This goes back to a treaty from 1936 addressing "the long-running Straits Question over who should control the strategically vital link between the Black and Mediterranean Seas" [1].
Turkey is a large and strong nation which doesn't give a damn about Putin's petty bullying. Short of nuking them, there's just about nothing Putin can probably do. And he already has his hands more than full.
Turkey certainly is an independent, sovereign country, but they live in the world. Russia's actions certainly affect Turkey, just as they affect other independent, sovereign countries such as the United States and the other European countries. Look at all the attention and investment these countries make in dealing with Russia - that's a lot for 'don't give a damn'. NATO, in which Turkey is a member, exists primarily as collective defense against Russia.
Turkey is even more exposed to Russia because of their close proximity. They have overlapping interests in the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, Transcaucasia (the region south of the Caucuses, with Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan), and Syria.
The article describes other leverage Russia has:
> Yet, any step too far may harm Turkey's already beleaguered economy after a currency crisis in December and an inflationary spiral.
> Russian natural gas accounts for 45% of Turkish imports, while Russians account for 20% of Turkey's tourists.
I agree that Turkey is hardly powereless and has its own leverage and resources.
Benefit of Turkey is that it is big, has a powerful economy and defence industrial sector with it's own high-tech products (some of them arguably beating American let alone Russian ones such as ECM systems and combat drones), and most importantly, a large young population willing to fight. It is the last country to be expected to appease the enemy in case it is wronged.
Russia certainly doesn't have resources to defeat Turkey unless it massively uses nukes, so it won't try.
In a way, for all problems with Turkey, they are very useful for European security. They are a country that is geographically very well positioned to fight a defensive war from any direction, and at the same time poorly positioned to fight an offensive one anywhere but in the Middle East where it is already fighting (and which has little of value to fight for, anyway).
>Many countries (as described in the GP) that are larger and have more powerful economies and defense sectors are still affected by Russia
Like? Short of Germany with it's so poorly exposed energy sector (although this is getting fixed asap).
>What are these claims based on?
Median age in Turkey is 31.5 years, and 39.5 in Russia. Number of people reaching military age annually in Turkey is already larger than in Russia although it's population is half that of Russia.
>Defeating Turkey in a war is not the sort of problem Russia would cause. Russia will not attack Turkey, a NATO member.
Other than the military threat it presents, what are the reasons anyone would even remember about Russia's existence?
7 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 26.4 ms ] thread[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...
Turkey is even more exposed to Russia because of their close proximity. They have overlapping interests in the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, Transcaucasia (the region south of the Caucuses, with Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan), and Syria.
The article describes other leverage Russia has:
> Yet, any step too far may harm Turkey's already beleaguered economy after a currency crisis in December and an inflationary spiral.
> Russian natural gas accounts for 45% of Turkish imports, while Russians account for 20% of Turkey's tourists.
I agree that Turkey is hardly powereless and has its own leverage and resources.
Russia certainly doesn't have resources to defeat Turkey unless it massively uses nukes, so it won't try.
In a way, for all problems with Turkey, they are very useful for European security. They are a country that is geographically very well positioned to fight a defensive war from any direction, and at the same time poorly positioned to fight an offensive one anywhere but in the Middle East where it is already fighting (and which has little of value to fight for, anyway).
Many countries (as described in the GP) that are larger and have more powerful economies and defense sectors are still affected by Russia
> a large young population willing to fight. It is the last country to be expected to appease the enemy in case it is wronged.
What are these claims based on?
> Russia certainly doesn't have resources to defeat Turkey
Defeating Turkey in a war is not the sort of problem Russia would cause. Russia will not attack Turkey, a NATO member.
Like? Short of Germany with it's so poorly exposed energy sector (although this is getting fixed asap).
>What are these claims based on?
Median age in Turkey is 31.5 years, and 39.5 in Russia. Number of people reaching military age annually in Turkey is already larger than in Russia although it's population is half that of Russia.
>Defeating Turkey in a war is not the sort of problem Russia would cause. Russia will not attack Turkey, a NATO member.
Other than the military threat it presents, what are the reasons anyone would even remember about Russia's existence?
> Like? Short of Germany with it's so poorly exposed energy sector (although this is getting fixed asap).
United States, Japan, France, UK, ...
> Other than the military threat it presents, what are the reasons anyone would even remember about Russia's existence?
See my comment above, where I describe many of the issues.