The NATO ‘Unruly’ Ally: Why Is Turkey a Constant Headache for the Alliance?

The first part of the research series can be read at the following link: “Dual game: How Turkey benefits from the Iran crisis”

Although Turkey remains one of the key allies of the West and NATO, its relations with the alliance are marked by a number of deep-seated contradictions and strategic disagreements that periodically become sources of tension.

Let us highlight several of them.

One of the main issues is the NATO–Turkey–Russia relationship dynamic.

The problem is that Turkey, while being a NATO member, cooperates with Russia in various fields, including energy, trade, shipbuilding, and tourism. In the military sphere, the most notable example is the purchase of S-400 air defense systems.

Turkey is the first NATO member state to purchase weapons from a non-NATO country, and NATO’s statutes prohibit such deals, as they may endanger the Alliance’s integrated defense system.

In response, Turkey was excluded from the F-35 program. The United States and the Alliance decided that Turkey could not simultaneously possess S-400 systems and participate in the F-35 program. As a result, Turkey did not receive the fighter jets it had previously ordered. Secondly, the US imposed sanctions on Turkey’s defense industry and several officials. Thirdly, questions arose over whether Turkey is fully loyal to NATO’s strategic line.

Tensions between NATO and Turkey also emerged over Ukraine due to several key issues, as Turkey adopted a “dual-track” approach. It is true that Turkey supported Ukraine, actions which aligned with NATO’s position, and also supplied Bayraktar TB2 drones. However, it did not join Western sanctions against Russia.

Tensions also arose in NATO–Turkey relations over Sweden and Finland when these countries were invited to join NATO, but Turkey blocked the process, demanding strong measures against Kurdish organizations in Sweden and Finland and the extradition of certain individuals to Ankara. This was perceived as an attempt to impose a domestic agenda on the alliance, although Turkey presented it as addressing “security concerns.”

In fact, Turkey delayed NATO enlargement, and the process moved forward only after certain Turkish demands were met—particularly a tougher stance on the PKK, restrictions on related networks, and discussions over the extradition of specific individuals at Turkey’s request.

Under a trilateral memorandum, NATO, Sweden, and Finland acknowledged that Turkey has legitimate security concerns that must be taken into account within the alliance. In other words, NATO gained new members, while Turkey resolved specific political and strategic issues.

From time to time, points of contention also arise between two NATO member states—Turkey and Greece—especially regarding Cyprus, although this rivalry has historical roots. Relations can become so tense that they create friction within the alliance.

These tensions mainly stem from the following issues:

• Territorial disputes in the Aegean Sea, particularly over maritime zones around several islands, airspace control, and exclusive economic zones. Turkish and Greek military aircraft frequently enter each other’s airspace, at times bringing situations close to collision.
• Problems also emerged due to energy resources. Gas reserves discovered in the Eastern Mediterranean have created new tensions. Greece and Cyprus cooperate with European and Israeli partners, while Turkey seeks to conduct independent exploration and disputes these projects.
• Greece has also been arming certain islands, which Turkey views as a threat, while Greece considers it self-defense.

As a result, NATO tries to prevent escalation and maintain a “managed tension.” Thus, Turkey–Greece disagreements represent an internal fracture within NATO that constantly creates obstacles to alliance cohesion.

There are also disagreements between NATO and Turkey in Syria and Iraq, mainly on the following issues:

• The issue of the Kurdish forces, which is the deepest point of contention. In Syria, the US supports Kurdish forces, while Turkey views them as a threat and as terrorist organizations.
• Turkey has carried out several military operations in northern Syria to push back Kurdish forces and establish a “safe zone,” but many NATO countries criticized these actions as violations of Syria’s sovereignty.
• There are also problems regarding Turkey’s activities in Iraq. Turkey has periodically conducted military operations in northern Iraq targeting PKK bases, which the Iraqi government considers a violation of its territorial integrity. The alliance does not support these actions but also does not openly oppose them.
• Turkey also cooperates with Russia in Syria.

Thus, the main contradiction in Syria and Iraq is that NATO prioritizes counterterrorism, while Turkey prioritizes neutralizing Kurdish armed groups.

NATO also has tensions with Turkey regarding relations with Hamas, which will be discussed next.