This is true only as long as one presupposes a lack of air support for the US/NATO forces. I find it beyond unlikely that any form of shooting war would be entered into without the support of a carrier group (more likely to be two or more carrier groups) nearby. Air superiority is the most fundamental element of US/NATO warfighting.
Where you might argue quantity I would argue quality. And not only of the aircraft, as pilot training has at least as much sway over the outcome of any air conflict. With all the talk of the US military being stretched thin, or run down, there is the flip side that much combat experience is being gained.
Turkey is a member of NATO, & has been for over 50 years. Much longer than Spain, let alone Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, etc.
Why put carrier groups into confined waters in close proximity to a hostile coast, when you have land bases close by? Three NATO countries border the Black Sea, & they have continuous land & air routes across NATO territory to western Europe.
Very good point. I guess I was contemplating more of a unilateral response - sadly this seems to have become a common theme from where I hail.
You still didnt answered WHY Turkey should help US and offer own airfields. NATO (let alone US) cant force Turkey to do it. Remember, Turkey denied US/NATO access to its airfields for operations against Iraq/Iran.
It is a persistent policy of the Russians to issue passports and stir up things, arm groups, making sure things stay hot, playing them against each other.
Not true. The Montreux Convention of 1936 (the agreement you refer to) states that if Turkey is at war, or considers itself to be in immediate danger, it may suspend the rest of the Convention, & allow through, or bar, whatever shipping it chooses. Articles 20 & 21, or thereabouts, if I remember correctly.
I've stayed in Laleli, & I'm sure its economy would suffer from a reduction in Russian trade. But Laleli is not Turkey. In 2007, Russia provided 14% of Turkish imports, & took 4.4% of Turkish exports. The EU provided 43.9% of imports, & took 61.7% of exports. Who is more important?
No, I didn't. It's up to Turkey whether it agrees to any putative NATO operation in Georgia. All I was doing was pointing out what looked to me like the errors of 1) conflating NATO with the EU & 2) forgetting that Turkey is a member of NATO. It therefore has a say in what NATO does.
Swerve, of course Turkey cant refuse NATO access to its airfields - as ALL NATO decisions are taken unanimously, so it would be paradox if Turkey denied that. But Turkey may well block access to any NATO member, and block any NATO decision which lead to NATO-wide operation requiring access to Turkey airfields. It that sense Turkey can refuse NATO access to its airfields.
Thats what i said. If ALL NATO members INCLUDING Turkey will feel the need to start operation against Russia - ofc airfields will be granted. If not - then Turkey is not obliged to anything. And as i said, right now Turkey is rather friendly to Russia and will not help in any NATO (let alone US) operation against Russia.
D so there is nato in germany ..You guys can send regiments from germany by land till russia. İt is clear turks is not on nato or EU or US sideNothing. World history repeatedly showed what in international relations formalities dont mean much. Only pure political and military influence. If some country CAN keep separatists at bay and is strong enough to defend itself against foreign separatist-supporters - then the province will remain in said country (like Chechnya or Ireland.. or even Texas). If the country is not strong enough to either defeat separatist or they foreign supporters (like in Kosovo, or Georgia) - then said province have good chance to become independent.