Turkey chooses S-400 over NATO

[Unusual Tournament]

40 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

All of the above is something that can be debated later (hint, you will lose, again, as usual) I asked you a specific and direct question, why don't you answer it?

I think I already did. 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

On 7/22/2019 at 9:54 PM, and then said:

Can you explain how you tie those two pieces together?  The special restrictions placed on protected, advanced military tech has been around for as long as such protections have been available.

That's between parties to discuss. Not reason for economic sanctions which are imposed on whole people and directly damage the life of ordinary civilians. By pressuring civilians it is clear that animosity towards government internally will grow. Discontent will grow. That in turn makes fruitful area for radical elements. For militant behavior. For regime change in the end... Implications are serious. I can not support that.

As i am aware incompatibility and not protection of tech was the main reason behind disagreement.

It's good thing to sanction regimes which deny human rights to it's civilians, like when South Africa was sanctioned. But in open market economy there is no place for sanctions brought over purchases. If Turkey can not be trusted why is it member of NATO?

Why does it have bases and high tech equipment on it's soil?

There is far more than S-400 purchase in this story. That's how i see it.

On 7/22/2019 at 9:54 PM, and then said:

As to "slowly forgetting the concept of nations".  I assume you mean releasing the sovereignty of individual nations to some higher authority to be "managed" for the greater good?

That will eventually come. Maybe not in next 100 years but if humanity survives that will be next step. With so much corruption and corporate interests which are behind government decisions we can only assume that the world has became radically wrong. I just hope that it won't take radical measures to change it for the better. But yes, something like that.

On 7/22/2019 at 9:54 PM, and then said:

No offense but Europe is hardly a trustworthy guarantor of long-term peaceful coexistence.  As it stands today there is NO entity in the world that would be trusted by enough people to take on the role of managing our future.  The only thing such a venture would guarantee is conflict.

Rarely do we agree but we can agree on many things. Only with mutual respect can strong relationship be built. For trust it takes longer but without trusting others we can never feel the joy when we pick fruits of honorable relationship. It's like letting your girl have fun with her friends. I do not like that, when she gets out with her girls but joy of trust is far greater than evil of jealousy. Somehow i feel that individual relationship can be compared to relationship between governments. It's all people after all. 

If you do not give chance to people to became your friends, they never will be your friends. If you do not give people a chance to screw you up, they won't be able to cross you. But without risk there is no profit. Sure, i do simplify things now but it ain't far from truth.

When two distant objects do not give chance for relationship to each other then all that can happen in future is conflict. Because chance for respect was never given out of fear from that which is seemingly different.

All in all, if Turkey has to be sanctioned over their relationship with Russia then sanction their military sector. Stop the deals with them there. That has happened already. But when such sanctions directly lower living standard of civilians then we know that something is wrong.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

On 7/22/2019 at 6:11 PM, Captain Risky said:

The west needs to cut Turkey loose.

India has been suspected of giving US access to Russian submarines but such allegation did not stop Russia from signing over 3 billion $ deal.

On the other hand both Bush and Obama administrations had great ties with India, a lot of equipment was sold and is in service in India today. India was suspected of giving data to Russia and also for allowing Russian technicians check out US made equipment. So India is guilty of doing what Turkey is accused of. I am almost certain. That has never been stepping stone in arms sales, regardless of those accusations being almost proven. Only recently was the issue brought up.

How do you feel about that?

More generally, situation is different now than it was decades ago. While some are not advancing in leaps, as they got used to, others are catching up.

So, these days no one has superiority in technology and both China and Russia can develop counters for US weapons. US has superiority in military might, if we compare presence of troops, spending and logistical network. US army is it's own world and that is a fact. 

Problem is that now even militants have equipment which is enough to confront more sophisticated weapons. To down fighter jets. There are even sort of portable devices which can down fighter jets. Tracking sensor bought from third party. Little experience and knowledge in RF and electronics in general make it possible to integrate quality sensors, optical, radar or heat tracking... On older missiles. Such situation even brought US and taliban to negotiating table. That's reality.

