Certainly, NATO leaders and many in the White House will celebrate Turkey's agreement to join Sweden after a 22-month delay, but while NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg lavishes praise on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the reality is that Turkey has subordinated NATO's interests for its own benefit.
The above is stated in a related article in a reputable international media outlet by the world-class analyst Rubin, who goes on to point out:
Turkey's blackmail of NATO-US and its games with Russia
"Turkey's blackmail of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) over Sweden's membership is the latest episode that raises questions about whether Turkey belongs in the alliance.
It is playing with Russia and the United States by making double deals as Turkey arms Ukraine by helping Russia avoid sanctions.
NATO defines its purpose as "to guarantee the freedom and security of its members by civil and military means" and says it "promotes democratic values".
Turkey today makes a mockery of such values, while Freedom House ranks Turkey as the most undemocratic member of NATO.
For too long, NATO leaders and their Western counterparts have refused to see what Turkey is doing. Some explain that Turkey is simply too important, as it has the second largest military in NATO. However, this measurement is misleading.
It is not the size of the army that matters, but the political will to use it.
The idea that the problem will only be solved if Erdogan leaves office or dies is fantasy, given how he shaped the education of 32 million Turks and how he shaped the military in his own image during his 21-year dictatorship. The same is true of Turkey's media and bureaucracy.
There is no mechanism within NATO to expel a member of NATO
In the past, countries have voluntarily withdrawn. In 1966, for example, France left NATO's integrated military command after a series of internal disagreements, although Charles de Gaulle simultaneously reaffirmed France's commitment to the collective defence of the alliance.
Eight years later, Greece withdrew from NATO command following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus.
Both countries eventually rejoined.
The value of NATO for Erdogan, however, is that it can be the "Trojan horse" and prevent consensus on any decision until NATO members meet his demands.
For Sweden, that means suppressing free speech or extraditing dissidents, while for the United States, it could mean giving Turkey the F-16s.
NATO can force Turkey to leave - The example of the "LIVE OAK" plan
If NATO cannot force Turkey to leave, could it force it to leave? Yes.
Defense historian Corey Sake notes an example from the second Berlin Crisis in 1958.
As the Soviet Union again challenged the West Berlin regime, the United States, the United Kingdom and France implemented Live Oak.
Codenamed LIVE OAK, the staff devised land and air plans to guarantee access to and from West Berlin.
The LIVE OAK design team was relocated from the USEUCOM (USEUCOM) near Paris to join SHAPE headquarters in Rocquencourt.
The idea was to involve in the planning those NATO members most likely to fight, essentially creating a fait accompli for other NATO members.
Such a concept today would mean giving privileges to reliable NATO members.
John Maurer, professor of strategy at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, speculates that NATO reformers might interpret France's voluntary separation from NATO command in 1966 as an indication that being a party to the NATO Treaty does not necessarily guarantee participation in all NATO structures, particularly at the military level.
Moving Headquarters from Smyrna
NATO could also move its Land Command (LANDCOM) from Izmir.
Should Turkey veto the move through its presence in the North Atlantic Council, NATO could respond by establishing a parallel command and then slowly leaving LANDCOM.
Either way, NATO can signal its displeasure with Erdogan's antics by assigning the new or relocated structure to Alexandroupolis or Stockholm.
NATO can make Turkey's presence in NATO unpleasant in other ways.
Blocking Turks from critical NATO positions and information
NATO members could unofficially exclude Turks from certain organizations by refusing appointments of Turks. Here, there is also precedent, as Turkey regularly uses its veto to ban speakers critical of Erdogan from attending the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Similarly, just as Five Eyes formalizes intelligence sharing between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, a NATO Minus One code can prevent regular intelligence sharing with Turkish officials.
Such a move is prudent given both Turkey's willingness to target dissidents across Europe and its support for the Islamic State.
Effective defense requires an assessment of reality. Turkey no longer provides NATO with the foundation or value it once had. Denial about Erdogan's ideology or his impact on the Turkish military can be deadly.
Instead of embracing wishful thinking and acknowledging Turkey's weakness, it is time to quarantine NATO's Trojan horse."
Do the "Guardians" have knowledge
Our assessment is that the guardians (NATO-US) are aware of Turkish games and blackmail.
The satisfaction of Turkish demands for the acquisition of F-16s in exchange for Sweden's entry into NATO is a "Pyrrhic victory" for Erdogan, since he has now openly revealed how he perceives the Alliance
What is certain is that the safeguards to force Turkey to withdraw from the Alliance exist.
I wonder if they will be applied in Erdogan's next blackmailing misstep?
We wonder
