Russia over Turkish foreign policy in Syria…
> But Erdogan was also full of surprises in meetings. He suddenly asked whether Stoltenberg liked corn, since it was corn season. The Norwegian said he did.
> “A moment later, they brought in a huge platter of golden corncobs, which we grabbed with our bare hands. There were maybe eight to ten of us in the room, and everyone was munching away. Lovely roasted chestnuts also came,” Stoltenberg writes.
> “’The protocol department hates this,’ Erdogan said, grabbing another flask. ‘Do you know the difference between the Taliban and the protocol department?’ he asked, looking at me expectantly, as corn kernels and salt sprinkled onto the floor.
> I shook my head. Erdogan smiled. ‘It is possible to negotiate with the Taliban.’”
🤣