For those of you versed in geopolitics, is breaking up Turkey necessary?
So, let's look at the state of Turkey, right now.
Since the 1990s, they've completely failed in the path that the U.S. laid out for them. They were intended to be, and should have been, a regional power. Both in Eastern Europe, to serve as a stabilizing influence in a -then- uncertain region, and in the Middle East, as a check on Iranian influence.
As time has gone on, Iran has bit into Turkey's heels by providing aid to Kurdish fighters in Southeast Turkey. Additionally, Turkey has been firmly repudiated by Western Europe, though that's changed a little bit with the more recent EU talks.
The one geostrategic accomplishment of Turkey's was the most underwhelming of all: Keeping a check on Russia's access to the Mediterranean. The only thing that required is a leader with a stiff-spine and geography.
We've seen Erdoğan, recently, outmatched by Putin, and as a result, backing down. There's reason to believe that Erdoğan is aiding ISIS, who have outlived their usefulness to us.
While previously rejected by Western Europe, Turkey has been in talks to join the EU. Even though that's practically a decade-long process, it has bad implications for the US. America is able to safely call the shots with NATO. A stronger, united Europe limits our ability to influence individual NATO members. A European army (Which is in the works), limits our ability to influence entire regions.
In short, Turkey, from an American geostrategic standpoint, has been on a path that doesn't line up with our interests.
>>81302202
2/2
Yesterday's failed coup, is even more bad news from the Turkish shit-show. Don't get me wrong, Erdoğan will use this failed coup to strengthen his position at home; however, abroad, he's lost quite a bit of political influence.
A Turkish state in that condition is practically useless. They can't properly barter with Europe, and will be entirely subservient to Brussels. Their interests have diverged from ours in the Middle East, not that it would matter, because they can no longer actually check Iranian power. Worst of all, they've lost the ability to properly stand against Russia, which is the entire damned region they're even in NATO.
Given this, is it ideal, or even possible, to cut our losses and try to break Turkey up?
US Foreign Policy conversations in the Middle East have featured Kurdistan, more and more, recently. Given that Iraq can barely be called a nation now, and the fact that Turkey has outlived its usefulness, this would be an ideal time to support Kurdish nationalists.
A ethnic Turkish state is still necessary, but it seems extraordinarily stupid to trust it with the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits.
Greek expansion is off the table, considering the EU has practically made a policy of impoverishing Mediterranean states.
Is it possible to carve out a "New Byzantium" of sorts to do at least part of the job that Turkey couldn't?
>>81302202
>A stronger, united Europe limits our ability to influence individual NATO members. A European army (Which is in the works), limits our ability to influence entire regions.
>In short, Turkey, from an American geostrategic standpoint, has been on a path that doesn't line up with our interests.
nigga u dumb af
Turkey is part of NATO, all the regardless all the play with russia last weeks, it is a pro-american force.
The EU is controlled by the same liberal western elite that control the democratic party and a big part of the republican party (CFR, Bilderberg, soros and friends)
Just like Germany, the de facto center of the EU, is also controlled by those same forces.
>>81302202
>ukraine
>with crimea
>>81303401
>Turkey is part of NATO, all the regardless all the play with russia last weeks, it is a pro-american force.
Obviously. The issue is that Turkey was backing down. Are we supposed to expect the Turks to locate their spine once again? That's very unlikely.
>The EU is controlled by the same liberal western elite that control the democratic party and a big part of the republican party (CFR, Bilderberg, soros and friends)
You're vastly overestimating the influence of Soros & co.
Yes, they control an enormous amount of wealth, and have considerable sway over Western nations. They aren't stringing the West along like a marionette. Additionally, I think you'll find that the front of globalists is less united than you'd think.
Additionally, regardless of competing globalist influence over the West. A more unified Europe is bad for the US & NATO. Nigel Farage talked about it as if it were common knowledge, following the Brexit vote.
To go back to the globalists, overestimating your enemy is just as bad as underestimating them.
