Joint Defense Agreement: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, news & updates

[retaxis]

Yeah, no one is going to risk selling Nukes , because it's not in their interest.
This alliance won't make sense without it though, I mean, if we get nuked by say USA, will Pakistan return the favour? Doubt it.
Only one benefiting from this is Saudis.

I wouldn't worry too much about nukes. Once someone uses its just a matter of time before whole world goes up in flames anyway. Not to mention those cobalt nukes that can wipe out all life on earth for hundreds of years.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yeah, no one is going to risk selling Nukes , because it's not in their interest.
This alliance won't make sense without it though, I mean, if we get nuked by say USA, will Pakistan return the favour? Doubt it.
Only one benefiting from this is Saudis.

Pakistan needs ICBM in order to counter against the US nuclear threat, and KSA has been reported to acquire ICBM from China as the news has been circulating for years.

 

[Desert]

Said the guy whose army got repeatedly flattened by a country several times smaller than itself… and then spent the next decades building factories and desert cities instead of winning wars. Turns out the one thing your army truly excels at is destroying everything it touches (except the enemy, apparently).

You keep talking as if you speak for your country, constantly saying “we didn’t join because of this and that.” You didn’t join because your country is run by a bunch of clowns who have no idea what they’re doing. Even when relations were bad, Türkiye was passing through the Suez as it pleased and your “regional power” didn’t even make a sound.

Maybe look at operational history of the army you claim “has no experience.” Then you might finally understand what a real military looks like.

I think the last time Egypt had war war with Turkey was in 1840 right? When we invaded southern Turkey and you had to ask for russian and english help to fight the Egyptians .. Right?

And anyone can pass from suez becuase we dont have war with u currently but you paid for the crossing : ))

Have a good night

 

[SaadH]

The one in Southall, london?
sikhs never had an empire. They were given goodies by the british raj to oppress Muslims as they were faithful soldiers to british rule but as a race of people, the sikhs have NEVER achieved anything and remain a meaningless non-entity on the world stage.

But they are the ethnic indigenous sons of the soil heros of punjabi dominated establishment who deried and despise the afghan/mughal Raiders. So a more apt analogy would have been the indigenous sikh empire as opposed the foreign mughal one.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Deterrent Alliance: 3 Countries, One Power! Mete Yarar's Commentary on the Mecca Alliance​

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[krash]

Slightly OT but in Stanley Wolpert's book on Jinnah, he said this was because of Jinnah's double minority status eg not only was he part of the minority religious community, but he was also part of the minority sect in that religion. This made him very conscious of who he was and an easy target for pigeon-holing or dismissal, so he tried appealing first on a non-religious, and then later on a non-sectarian basis to his people.

And a minority sub-sect in a minority sect.

That's not what Wolpert wrote. Neither does it make sense; playing into your minority status guarantees minority support and not playing into it does not stop you from being seen as a minority or being dismissed for it. Wolpert in fact wrote that instead of being dismissed for it or restricted by it (playing minority or sectarian politics), Jinnah rose above it using his brilliance and instead pursued secular nationalism without fear of being rejected for being a minority, at the beginning of his career. He rose above his "parochial roots" is the point Wolpert made, which can't be said for most of you here. The reason why he pursued it was because he was mentored for it by the likes of Gokhale and Naoroji. Why he moved from a non-partison to a bi-partisan and then to a partisan leader is also well documented, including by Wolpert, and has nothing to do with any fear of being dismissed. He was undismissable long before he stopped batting for secular nationalism. The man's entire life is a documentation on principled stances at his own detriment and you have reduced his stance on religion, especially sectarianism, to playing politics. There is nothing too low for you.

Secularism was also the norm for political leaders back then. We forget that political Islam is mostly a post 1970's phenomenon, following the failure of post-colonial secular movements and political parties to satisfy their people's demands.

We didn't forget anything. The formation of Muslim League in 1906 under leaders including Sir Agha Khan III for the express purpose of safeguarding Muslim rights in India, the Ali Garh movement before that, and the Khilafat Movement after it say that it wasn't. Jinnah was not secular or non-sectarian because it was "just the fashion at that time". It took the Muslim League years of dismissal and rebuke to convince him.

You don't think Stanley WOLPERT may have been biased? Look at the origin of the surname WOLPERT.

He wrote a brilliant biography of the Quaid. You should read it.

It's just Watandar soothing his insecurities again. Sucking up to Iranians and Afghans just isn't cutting it anymore. Neither did he read the book.

I don't recall that argument coming from Wolpert anyway........ The "double minority" thesis was made popular by Faisal Devji, an Oxford historian, in Muslim Zion (Harvard University Press, 2013):...