My point is that i highly doubt that there is concern for military secrets - conflicts are political in nature and Turkey has always been played around like a dog. EU will never accept them in the Union for many reasons. Being part of NATO is geopolitical asset for the West and Turkey doesn't really gain much from that. Even when Ottoman empire was on decline, especially after losing in Balkan wars - Allied forces were not able to defeat them and that confrontation has built respect to both for both. It took a lot of deaths, a lot of bad decisions and political changes on both sides to move Turkey towards the West.

Now some politicians just spit on that. In order to gain popularity.

Truth is that by losing Turkey, which would most certainly join some Asian coalitions after - the West is risking another iron curtain like situation. In such development it will be Middle East which will again suffer. Russia, China, Iran and Turkey would became Western counterpart in new cold war which won't end without blood, that's for sure.

[Unusual Tournament]

4 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

India has been suspected of giving US access to Russian submarines but such allegation did not stop Russia from signing over 3 billion $ deal.

On the other hand both Bush and Obama administrations had great ties with India, a lot of equipment was sold and is in service in India today. India was suspected of giving data to Russia and also for allowing Russian technicians check out US made equipment. So India is guilty of doing what Turkey is accused of. I am almost certain. That has never been stepping stone in arms sales, regardless of those accusations being almost proven. Only recently was the issue brought up.

How do you feel about that?

More generally, situation is different now than it was decades ago. While some are not advancing in leaps, as they got used to, others are catching up.

So, these days no one has superiority in technology and both China and Russia can develop counters for US weapons. US has superiority in military might, if we compare presence of troops, spending and logistical network. US army is it's own world and that is a fact. 

Problem is that now even militants have equipment which is enough to confront more sophisticated weapons. To down fighter jets. There are even sort of portable devices which can down fighter jets. Tracking sensor bought from third party. Little experience and knowledge in RF and electronics in general make it possible to integrate quality sensors, optical, radar or heat tracking... On older missiles. Such situation even brought US and taliban to negotiating table. That's reality.

My point is that i highly doubt that there is concern for military secrets - conflicts are political in nature and Turkey has always been played around like a dog. EU will never accept them in the Union for many reasons. Being part of NATO is geopolitical asset for the West and Turkey doesn't really gain much from that. Even when Ottoman empire was on decline, especially after losing in Balkan wars - Allied forces were not able to defeat them and that confrontation has built respect to both for both. It took a lot of deaths, a lot of bad decisions and political changes on both sides to move Turkey towards the West.

Now some politicians just spit on that. In order to gain popularity.

Truth is that by losing Turkey, which would most certainly join some Asian coalitions after - the West is risking another iron curtain like situation. In such development it will be Middle East which will again suffer. Russia, China, Iran and Turkey would became Western counterpart in new cold war which won't end without blood, that's for sure.

What do I think about India giving Russia access to American weapons. I guess it happens. I’d not be happy if I knew that tech was being studied by a potential adversary. Certainly wouldn’t be please or fatalistic about it either. The F-35 project, 1 trillion program, the corner stone of American defence and technology  Shouldn’t be just leveraged away because it does happen. As far as I know only certain friend and allies are allowed to purchase the F-35 for the immediate future and India is not one of them.

Gotta disagree that everyone has the same tech standards. Ask the Indians on why Russian fighters and air to air missiles have been dropped from future procurement projects due to their poor performance and high maintenance costs. American and western designs are are far superior. Israel is a big exporter.

Militants and terrorist don’t have weapons capability to match U.S. forces but thier backers do. But unless supplied by ground to air high altitude missiles they won’t even see the F-35.

Mentioning Turkey. Turkey has greatly benefited from NATO and the EU. More than it’s given. It was offered EU membership with its traditional foe Greece but it turned it down because the army wasn’t comfortable with open democracy. And that’s been Turkey’s problem. Lack of democracy. You can’t seriously suggests that a country run by the military and then an Islamic fascist, who purposely flooded Europe with illegals and Kurdish persecution deserves a place in democratic Europe? 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Captain Risky

[Sir Smoke aLot]

On 7/24/2019 at 8:42 PM, Captain Risky said:

What do I think about India giving Russia access to American weapons. I guess it happens. I’d not be happy if I knew that tech was being studied by a potential adversary. Certainly wouldn’t be please or fatalistic about it either. 

