NATO

[STURM]

I want to highlight that any idea of suspending Turkey from NATO will have a detrimental effect for NATO and is also hypocritical given the 'invasion' history of certain NATO countries; that any talk of NATO reducing ties or making certain things conditional to more democratic reforms are hypocritical given that some NATO countries [proponents of democracy, human rights, press freedom, etc] have close/strategic ties with various countries which are even more undemocratic than Turkey and that certain actions on Turkey will not go down well with many Turks; irrespective of whether they are pro Erdogan or not. I will also point out - again - that given a choice of a more democratic Turkey but one which is not ''troublesome'' for NATO or one that is not so democratic but fulfils all its NATO obligations [which Turkey does] and causes no ''trouble'' with other NATO partners; NATO will choose the latter - it's realpolitik.

Yes Sweden and Finland has to make certain concessions and the same goes with Turkey. As a caveat I'm nor pro Turkey or Erdogan; anymore than I'm pro NATO or the West per see. I'm just looking at things in totality; from both perspectives.

 

[Vivendi]

I want to highlight that any idea of suspending Turkey from NATO will have a detrimental effect for NATO and is also hypocritical given the 'invasion' history of certain NATO countries; that any talk of NATO reducing ties or making certain things conditional to more democratic reforms are hypocritical given that some NATO countries [proponents of democracy, human rights, press freedom, etc] have close/strategic ties with various countries which are even more undemocratic than Turkey and that certain actions on Turkey will not go down well with many Turks; irrespective of whether they are pro Erdogan or not. I will also point out - again - that given a choice of a more democratic Turkey but one which is not ''troublesome'' for NATO or one that is not so democratic but fulfils all its NATO obligations [which Turkey does] and causes no ''trouble'' with other NATO partners; NATO will choose the latter - it's realpolitik.

I disagree, you have to distinguish between an organization consisting of several countries, and each of those countries. NATO is not the US and the US is not NATO. NATO should and does have a higher standard than the e.g., the US. Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, but will not become a NATO member.

The idea of suspending Turkey from NATO is not new, and so far did not have a detrimental effect on NATO.

It is a real problem for NATO that Turkey is moving in an undemocratic direction. This makes Turkey "troublesome" for NATO, I believe there is a correlation between being "troublesome" for NATO and lack of democracy.

I agree with you that both Sw/Fi and Turkey should compromise, however I believe Turkey will not be willing to compromise. I hope I am wrong.

 

[STURM]

NATO is more than the US and the UK. NATO consist of 30 mostly democratic countries.

Was keenly aware of that but thank you.

however Turkey has in the past supported militant islamist groups in Syria, to use as a counterweight against the Kurds in Syria destabilizing the region. Some of those islamists left the groups supported and ended up in IS or Al Qada.

The U.S, Britain and its Arab allies supported so called ''moderates'' but as it turns out these ''moderates'' weren't so ''moderate'' after all and ultimately did not overthrow Assad. The U.S. and others have/had dealing with Kurdish group which Turkey designates as ''terrorists''. Ultimately countries will do whatever it takes if it's in their interests.

NATO is not the US and the US is not NATO.

Right. So NATO preaches about human rights and democracy within NATO itself but outside of NATO there is no contradiction or hypocrisy when countries which are NATO members are extremely chummy with countries which are not democratic and don' even have elected governments? Or does it depend on who the said country is - officially all are equal as NATO after all is democratic but unofficially some are more equal than others?

You pointed out the possibility of suspending Turkey over its ''invasion'' of Syria. First of all it was an ''incursion''; secondly others have a more stablished record of actual ''invasions''.

The idea of suspending Turkey from NATO is not new, and so far did not have a detrimental effect on NATO.

It did not have a detrimental effect because Turkey was never suspended now was it? Note that my opinion was that suspending Turkey would have a detrimental effect; not any proposals to suspend Turkey...

a real problem for NATO that Turkey is moving in an undemocratic direction.

