They should not rely upon on NATO
Why was the summit in London on December 3-4 so tense? Was it right to mark the 70th anniversary of the Alliance in such a harsh atmosphere? How should we evaluate the significance of this summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization: in the context of a statement by Emmanuel Macron about the “death of NATO's brain” or a sharp response from Donald Trump?
Has the current position of Turkey, a member of the Alliance since 1952, helped and will it help to fulfill its demand “NATO must do what I say?” The accusations of the same E. Macron, who claimed, “Today our common enemy is a terrorist organization. I regret to note that we do not have a single understanding of the term "terrorist organization." Turkey’s loyal approach to the issue of ISIS harms our struggle. This issue must be resolved,” put participants in the anniversary summit into a dead end?
However, not satisfied with harsh words about Turkey’s “neutrality” in the fight against ISIS, Macron also attributed the purchase of the S-400 to “accusations”: “How can Turkey, a member of NATO, buy S-400 from Russia? This is technically impossible! ”
With the joining of the chorus of prosecutors and Donald Trump, perhaps the most serious mutual accusations in history between a member country and the Alliance have occurred: “We are currently considering the issue of sanctions, even talking about it.”
The fact that Ankara stayed on its position on the first day of the summit, we learned from the head of the Department of Communication under President R. Erdogan Fahrettin Altun: “Our NATO allies are obliged to help Turkey in the fight against terrorism. They need to stop supporting terrorist organizations. They must extradite wanted members of FETÖ in collaboration with us.”
On the eve of the summit, we wrote that its main goal was to oust Russia from the North, and in that case, could the Kremlin not respond to this summit? “Information about NATO’s increase in its defense budget has confirmed that Russia's concern about the expansion of the alliance is justified,” this was Moscow’s first assessment.
The fact that the defense budget, which is supposed to be increased, will be used not on the southern, but on the northern wing of NATO, is impossible not to see. Then what will Turkey give? Will the Alliance’s 67-year-old urgent appeal to its 70th anniversary “Support our fight against terrorism” be heard? It does not look like.
However, can the threat of sanctions against Turkey in connection with the S-400, following the decision of the US Congress, arise from NATO?
Will not arise. For the statement of E. Macron "on Turkey’s loyalty" in the fight against ISIS and the inadmissibility of the purchase of the S-400 from Russia weakened Ankara’s position in terms of the implementation of its requirements. The main purpose of Macron’s accusations was to weaken Ankara’s position: they say, “We all see and we all know, leave our accusations aside and do not ask us for any support in the fight against terrorism!” Did not Turkey, which bought a S-400, know that it was weakening its position?
Do not ask naive questions...