Yeah. Of course. To protect your secrets and technology is also one way of enjoying your sovereignty. At least i see it that way. To whom you deal with you decide. But let others decide to.

On 7/24/2019 at 8:42 PM, Captain Risky said:

The F-35 project, 1 trillion program, the corner stone of American defence and technology  Shouldn’t be just leveraged away because it does happen. As far as I know only certain friend and allies are allowed to purchase the F-35 for the immediate future and India is not one of them.

Personally i see that F-22 as best one out there. But after 1 trillion spent F-35 should be like better on all accounts. I can not really speak about that much as i am not literate in subject of military tech or weapons that much. It's only reasonable that USA will protect their toy but i do not feel that S-400 is endangering it. If Turkey can not be trusted all relations with them should be stopped, relations in military and exchange of tech. But Turkey is pressured in matters which directly damage civilian life and prices of products. It's damaging economy, nothing to do with protection of weapon secrets. Or at least i see it that way.

On 7/24/2019 at 8:42 PM, Captain Risky said:

Gotta disagree that everyone has the same tech standards. Ask the Indians on why Russian fighters and air to air missiles have been dropped from future procurement projects due to their poor performance and high maintenance costs. American and western designs are are far superior. Israel is a big exporter.

There is difference of design but purpose for which weapons are made and their roles in war... Air defense, for example, has one mission. To destroy incoming air threats. Nations build weapons in order to accomplish that goal. Process might be different, materials might be different even fuel mixtures are different but i haven't heard of anyone who has built flying saucer with laser weapons and singularity gun.

That's my point. Next step in advance will determine who will have superiority in next century. Will USA continue to be superior in military might? Or some new player will manage rise up? This is something accepted by many military persons and is something to be concerned about. So do not be fooled into thinking about having superiority in that regard when compared to China and Russia. Military jet engine, one which is used for decades... That was Russian design. But USA builds stuff which is more reliable tens of times more expansive. But is the price really enough to determine superiority? Right now i do not believe that. Ten years ago i was sure of it. But reality changes and i am not afraid to see it for what it is.

Weaker USA also means that my safety is weaker, my country as whole. Many places would see escalation if power shifts by too much.

On 7/24/2019 at 8:42 PM, Captain Risky said:

Militants and terrorist don’t have weapons capability to match U.S. forces but thier backers do. But unless supplied by ground to air high altitude missiles they won’t even see the F-35.

Exactly. But when you speak about backers you also have to understand that militants have equipment made by every nation in the world. When i heard that also my country, on CIA's order, along with some other regional countries actually sent ammunition to Syria (since it was over UAE it ended up in isis hands most likely)... Damn. Bulgarian journalist who publicized the case, showed documents... Was jailed and asked to reveal source. God help that lady. 

USA has nothing to fear from militant groups directly, that is silly to think about but risk is there, risk about situation in future. If Houtis downed Saudi Arabian modernized F-15's and F-16's by using tracking device which anyone can order online for relatively low amount of money... What will the future bring? There is al qaida, isis pocket in Yemen. No one touches them for quite long time. Houtis are priority it seems.

Thing is that without strong government forces in countries where militants are situated anything can happen. All i can be sure for is that nothing good will come out of Syria if government doesn't return to be centralized.

On 7/24/2019 at 8:42 PM, Captain Risky said:

Mentioning Turkey. Turkey has greatly benefited from NATO and the EU. More than it’s given. It was offered EU membership with its traditional foe Greece but it turned it down because the army wasn’t comfortable with open democracy. And that’s been Turkey’s problem. Lack of democracy. You can’t seriously suggests that a country run by the military and then an Islamic fascist, who purposely flooded Europe with illegals and Kurdish persecution deserves a place in democratic Europe? 

NATO also benefited. There is history of controversies about geopolitics related to bases and airfields in Turkey. It's important asset for NATO. Of course that Turkey had benefits. That is called mutual respect and agreement in negotiations. I have no doubts that NATO and Turkey contract, agreement has like 300 pages. Meaning that it was negotiated to great extent. I can not believe that NATO was dumb.