Here's my turn to disagree. It becomes a ''problem' when or rather if Turkey [or any other NATO member] partakes in actions or policies which are detrimental to NATO. Unless I'm very mistaken Turkey still hosts NATO assets on it's soil; it's AD network is tied into NATO's; it's part of the intel arrangement; it participates in NATO exercises/exchanges; it has cooperated fully over the Ukraine and has given zero indication that it will cut back on its commitments to NATO.

Seriously if Turkey refuse to let Sweden and Finland in, let's boot them out.

Indeed. Since Turkey is such a problem; ''boot it out'' but isn't NATO supposed to be democratic and doesn't every single member have to agree on certain things? Is kicking Turkey out of NATO because of Finland and Sweden democratic or is in NATO's interests? Are Finland and Sweden more valued than Turkey or just as valued? Shouldn't dialogue be the order of the day rather than expulsion? Whose to say there in the future there won't be a crisis in the ''south'' requiring Turkey as a NATO member to play a pivotal role? If Turkey gets kicked out what happens to the void that arises in the southern flank?

Not sure why you bring up the issue of Erdogan being a nice chap or not -- he is what he is, and NATO just has to deal with him.

I'll make you understand what I meant... NATO is ''dealing'' with him and has been since he came to power. The issue however is not whether he's democratic or not but the fact that he's not ''cooperative'' on various issues. If he was then he'd get less flak over his lack of democracy.

Erdogan is partly to blame for the anti-western views in Turkey

Of course he is but to remind you Turkey has been having certain issues with NATO and the EU for decades; long before anyone here even knew who Erdogan was. Many Turks - I have actually asked - believe - rightly or wrongly - that whatever they do the EU will never admit Turkey or treat it as an equal. They also believe that certain NATO countries in private are biased in favour of Greece.

not the Turkish invasion of Syria.

Granted it was not your proposal but the idea of suspending Turkey over its Syrian incursion is preposterous and hypocritical.

 

[Vivendi]

Note that my opinion was that suspending Turkey would have a detrimental effect; not any proposals to suspend Turkey...

You wrote "...any idea of suspending Turkey from NATO will have a detrimental effect for NATO", my understanding was that you meant that any idea of suspending Turkey would have detrimental effect on NATO, I now understand that this was a misunderstanding.

Indeed. Since Turkey is such a problem; ''boot it out'' but isn't NATO supposed to be democratic and doesn't every single member have to agree on certain things? Is kicking Turkey out of NATO because of Finland and Sweden democratic or is in NATO's interests? Are Finland and Sweden more valued than Turkey or just as valued? Shouldn't dialogue be the order of the day rather than expulsion? Whose to say there in the future there won't be a crisis in the ''south'' requiring Turkey as a NATO member to play a pivotal role? If Turkey gets kicked out what happens to the void that arises in the southern flank?

Turkey is important to NATO, just as NATO is very important to Turkey. In spite of all the complaints Erdogan definitely want to stay in. That's why I am suggesting to not suspend Turkey but to threaten Erdogan with suspension (just as he has been threatening NATO and NATO countries many times in various contexts) if he is not willing to compromise. I am sure this will make him step back and allow Sw/Fi in.

Of course one should try to find a compromise first. Threaten to suspend would be the second to last escalatory step (actual suspension would be the last). Perhaps I was being too pessimistic, hopefully a compromise will be found. Various analysts disagree on the motivation of Erdogan. Depending on his real aim, it may or may not be easy to find a compromise.

Emre Peker, a London-based director for Europe at the Eurasia Group, a private consulting firm, said that he did not believe that Mr. Erdogan was seeking concessions from Washington. He expressed confidence that Turkey could work out an agreement with Sweden and Finland with the mediation of the NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg.

Mr. Erdogan’s main priorities are getting his country’s security concerns about Kurdish separatists heard and getting the arms embargoes lifted, Mr. Peker said.

