Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

raven_oscar t1_ixyp9sv wrote

Geography was the reason. Turkey is extremely useful for alliance.

4

legitan t1_ixyw4f9 wrote

“able to be”

2

raven_oscar t1_ixz3yw1 wrote

Was able to be.

−2

hipery2 t1_ixz69g8 wrote

1

raven_oscar t1_iy10cj9 wrote

We are talking about Turkey as part of NATO. Initially it seems to be accepted because of possibility to carry out plane based nuke strikes deep into russia. That's why B61 bombs were (and probably are) stationed in Incirlik Air Base. Now NATO has ICBMs so this role is less relevant. Yes thanks to Montreux Convention Turkey can limit warships transferred to Black Sea but in case of full scale russia vs nato war it is not that important as turkey would be part of NATO and there for target for nukes.

1

hipery2 t1_iy1cw0z wrote

Turkey has the second largest NATO army. Is that relevant enough for you?

2

raven_oscar t1_iy1eur6 wrote

I know that it has. Not really relevant in case ww3 with nukes and stuff. And I don't recall them as part of joint nato land operations. And it is quite hard to make land offensive to the north from their positions.

1

hipery2 t1_iy1h59o wrote

They can open a new front from the Caucasus.

1

bubalusarnee t1_iy0aqa0 wrote

If Australia wished to join NATO, few would look askance.

2