Wolpert did apply it to Jinnah but not in the way that the other member has claimed.

the League's non sectarian "general Islam" was shaped by its Shia and Ismaili leadership, who needed protection from both the Hindu and the Sunni majority.......... Vali Nasr makes similar point in "The Shia Revival" and so does Akbar S. Ahmed in "Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity"........ So the surname theory doesn't really apply here.....

What evidence did they give for that? The "general Islam" was grandfathered into the Muslim League when it emerged from the Aligarh Movement. Non-sectarianism was an explicit doctrine of the movement which was predominantly shaped by Sunni Muslims. It was then codified by Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar, who was also a Sunni, in The Green Book (The founding charter of the All India Muslim league in 1907). The league itself was also predominantly Sunni. They were educated and elitist people who weren't particularly concerned with sectarianism or it's problems in the common masses, or even with their problems in general. It was Jinnah who turned it around in 1937 and the rest is history.

 

[hodor]

I think the last time Egypt had war war with Turkey was in 1840 right? When we invaded southern Turkey and you had to ask for russian and english help to fight the Egyptians .. Right?

And anyone can pass from suez becuase we dont have war with u currently but you paid for the crossing : ))

Have a good night

friend, that was a rebellion by a province, and you were already under Turkish rule until 1914.

 

[MMM-E]

I think the last time Egypt had war war with Turkey was in 1840 right? When we invaded southern Turkey and you had to ask for russian and english help to fight the Egyptians .. Right?

And anyone can pass from suez becuase we dont have war with u currently but you paid for the crossing : ))

Have a good night

Yes our Egypt which was ruled by the Turks for 1000 years
from Tulunids to the Ottoman Empire

 

[KingQamaR]

Case in point regarding Carneys speech at Davos , awesome speech by him . The global order of the past 80 years has ruptured. Middle powers need to form new alliances to navigate the coming economic security challenges.

 

[KingQamaR]

Yeah, no one is going to risk selling Nukes , because it's not in their interest.
This alliance won't make sense without it though, I mean, if we get nuked by say USA, will Pakistan return the favour? Doubt it.
Only one benefiting from this is Saudis.

Don’t forget that just a few months ago your country Türkiye announced its continental ballistic missile. The deterrent is there missile and nuke it’s just a matter of Ironing at the differences between the 2 countries.

 

[KingQamaR]

Looks great on paper but history since the world wars says otherwise..... We were treaty allies of the West in SEATO and CENTO, nobody came in 1965, nobody came in 1971 when the country was literally being cut in half... Americans even embargoed arms to us in 65 while we were their ally.....

And this cuts both ways, if Saudis or Turks come under attack tomorrow, how much can we realistically do for them? Even the Turkish FM has already said the form of support will be decided through consultations after an attack, and that word is the escape hatch.....

In the end every nation fights its enemies alone, every one of us.... Nothing wrong with the agreement, sign it by all means, but some things are too good to be true so no high hopes....

The problem I see. The new alliance is far from being like NATO since there is no UNIFIED COMMAND, no integrated air defence network, no permanently assigned joint standing forces, at least not yet. There is no bloody geographic continuity, which might change if Iran Iraq join, it might evolve into something like NATO, and become a new version of the old Central Treaty Organisation ( CENTIO)

 

[flyingorca]

The scenery changes, the fine print doesn't..... Defence pacts triggered automatically exactly once in history, in 1914, and they dragged the whole planet into a world war over one assassination........ Ever since, every pact is written with escape hatches precisely so that never happens again, which is why they are seldom acted upon.....

For recent examples if 1960s and 70s is too old for you:

Ask Ukraine about the Budapest Memorandum.....
Ask Armenia about CSTO in 2023
Ask Qatar which hosts the biggest US base in the region and still got bombed twice with zero response.....

This very pact exists because the American umbrella over the Gulf visibly failed.....

And your Sindoor point proves my argument, not yours...... India has no defence pact with anyone, nobody came, they fought alone, so did we, and we held our own..... That's literally my point, every nation fights its own wars. Thanks for the supporting example....

All I am saying no other nation blamed Pakistan for Phalgam attack despite India having better ties with some nations. So yes that is a diplomatic and foreign policy failure on their part.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Egypt will bring with it more problems than solutions, esp given their attitude. I am not convinced on Egypt tbh, hopefully they are kept out.

The current 3(KSA, Pakistan, Turkey) should just stop accepting all additional memberships for at least 10-15 years...and only allow interested countries an observer status...

...in these 10-15 years the 3 current member states should work extremely hard to develop synergy(NATO style). Frequent training exercises, increasing(all new acquisitions) interoperability, buying each other's equipment(like drones, artillery, etc) as much as possible to keep the money circulating within and helping each other's defense industries rather than money flowing out, and have more JVs.
...additionally all 3 should allocate funding to develop SSBN(MILDEN or some other sub) and SLBMs. These would be operating under joint command...and serve as a second strike platforms(deployed around the world) to provide guaranteed nuclear deterrence IF any of the 3 member states are attacked first with nukes.