Some American analysts are skeptical. Eric S. Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Finland, warned that Mr. Erdogan could be seeking to curry favor with Mr. Putin — or at least ease the anger in Moscow over the sale of lethal drones to Ukraine’s military by a private Turkish company.

“He has this very complicated relationship with Putin that he has to maintain,” Mr. Edelman said. “This is a good way of throwing a little bone to Putin — ‘I’m still useful to you.’”

For NATO, Turkey Is a Disruptive Ally - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

[STURM]

You wrote "...any idea of suspending Turkey from NATO will have a detrimental effect for NATO"

Let's put it this way; NATO needs Turkey and vice versa. It's beneficial for both. If Turkey is suspended from NATO there will be a long term detrimental effect on both parties.

 

[Vivendi]

Sweden should cease taking up NATO's time since Turkey’s demands regarding the country’s membership in the alliance are clear, Presidential Communications Director Fahrettin Altun said as Ankara insists Stockholm takes measures against terrorism.

In an interview with Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, Altun said: “We do not believe that it is right for Sweden and Finland to keep NATO busy during this critical time. NATO membership is a privilege, not a right. Those countries, which wish to join us, will join us if they meet the relevant criteria. No negotiation or bargaining is possible, especially regarding an issue like terrorism.”

Sweden needs to make concrete and permanent changes to its policy vis-à-vis terrorism. The extradition of known terrorists to Turkey and the prevention of the activities of terrorist entities on Swedish soil are sine qua non.

Sweden should stop taking up NATO time, nothing to negotiate: Altun | Daily Sabah
Turkey is keeping the pressure up on Sweden and Finland. It seems this will take some time to resolve.

If Turkey has evidence that there are terrorists in Sweden that are not being extradited, they should present them. Turkey has quite different definitions of the words "terrorist" and "evidence" than what EU has...



Turkey is not strengthening their case by making erroneous claims like this:

Turkish security forces discovered Swedish anti-tank weapons while carrying out a raid on a cave used by the PKK terrorists in northern Iraq within the scope of Operation Claw-Lock, a report said recently, as Swedish officials denied providing assistance to the terrorists, which has become a stumbling block for the country's NATO membership.

They discovered AT-4 anti-tank weapons built by Sweden’s Saab Bofors Dynamics Ammunition during the raids, TRT Haber reported.

No concrete response from Sweden, Finland on NATO bids: Erdoğan | Daily Sabah

However those AT4 were not made in Sweden but made in the US and provided by the US not Sweden: Nato, PKK and Olof Palme: Turkey and Sweden's complicated history | Middle East Eye
Mick on Twitter: "[Thread] about the proliferation of the M136 AT4 84mm HEAT Launcher in the Middle East." / Twitter

 

[STURM]

Turkey has quite different definitions of the words "terrorist" and "evidence" than what EU has...

Indeed. I would also add that the EU has a different definition also as to what constitutes a ''terrorist'..

As the old cliche goes ''one man's terrorist's is another man's freedom fighter' .... To an outsider a Kurdish group which has been fighting for decades for autonomy is a legitimate resistance movement. To a Turk whose relative has been killed in combat against that group; it's a terrorist movement.

Depends on who you ask.

Turkey is not strengthening their case

Maybe so but it's not damaging its case either because ultimately both sides will have to make concessions to resolve the issue irrespective of what's uttered in public or what ones personal opinions are - internal politics; national security/interests and national pride are at stake for all parties. It is the behind the scenes discussions/dialogue that will settle the issue.

 

[SolarWind]

I am pretty sure Turkey is just using this situation to place pressure on the EU and US for some concessions that may have nothing to do with Sweden and Finland. And no, they cannot be removed from NATO. On the other hand, there might be some things that Sweden and Finland, as no longer striving to be completely neutral/independent, might have to rethink in relation to Turkey, as they would be entering an alliance that includes Turkey.

 

[STURM]

I am pretty sure Turkey is just using this situation to place pressure on the EU and US for some concessions that may have nothing to do with Sweden and Finland.