I am not sure why you mention EU? Just about migrant crisis... Turkey agreed to stop that. EU said to give 6 billion to assist with, obvious, food, shelter... Can you feed millions of refugees? Without help? And EU still has not respected that deal. It's not disagreements with Greece which stop Turkey from entering EU... Even tho it is on the paper. Problem is that Turkey is not Bulgaria or Romania, they are large and populated country with economy strong enough to change a lot in the Union. Unlike Bulgaria or Romania. Cheap workforce. Bulgaria lost so much it's people who have gone elsewhere in EU to work. It was calculated move by EU.

I am not sure that accusation of militaristic and poor democracy around Turkey leaders or system can hold. They have gone through large transformation not so long ago. They turned towards secular and democratic ways. This actual party did also a lot to prevent future military coups which were often problem in Turkey (take a look for last 3 or 4 decades).

It was aggression on Syria and Libya which endangered Europe, filled it with migrants and i am grateful that Turkey stopped millions of them. Gadaffi said this long time ago. West did not listen and have removed only barrier which was standing between ''better life in Europe'' and migrants.

Kurdish problem lasts for long, you can not deny Turkey's democracy based on strives by some separatists. Many Kurdish organizations were and some still are on every terror list. Turkey should have done more and better but i do not hear people condemning Mianmar or other nations and i do not hear anyone using such argument in order to justify preventing success of some nation. EU is not some moral authority or saint to demand perfection from others. That was always silly for me. Like recently when, after his country being accused of mistreatment of migrants - one minister said something like ''but how dare you, accusing one EU member state!'' as if by being in EU gives you integrity and all  So silly.

It's easy to simply point a finger. There is shared responsibility, especially about migrants and about applying same standards on all. Sorry for late and long post, these subject always drag out lol Thanks for answer.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Sir Talks a Lot, you done good. I won't have to read the international news for a month

[+and-then]

A "small update"...

"They say we can't have nuclear-tipped missiles, though some have them. This, I can't accept," Erdogan said in a September 4 speech, rejecting calls to prevent his country from acquiring nuclear weapons while conveniently forgetting that Turkey has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1980. 

Erdogan wants nukes as well.  I think it's time all nuclear weapons were removed from Turkey.  It is just a matter of time before Erdogan kicks the U.S. out and our people there could potentially be held as hostages.  Turkey is a NATO member in name only.  Perhaps Romania or Poland would like the job?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

It's interesting that Turkey gets called out for signing the Nuclear non proliferation Treaty but Israel is rarely called out for NOT signing same.

Anyway, if you don't have "Equal Protection" under the law, you eventually get chaos. Saudi Arabia too, now want to go nuclear. World powers have done a real bad job at enforcing international law - if the laws were even fair to being with,

[The Caspian Hare]

On 7/26/2019 at 8:52 AM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Yeah. Of course. To protect your secrets and technology is also one way of enjoying your sovereignty. At least i see it that way. To whom you deal with you decide. But let others decide to.

Personally i see that F-22 as best one out there. But after 1 trillion spent F-35 should be like better on all accounts. I can not really speak about that much as i am not literate in subject of military tech or weapons that much. It's only reasonable that USA will protect their toy but i do not feel that S-400 is endangering it.

 

 

The thing is that the S-400 will be gathering technical data on the F-35, and the Russians will end up with that data. It will be able to study the F35 's radar profile for example. That is why the US does not want it flying near an operating S400.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, The Caspian Hare said:

The thing is that the S-400 will be gathering technical data on the F-35, and the Russians will end up with that data. It will be able to study the F35 's radar profile for example. That is why the US does not want it flying near an operating S400.

 

That - and the S400 can take the F35 out.  The US Airforce does not like the S400

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That - and the S400 can take the F35 out.  The US Airforce does not like the S400

The Russians have always made better AAA than they have aircraft.  I guess we'll someday see just how superior these systems are rather than just hearing predictions.  Either we'll see F-35s falling or see S-400s in smoking ruins.  Who really knows?