^while all of the above is going on. The observer countries(interested in joining) are told to steer their military towards interoperability/compatibility with the 3 member states over these 10-15 years while the 3 original countries are developing credible mutual defense capabilities. These countries should also be encouraged to buy defense equipment from the 3 member states when and where possible...which will add to their efforts of interoperability/compatibility and at the same time increase inflow of money towards the defense industries of the 3 member states.

Once the original 3 members have achieved a decent joint defense capability with nuclear umbrella (for the 3 original members)...then the observers can be considered on case by case basis to be added to mutual defense pact. Their military capability and level of interoperability would be taken into account as well as the risks of adding them into this pact(their ongoing geopolitical conflicts/situations), their geographic significance(e.g. suez canal control that Egypt has), economic conditions, and the political tilt/alignment of their rulers.
...and depending on all of that...it should be determined if they are to be added only conventionally for joint defense or also offered nuclear umbrella(the two options being separate..and nuclear umbrella not just easily offered to anyone and everyone).

@Oscar would love to hear ur thoughts on the above
...objectively only...setting aside things like the incompetence of Pakistani political leadership that rears its head almost everywhere.

 

[Ravenman]

The current 3(KSA, Pakistan, Turkey) should just stop accepting all additional memberships for at least 10-15 years...and only allow interested countries an observer status...

...in these 10-15 years the 3 current member states should work extremely hard to develop synergy(NATO style). Frequent training exercises, increasing(all new acquisitions) interoperability, buying each other's equipment(like drones, artillery, etc) as much as possible to keep the money circulating within and helping each other's defense industries rather than money flowing out, and have more JVs.
...additionally all 3 should allocate funding to develop SSBN(MILDEN or some other sub) and SLBMs. These would be operating under joint command...and serve as a second strike platforms(deployed around the world) to provide guaranteed nuclear deterrence IF any of the 3 member states are attacked first with nukes.

^while all of the above is going on. The observer countries(interested in joining) are told to steer their military towards interoperability/compatibility with the 3 member states over these 10-15 years while the 3 original countries are developing credible mutual defense capabilities. These countries should also be encouraged to buy defense equipment from the 3 member states when and where possible...which will add to their efforts of interoperability/compatibility and at the same time increase inflow of money towards the defense industries of the 3 member states.

Once the original 3 members have achieved a decent joint defense capability with nuclear umbrella (for the 3 original members)...then the observers can be considered on case by case basis to be added to mutual defense pact. Their military capability and level of interoperability would be taken into account as well as the risks of adding them into this pact(their ongoing geopolitical conflicts and situations) and their geographic significance(e.g. suez canal control that Egypt has) and economic conditions and the political tilt/alignment of their rulers.
...and depending on all of that...it should be determined if they are to be added only conventionally for joint defense or also offered nuclear umbrella(the two options being separate..and nuclear umbrella not just easily offered to anyone and everyone).

@Oscar would love to hear ur thoughts on the above
...objectively only...setting aside things like the incompetence of Pakistani political leadership that rears its head almost everywhere.

This is wat i had in mind.

NATO started exactly like this. Bolster the organisation and the pact first, before you accept new members, otherwise you will kill the organisation.

When you have a iron alliance with iron infrastructure and iron rules, new members can join one for one adapting the iron rules and integrated into the iron network.

Otherwise the pact will bleed to death like the Arab Liga or the Shanghai Organisation.

 

[Cookie Monster]

This is wat i had in mind.

NATO started exactly like this. Bolster the organisation and the pact first, before you accept new members, otherwise you will kill the organisation.

When you have a iron alliance with iron infrastructure and iron rules, new members can join one for one adapting the iron rules and integrated into the iron network.

Otherwise the pact will bleed to death like the Arab Liga or the Shanghai Organisation.

Ppl here are stating that it's a useless agreement...
..which I don't agree with. An agreement is the first step. Multiple countries(KSA, Turkey, Pakistan) won't spend billions over decades to have interoperability and joint defense capabilities if there's no agreement to begin with...
...so discussions and agreement signing that took place was the first step towards that long journey.
...it wouldn't spawn a synergistic defense force out of the blue the moment that pen had hit the paper so I'm not sure why ppl are picking on this current lack of ability and saying it's a useless alliance.

My opinion is whether its useless or not..remains to be seen. It depends heavily on how committed the 3 countries remain with this agreement over the next two decades and build on this first step...
...signing this pact and not having the mutual defense capabilities isn't the failure...signing this pact and then not building mutual defense capabilities in the coming decades would be failure.