I have no idea but I know for a fact [I've asked a few people] that a large number of Turks [not all of them Erdogan supporters] feel quite strongly about the PKK and are supportive of moves to further weaken/isolate it.

 

[SolarWind]

I have no idea but I know for a fact [I've asked a few people] that a large number of Turks [not all of them Erdogan supporters] feel quite strongly about the PKK and are supportive of moves to further weaken/isolate it.

Turkey's concerns are of course legitimate. There are still, however, a number of concessions Turkey might consider fair to ask from the EU and US that are unrelated to new membership seekers. The new membership seekers too being aware they are entering an alliance with Turkey may have to make concessions.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is a NATO Review article on The Madrid Strategic Concept and the future of NATO which is the centrepiece of the NATO Leaders Meeting to be held in Madrid at the end of this month. This is where NATO will formally adopt its new Strategic Concept. Present at the meeting as well as all the NATO Leaders, the Leaders of Finland & Sweden, plus the four key NATO Indo-Pacific Partners Japan, Australia, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand, will be present. Finland and Sweden are expected to submit their formal applications for NATO membership at this meeting.

 

[John Fedup]

Informative article about Sweden’s army and its focus on man portable weapons. Also some good information on Saab’s products. Further conformation on the huge consumption of these weapons and the need for increased manufacturing capacity.

Saab's anti-tank systems could find new life thanks to Ukraine conflict, updated capabilities - Breaking Defense

Saab has put renewed emphasis on anti-armor, anti-structure and anti-personnel weaponry, the kind of equipment which could be vital in the sort of urban combat now occurring in Ukraine.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Vivendi]

As was pointed out in a video I posted about the Ukraine air war; SEAD is one of the hardest things to do and the Ukraine is a large country with an extensive AD network.

NATO is about to be getting massive SEAD/DEAD capacities due to the introduction of the F-35 in combination with new munitions:

June 2, 2020 | By John A. Tirpak
The Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin a $26.7 million contract on June 1 to develop a structural modification for the F-35 strike fighter to improve its Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses capability (SEAD/DEAD). The retrofit design will be applied to both U.S. and foreign F-35s in Lots 14 and 15, and will be completed by August 2022.

The contract, issued by Naval Air Systems Command on behalf of all F-35 users, says Lockheed will perform the engineering necessary to modify the aircraft to perform “full up” SEAD and DEAD.

Lockheed to Retrofit F-35s for Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses Role - Air Force Magazine

The Norwegian Air Force said already back in 2017 that they will be able to do SEAD/DEAD with the F-35:

As an example of something the Air Force will become capable of, which they can not with the F-16, he pointed out what is called "Sead / dead" ("Suppression / Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses"). - We do not have sensors to do that today, quite simply, he said and reminded at the same time that advanced air defenses are being developed in Norway's neighboring areas.

F-35 herjet på storøvelse med 15:1 «kill rate» - Tu.no

The Italian Air Force carried out SEAD/DEAD training with the F-35 already back in 2020 -- since then the F-35 capabilities have improved quite a lot and also the number of F-35 has increased significantly in many NATO countries including the US, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, Belgium, and Italy. The F-35 is bringing SEAD/DEAD to unprecedented new levels, and the current lack of SEAD/DEAD capabilities in European NATO nations will soon be a thing of the past.
Italian Air Force F-35s Carry Out SEAD and DEAD Training During Exercise Lightning 2020 - The Aviationist

Another example is to use the F-35 to provide targeting data for artillery (or HIMARS) to perform DEAD -- a very useful capability that no doubt will be developed further:
F-35 Cueing Artillery To Take Out Air Defense Site During Test Is A Glimpse Of The Future (thedrive.com)

NATO would no doubt face a lot of challenges if they were to try an invasion of a country like Ukraine, however I suspect SEAD/DEAD would not be NATOs main challenge moving forward.

