Key Points:

• Turkey’s interest in BRICS complicates its NATO relationship but focuses more on economics than security.
• Controversial actions, like buying Russian defense systems, have strained Turkey’s ties with NATO.
• Despite issues, Turkey’s strategic importance makes it vital for NATO to maintain strong relations.
• With conflicts on the rise the defense sector may seem like a good place to invest, but the smart money is already looking at The Next Nvidia as the top stocks to soar in 2025. Unlock details here.

Austin and Michael discuss the complexities surrounding Turkey’s potential membership in BRICS, a coalition that counters Western economic dominance, while also being a key NATO ally. They explore how Turkey’s strategic geopolitical positioning, particularly its control over key transportation routes like the Bosphorus Strait, gives it leverage within NATO despite some controversial actions, such as purchasing Russian air defense systems and making diplomatic missteps. Michael emphasizes that although Turkey has caused tensions within NATO, its military and economic contributions are too significant to ignore. The conversation transitions into the broader context of disagreements within NATO, particularly regarding Ukraine’s desire to join the alliance, which some member nations oppose.

Watch the Video

Edited Video Transcript:

I’d love to talk about your BRICS versus EU versus NATO point here.

I’m just curious, do we have a sense for how that would play out?

Let’s say Turkey does join BRICS, which is a very clearly stated organization of countries to counter Western economic dominance globally.

How does that work if they were to join it when they’re allied with Russia through BRICS, but then they are allied in this largely anti-Russian organization through NATO?

What would that look like?

Do we have a sense for which commitments would trump which other commitments there?

Yeah, that’s a really interesting question, but I think we shouldn’t overstate the… you know, how closely tied BRICS members are to one another.

I think it’s a primarily economic agreement rather than a security agreement.

So Turkey seems to be, just like World War II, almost having it both ways in the sense that it’s forming economic ties with nations that aren’t necessarily friendly to NATO while still having its security guaranteed by NATO.

So I think there’s a bit of give and take there.

I don’t know.

It’s going to be really interesting if they do end up.

We should point out that talks are at a really early stage and there’s no guarantees that they are going to join this organization.

It’s just that if the door is shut to the EU and they want to form links with economic links with other countries, then BRICS is really the only realistic alternative, you know, in terms of major trading blocks that they could be a part of.

In many ways, again, not to strain the analogy, which is my place here, but it reminds me a little bit of maybe Saudi Arabia’s early commitments in the mid part of last century, around like World War I and World War II, where they would often kind of loosely ally themselves with opposing teams, so to speak, and then wait to sort of see the way things shook out.

So it seems as if Turkey might be doing a little bit of that here, where they kind of want to be loosely associated with all these different countries, even countries that may be having tension with each other, while also remaining out of all conflicts militarily, at least until they find their identity in that conflict.

The foreign minister, I think it was about a year ago, said, when you have an alliance with 32 members, you’re going to have disagreements.

And I think that’s not an unreasonable point to make.

But there have been some moves that Turkey have made, some diplomatic missteps, that really unnecessarily caused some tension.

So one of them was the purchase of Russian air defense systems, which saw Turkey, that caused a lot of problems with the United States, and it was such an unforced error.

They could have just purchased Patriot missile batteries from the US without any problems, but they instead chose to purchase SP-400s from Russia.

As a result, they were kicked out of the F-35 program and sanctions by the United States.

And there have been some really careless comments from Turkish leaders about the war in Gaza.

There was a suggestion that Turkey might intervene, which is obviously going to cause a lot of problems with the United States.

There’s no way they would accept that.

And there have been some calls from outliers.

I wouldn’t want to… say this is a universal opinion, but I think it was the Dutch far right leader Geert Wilders said Turkey should be expelled from NATO.

But that just gives you an idea of kind of the sentiment of what some of those comments might have made.

Again, it’s just an unforced error that wasn’t necessary.

But I think overall, if you consider Turkey’s important geographic location, its military strength, it’s the second largest military in NATO.

They have a thriving drone industry.

They’re building up their strength significantly.

They’ve met their obligations.

They have outwardly committed to NATO as far as their security is concerned.

But the point is, it’s a difficult relationship, but I think it’s one that NATO really should try to salvage as much as they can.

There’s too much to offer there, militarily, economically, in geography.

There’s too much to gain from having Turkey as an ally.

You certainly do not want Turkey to be on the other team, so to speak.

And vice versa.

Turkey gains a lot from being part of NATO too.

Absolutely, absolutely.

Wonderful.

You talked about with so many members in NATO, it’s inevitable that there’s going to be disagreements and differences of opinion.

Let’s talk about some of the disagreements as it relates to Ukraine.

Ukraine has been trying to become a member of NATO since before the invasion.

There are some nations in the NATO alliance that reject that.

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.