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That - and the S400 can take the F35 out.  The US Airforce does not like the S400

Its debatable if the S-400 can take out the F-35 or not.  The S-400 is good but it does have some very significant weaknesses, especially in targeting stealth aircraft.  The S-400 system is good, there is no doubt about that, but to bring down a stealth aircraft using the S-400 system requires a lot of steps some of which the F-35 might have an advantage in.

First the S-400 has to detect the F-35 with its ground radar unit and relay the information to either the launch unit or the command unit before the missile is launched.  The missile then has to stay in constant communication with either the radar unit or the command unit as the radar detection onboard the S-400 missile is unable to detect any stealth aircraft, physically its impossible to put a radar unit onto a missile that can detect a stealth aircraft.  The ground radar unit then has to essentially maintain constant detection of the F-35 and walk the missile to the target in real time.  Lastly the missile using information from the ground radar unit has to detonate close enough to the F-35 to bring it down.  

If at any point any one of those steps fail the S-400 wont bring down the F-35 and the F-35 is suppose to have extremely good electronic warfare abilities so it isnt impossible the F-35 could mess with the communication to the missile or it could just destroy the radar unit or command unit before the missile can impact, since they got to remain in constant communication with the missile they wont be able to hide.

Until the two go up against each other its impossible to say if the S-400 can take out the F-35 or not.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Very good, Hunter.  The S400 I think, has its own radar for the last 20 or so miles so if they get close enough ground radar would no longer be needed.

[aztek]

On 7/22/2019 at 9:52 AM, RoofGardener said:

I don't really see the problem. Turkey can - as Sir Smoke a Lot has pointed out - buy anything they want. It means that they won't be able to have the F-35's, but that is their choice. They can always buy Mig-31's instead. They're not QUITE as good as an F-35, but they're not bad either !

mig 31 is totally different AC ,  incapable of 80% of things f35 or even f16 can do.  if you need  a fast spy plane, or shoot a satellite out of low orbit,  mig is your plane, for air superiority, ground support, air to air, it is useless, it is an expensive target, if anything su37 is a much better match 

[DodgyDaoist]

Turkey went with the S400 due to money , not much else.

Russia and Russians spend a huge amount of money in Turkey. It is the top destination for Russian tourists and its growing each year.

Only an idiot would jeopardize one of their main revenue streams and cordial relations with a direct neighbour over some military hardware.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 hours ago, DodgyDaoist said:

Turkey went with the S400 due to money , not much else.

Russia and Russians spend a huge amount of money in Turkey. It is the top destination for Russian tourists and its growing each year.

Only an idiot would jeopardize one of their main revenue streams and cordial relations with a direct neighbour over some military hardware.

Well, Dodgy, the Turks did want to buy the US made F35, but the US said "no".  I didn't hear Russia jumping up and down over that.

Don't forget, the US has two very large bases in Turkey so they have to be considered an ally to the US. 

[DodgyDaoist]

35 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, Dodgy, the Turks did want to buy the US made F35, but the US said "no".  I didn't hear Russia jumping up and down over that.

Don't forget, the US has two very large bases in Turkey so they have to be considered an ally to the US. 

Yep, an ally, but then Turkey is also stuck in the middle so to speak between the US and Russia in the big picture of global politics. They have to play both sides.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, DodgyDaoist said:

Yep, an ally, but then Turkey is also stuck in the middle so to speak between the US and Russia in the big picture of global politics. They have to play both sides.

Yes. Right in the thick of the middle,

[Farmer77]

Holy hell. Turkey chooses Russia and then the US chooses Turkey over a long standing partner. 

White House: Turkey to Invade Northern Syria, U.S. Will Not Take Part

Quote

 

 

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

16 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Holy hell. Turkey chooses Russia and then the US chooses Turkey over a long standing partner. 

White House: Turkey to Invade Northern Syria, U.S. Will Not Take Part

 

 

I don't give a damn who the president is, I would always hale this is a at move for the US - not being a Trump flag-waver.

everyone's against him on this one.

[Tatetopa]

On 10/6/2019 at 10:13 PM, Farmer77 said:

Holy hell. Turkey chooses Russia and then the US chooses Turkey over a long standing partner. 

Well I heard today that the Kurds did not help us on D-Day at Normandy, so I guess this is OK in some people'd book.