 

[swerve]

NATO is about to be getting massive SEAD/DEAD capacities due to the introduction of the F-35 in combination with new munitions:

Lockheed to Retrofit F-35s for Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses Role - Air Force Magazine

The Norwegian Air Force said already back in 2017 that they will be able to do SEAD/DEAD with the F-35:

F-35 herjet på storøvelse med 15:1 «kill rate» - Tu.no

The Italian Air Force carried out SEAD/DEAD training with the F-35 already back in 2020 -- since then the F-35 capabilities have improved quite a lot and also the number of F-35 has increased significantly in many NATO countries including the US, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, Belgium, and Italy. The F-35 is bringing SEAD/DEAD to unprecedented new levels, and the current lack of SEAD/DEAD capabilities in European NATO nations will soon be a thing of the past.
Italian Air Force F-35s Carry Out SEAD and DEAD Training During Exercise Lightning 2020 - The Aviationist

Another example is to use the F-35 to provide targeting data for artillery (or HIMARS) to perform DEAD -- a very useful capability that no doubt will be developed further:
F-35 Cueing Artillery To Take Out Air Defense Site During Test Is A Glimpse Of The Future (thedrive.com)

NATO would no doubt face a lot of challenges if they were to try an invasion of a country like Ukraine, however I suspect SEAD/DEAD would not be NATOs main challenge moving forward.

Italy & Germany have the Tornado ECR, which was designed specifically for SEAD/DEAD, but quite small numbers. I think Italy is replacing it with F-35s, which AFAIK don't need to be a specialised variant because the bog-standard ones can do the job, which as you suggest, will make a massive expansion of SEAD/DEAD capabilities possible in NATO Europe. Germany is developing an ECR Typhoon.

 

[seaspear]

The articles about the upgrades to the F35 and structural modifications did not say that the F35B could be included for S.E.A.D

 

[STURM]

NATO would no doubt face a lot of challenges if they were to try an invasion of a country like Ukraine, however I suspect SEAD/DEAD would not be NATOs main challenge moving forward.

You could be right. Personally I have no idea. Whilst the capabilities they are acquiring are indeed impressive whether or not they would be able to neutralise a GBAD as extensive as the Ukraine's' in a country as large as the Ukraine really remains to be seen.

Kosovo was a wake up call for the Europeans on how limited their SEAD/DEAD capabilities were and their reliance on the Americans. Even the Americans with all their resources found the task challenging due to Serb innovativeness - see 'The NATO Air War Over Kosovo' [Lambeth].

As it stands SEAD/DEAD is one of the hardest tasks to perform; one also extremely resource intensive; requiring the hardware; constant training and upgrades. I would also go beyond the Ukraine and speculate how effective NATO air power would be against the Russian GBAD in Russia itself.

 

[Vivendi]

You could be right. Personally I have no idea. Whilst the capabilities they are acquiring are indeed impressive whether or not they would be able to neutralise a GBAD as extensive as the Ukraine's' in a country as large as the Ukraine really remains to be seen.

Kosovo was a wake up call for the Europeans on how limited their SEAD/DEAD capabilities were and their reliance on the Americans. Even the Americans with all their resources found the task challenging due to Serb innovativeness - see 'The NATO Air War Over Kosovo' [Lambeth].

As it stands SEAD/DEAD is one of the hardest tasks to perform; one also extremely resource intensive; requiring the hardware; constant training and upgrades. I would also go beyond the Ukraine and speculate how effective NATO air power would be against the Russian GBAD in Russia itself.

