Turkey Has Been Telling NATO the Truth for Years. NATO Chose Not to Listen
Erdoğan’s Eid prayer was not a rhetorical excess. It was a signal — and the West still refuses to look at what is on the other side.
On the morning of Eid al-Fitr, as Muslim communities across the world marked the end of Ramadan, the president of a NATO member state stood before the cameras in his ancestral hometown and invoked divine destruction upon a country whose principal ally underwrites the security architecture that keeps his own military funded, equipped, and relevant. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s prayer — “May Al-Kahhar crush and destroy Israel” — was not a slip. It was a statement of position, timed, delivered in full awareness of the cameras, and released by the state news agency Anadolu. In a third week of active U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran, with the Strait of Hormuz closed and European bond markets repricing regional risk in real time, the leader of Turkey chose his moment and chose his words. The question is not whether the West noticed. The question is whether it is capable of drawing the correct conclusion.
“The problem with Erdoğan is not that he says the wrong things. It is that he has consistently done the wrong things — and nothing has followed.”
The temptation, as always, is to locate this event within the familiar register of Turkish domestic politics: the Islamic electorate to be managed, the nationalist base to be appeased, the rhetoric that stays inside the borders. This reading is not wrong. It is merely insufficient. What it misses is the structural shift that has been accumulating since at least 2019, when Ankara completed the purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system — a materiel decision, not a speech — and was subsequently excluded from the F-35 program. Turkey did not reverse course. It absorbed the cost and continued. That pattern is the data point that matters.
The architecture of dual loyalty
Ankara has, over the past seven years, constructed what can only be described as a deliberately ambiguous strategic posture. It has retained NATO membership and its associated benefits — second-largest conventional army in the Alliance, access to interoperability standards, political cover as a “Western” state — while simultaneously integrating Russian military hardware, maintaining energy and commercial flows with Moscow in open defiance of the sanctions regime that its allies have staked significant political capital on, and now aligning rhetorically with the anti-American axis at the precise moment that alignment carries maximum signal value.
Get Paolo Calvi’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This is not disorganized opportunism. It is a coherent strategy: extract maximum rents from the Western security order while hedging against it, using each concession obtained — F-16 deliveries, delayed ratification of Nordic NATO accession, softened visa conditionality — as proof that the leverage is real and the cost of confrontation is prohibitive. It has worked. For seven years, it has worked without interruption.
“The Bosphorus cannot be moved. But it can be made strategically irrelevant — and that process, if begun today, takes a decade. The window may be shorter.”
What the geography actually demands
The standard defense of tolerating Turkish behavior rests on three assets: the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, the Incirlik airbase with its B61 nuclear weapons, and the second-largest conventional army in NATO. Each deserves a cold reassessment. The Straits are geographically irreplaceable — Montreux governs them, and a hostile or neutral Turkey could legally constrain NATO naval transit to the Black Sea, isolating Romania, Bulgaria, and Ukraine from Western naval support. This is the most serious constraint and it is real. But the other two are less ironclad than the conventional wisdom holds. Incirlik has already been used as a hostage: in July 2016, Erdoğan shut down the airspace over the base during the coup attempt. The B61s stationed there are, on any sober analysis, more of a liability than an asset — a tripwire that gives Ankara leverage over Washington rather than the reverse. Their quiet relocation to Aviano or Lakenheath should have begun the day after that 2016 closure. It has not. The army is real, but its reliability in an Article 5 scenario is precisely the variable in question. An ally whose head of state prays for the destruction of your ally-in-conflict is not an ally whose second strike you want to depend on.
The Greek variable and the long game
There is a coherent strategic alternative. It does not require expelling Turkey from NATO — there is no mechanism to do so, and the attempt would be noisier than the problem it solves. It requires making Turkey progressively irrelevant by investing in redundancy. Alexandroupolis, the Greek port forty kilometers from the Turkish border, is already a NATO logistics hub in development. It should be the fastest-moving construction project in European defense spending. Cyprus, excluded from certain EU defense mechanisms by a de facto Turkish veto embedded in the bloc’s own institutional architecture, should be fully integrated. The Black Sea should be made contendible without Bosphorus transit — through long-range missile systems in Romania and Bulgaria, autonomous naval drones not governed by Montreux, and a dedicated surveillance architecture shared with Kyiv, Tbilisi, and Bucharest. None of this requires a confrontation with Ankara. It simply requires building the world in which Ankara’s choices carry diminishing returns.
The economic dimension is equally tractable, and equally neglected. Turkey needs the EU customs union, European capital markets, and IMF flexibility to service a lira that has shed the majority of its value against the dollar over the past decade. The West has consistently provided that financial oxygen without conditioning it on behavior. Removing the subsidy does not require sanctions — it requires simply stopping the practice of providing diplomatic cover for Ankara in multilateral institutions, renegotiating the customs arrangement with explicit conditionality, and ceasing to treat Turkish economic stability as a European interest independent of Turkish conduct. The next successor to Erdoğan — and there will be one, demographics and economics guarantee it — will inherit a country whose geopolitical leverage has been systematically reduced. That successor will negotiate differently.
The real question is about the West
The failure here is not Turkish. Erdoğan has been entirely consistent. He has told the Alliance what he thinks, shown it what he does, and watched it continue to fund and equip and accommodate. The failure is Western, and it is structural: democratic governments with four-year electoral cycles cannot price in risks that will materialize in eight to twelve years, cannot absorb short-term costs for long-term strategic gains, and cannot say in public what their own analysts say in closed rooms. The result is a policy of managed deterioration — each step of Turkish drift absorbed and normalized, until the aggregate displacement from the original alliance posture is so large that confronting it would require admitting to years of strategic failure.
In October 1963, in Italy, the geologists surveying Monte Toc above the Vajont reservoir had completed their models. The data showed an unstable slope. The company that owned the dam had invested too much to stop. The local officials had too much to lose from a public alarm. The engineers calculated that the water could be managed. It rained heavily on the night of October 9th. Two thousand people died in four minutes.
The dam does not always break. But the people who build their houses below it and refuse to read the surveys do not get to claim surprise when it does. The Western alliance has the surveys. The choice about whether to read them — and act — is still, for the moment, available.