>Just like Germany, the de facto center of the EU, is also controlled by those same forces.
Not a united front. Less sway than you're imagining.
This post perfectly encapsulates why we don't see more geopolitics threads on /pol/. I'm surprised you didn't try to sell me a damned water filter.
>>81302233
This coup was most likely staged by erdogan himself. If he didn't created, he knew it and controlled from behind.
>Their interests have diverged from ours in the Middle East, not that it would matter, because they can no longer actually check Iranian power. Worst of all, they've lost the ability to properly stand against Russia, which is the entire damned region they're even in NATO.
You're right when it comes to Iran, but russia? what the fuck?
Turkey is just trying, ridiculously, to play with russia. It was never supposed to "stand up against" russia, it just had the western cucks to finance and protect their asses so they would be good kids and not ally themselves with russia.
Turkey is just trying to get the best deal, it still as pro-western as possible for a muslim country.
>>81303753
Picked a premade map and focused on Roachland.
>>81304466
>This coup was most likely staged by erdogan himself. If he didn't created, he knew it and controlled from behind.
I don't think that's the case. I'm not going to deny that this stuff happens; however, Erdoğan loses too much, and gains too little.
>
Turkey is just trying, ridiculously, to play with russia. It was never supposed to "stand up against" Russia.
I'm not suggesting that Turkey was supposed to check Russian power in the same way it was intended to check Iran's power. What I am saying is that Turkey has backed down from Russia amongst rising tensions over the plane fiasco.
I don't think it's a good idea to have a state like that in charge of two vital straits, especially since there's a very real possibility of things going south between the US and Russia again (HRC foreign policy).
> it just had the western cucks to finance and protect their asses so they would be good kids and not ally themselves with russia.
That's part of it, sure, but not the entire extent. Two of the major reasons Turkey is even part of NATO is to cut off Russian access to the Mediterranean and hold our missiles. The former is still important, and the current trend of things is indicative of a Turkey that would take issue with that (And as a result, require more US attention).
>Turkey is just trying to get the best deal, it still as pro-western as possible for a muslim country.
It's still as pro-west as possible, but it now seems to lack the ability to be pro-west enough.
>>81304011
>I think you'll find that the front of globalists is less united than you'd think.
i'm not saying it is united m8 i'm saying that in NORTH AMERICA AND WESTERN EUROPE it is united.
>A more unified Europe is bad for the US & NATO.
Dude... the EU is a poltical arm of NATO.
When it comes to the US, yeah it might be bad for the USA as a nation, but will be good for the the WESTERN ELITE AS A WHOLE and that is all that really matters, you know that.
Any edited map of Europe with Belgium still existing is a crime against humanity.
What is better on it ?!
It is almost same as current.
It wants to steal Crimea from crimean ( = russian) people and return to Ukrofascist Bandera monsters, reversing Direct Democracy rule back to medieval land-lording...
Kurdistan is kind of too big, including parts, where Kurds are 30%-minority... That would create similar but opposite problem from current...
Actually - there are very different types of Kurds, and the evil-kurds in Iraq (pro-Israel, governed by Mossad agent, smugling ISIS oil to Turkey, so that Erdogan may almost fairly say, that he does not buy _from_ISIS_ that oil...) are wanting to exterminate to good kurds in YPG in Syria, so this would create different problems while solving some current...
Didn't WWI teach you that arbitrarily fracturing these regions isn't a viable solution?
>>81305884
>Erdoğan loses too much, and gains too little.
could you explain why do you think that's the case? i'm curious.
>>81302202
>its good that Turkey keeps Russia back
Why would we want that?
>>81302233
>Greek expansion is off the table, considering the EU has practically made a policy of impoverishing Mediterranean states.
That last part may be true, but it doesnt completely erase Greeces opportunity for territorrial expansion in western Turkey. Our military consists of 400k+ soldiers, armed with modern tanks and weapons. If there were a civil war in Tureky, Greece could support the creation of a Byzantine state, if of course it was alligned with our national interrests