To better understand the SEAD/DEAD capabilities of the F-35 and the importance to NATO, I suggest the following interview by test pilot and F-35 expert Billie Flynn: F-35: Capabilities, Missions, Kinematics, Role In Ukrainian Crisis And Beyond. Interview With Billie Flynn - The Aviationist

F-35 with a stealth platform that cannot be seen and excels at the Wild Weasel mission flown for years by the F-16. The F-35 is exceptionally capable at executing the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission set. It would go in and kill every surface-to-air missile threat that was out there, and neutralize all the threats on the ground, and achieve air dominance because it would kill all the air-to-air assets also. Remember: we see them, they don’t see us. It’s like playing football, when one team’s invisible, and the other team is not with a gross advantage on behalf of the F-35. F-35 would see all the enemy air-to-air threats and kill them all, plus completely neutralizing the surface-to-air missile threat to achieve air dominance. From that point, the forces can conduct their air-to-ground war. That’s what the F-35 was meant to do. So, in a parallel world, because we do not want to be dragged into the Ukraine, the F-35 would completely destroy the Russian forces.

The F-35 was designed for the SEAD mission. It’s designed as an VLO platform that is capable of identifying targets on the ground and neutralizing them. That’s where the weapons capabilities that come already with the F-35, are perfectly suited for the SEAD mission. Does it have a very potent electronic warfare capability, electronic attack capability? We have talked about that in public briefings for a long time and I certainly briefed it in Poland when I came to discuss the F-35’s capabilities. That possesses a very lethal capability in terms of electronic attack – that’s jamming – and also in terms of self-protection. How you use that in combination with a stealth platform is part of the tactic of staying survivable with an F-35 in a highly contested environment.

Why is F-35 the perfect SEAD/DEAD platform? It is the synergy between stealth, very advanced EW system, extremely sensitive sensors, sensor fusion, and networking. It's hard to explain well in few words, but it's basically a game changer, and a massive leap in capabilities. DAS is part of it, as is the unique state-of-the-art helmet.

Regarding the Russian SAM technology: NATO has had access to S-300 for quite some time and knows quite a lot about the system. They know what it takes to knock it out, F-35 has been developed to do this. Chinese development is more of a concerns however the F-35 block 4 is design to mitigate those threats. F-35 block 4 will be superior to Russian technology. Russian GBAD is not a threat to the F-35.

 

[STURM]

To better understand the SEAD/DEAD capabilities of the F-35 and the importance to NATO,

Thanks for the links; much appreciated but as I stated the technology is impressive and so are the capabilities. I'm not and was never doubting the capabilities offered by the F-35 and what it brings to SEAD/DEAD. What I'm doubting is the notion that on paper capabilities will lead to the expected results in actuality.

Russian GBAD is not a threat to the F-35.

If you say so. No arguments from me.

Take into account that Russian R and D is not stagnant despite the problems the country faces. The Russians too have pretty good idea as to what the F-35 is capable of and are improving their GBAD. I can only speak for myself but I won't adopt the position that the Russian GBAD would be impotent against the F-35 simply because of its technological prowess or because the Russian GBAD has performed poorly in the Ukraine.

 

[Vivendi]

Thanks for the links; much appreciated but as I stated the technology is impressive and so are the capabilities. I'm not and was never doubting the capabilities offered by the F-35 and what it brings to SEAD/DEAD. What I'm doubting is the notion that on paper capabilities will lead to the expected results in actuality.

What doubts do you have? Could you please elaborate?

 

[STURM]

What doubts do you have? Could you please elaborate?

I actually did and it's self explanatory : 'what I'm doubting is the notion that on paper capabilities will lead to the expected results in actuality'.

I have no doubt that the technology is impressive and significantly improves the ability to perform SEAD/DEAD. What's good on paper however and what actually occurs in reality can be profoundly different; I will not assume that just because a particular side has a major technological edge; that it's given that in an actual conflict we'll see what we expect or hope to see - in a previous post you mentioned assumptions and basing facts around that.

I will also not make blanket statements like ''Russian GBAD is not a threat to the F-35'' for the simple reason that we have no idea what a next war will be like and that the enemy also has a say. It would be silly to assume that just because the Russian GBAD has perform relatively poorly in the Ukraine that this will be case in a Russia/NATO war or that technological superiority is a guarantee for anything.