of anything . But basically , the whole alliance thing . So that nobody will be protecting us . Or easier on the nerves when we get bombed for oil . Don't be shy , Pentagon will not never let you get into this debate otherwise !
@r16 You should reduce your stress levels, cease worrying about the US attacking Turkey. They cannot. Militarily they are unable to. They can try to subvert it, but not with the turks on to that, and they're very much on since that failed coup.
As for fantasies of fighting the turk in european capitals - that was never a thing that interested europeans much in the past few centuries, except to prevent others from moving in and seizing bits of it. And everyoe is now unable to move in. If Turkey got attacked where would we buy our washing machines from? And soon, our cars, steel, trains... oh and "non-russian" gas.
Yes, NATO was famous for only allowing in secular liberal democracies, like *checks notes* Estado Novo Portugal.
Don't forget Gladio. More than a little tied into NATO strategy. Want could be more liberal democratic than organizing old and neo nazis and fascists to coup elected governments?
(NATO is still doing it, btw)
If Turkey left nato, Greece wouldn't be needed to do anything, because US would carve the part of Turkey it needs and let the rest go.
The US can't win a war with a real country where they don't have a big faction they can bribe and manipulate. But to bribe a big faction is expensive, they must be goven real advantages, not just be allowed to pillage their fellow countrymen. Even the taliban eventually defeated "NATO". Iraq was the last biggish country the US and assorted poodles manged to actually defeat and teh second go at it was after years of further wreaking it through sanctions and bombings.
In recent years what they do is
damage to deny territory to rivals. Not conquest/assimilation into the hegemony, they're unable to do that. Libya was destroyed because they succeeded in instigating civil war before, bribing several government members to move on Ghadaffi when he started making big business with the asians. Syria, civil war to wreck it. Ukraine, civil war to deny it as an area under the influence of a rival. Before that the Balkans, civil wars. The US may have some people who still daydream of world hegemony and expanding the "liberal empire" (the "new american century") but the "realists" there content themselves with spreading destruction to deny territory to, or cut into, challengers - a delaying tactic for a decadent hegemon.
There is no piece of Turkey that the US can successfully carve off. This sadly kind of "justifies" the ethnic cleansings the turks have been busy with since the 1910s - now they not vulnerable to be attacked using the current american toolbox. Which was copied from the overextended Britisk Empire toolbox of WW1 era, so the turks of the 1910s and after knew all about it.
Greeks should remember that being an ally of the US results in getting used up, wasted and dumped. Keep your weapons but make nice with Turkey and propose mutually advantageous deals to explore those hydrocarbons. Turkey will be getting much wealthier (and thus much better armed) than Greece anyway. If in need of balancing alliances, look regionally because no one else further will give a damn for Greece and Turkey. Turkey's neighbours are the ones with a real interest in keeping the peace in the region. Others are free of consequences of lighting fireworks there. So to avoid regional wars, rely on regional alliances. And if at all possible
ally with the greatest threat to you.