Turkey's procurement of the S-400 air defense system from Russia is currently dominating Ankara and Washington's agendas. A Republican and a Democrat Senator have recently drafted and presented a resolution to the U.S. Congress, prompting a restriction on the delivery of F-35 fighter jets to Ankara. The draft resolution states that Turkey paid $1.2 billion and will have to pay an additional $2.3 million for the F-35 purchase. This partnership, is today being questioned by the U.S. Looking at the point the point we have reached here, there are certain justifications made for the objections the U.S. has presented: Turkey's purchase of the S-400 air defense system from Russia for $2.5 billion poses a big threat to NATO and the allies.The S-400s and the F-35 fighter jets to be deployed in a NATO member country like Turkey threaten the military component of the pact. NATO is already protecting Turkey. While the Patriot missiles are in harmony with the system it is wrong to choose S-400s. Turkey's procurement of the S-400s is contrary to the "Reducing the Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act."
This action threatens the integrity of the NATO allies.
The answers provided to the questions here put away all of the concerns. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg clearly said that any member country is free to purchase a defense system of its choice and the purchase of weapons by member countries is a national matter.
The S-400s are not required to be integrated with NATO systems. Turkey will utilize the S-400s only for its own purpose. This has been repeated on numerous occasions. The S-400 will not view the NATO systems, including the F-35 fighter jets, as an enemy. In countries like Greece and Bulgaria, we see Russia and NATO systems used side-by-side.
Moreover, in order to ease the concerns of the U.S., Turkey offered to create a technical working group to ensure there is no risk or threat against U.S. technologies.
Turkey is situated in turbulent region. With all of the problems present, we can say Turkey is fighting on the front lines of a number of wars and threats that NATO is facing. From terrorism to irregular migration, Turkey is at the center of multiple issues in the region from Karabakh and Georgia to Crimea and Cyprus. Therefore, it goes without saying that Turkey's security gap is also a reflection of NATO's weakness.
While Turkey put in a request to purchase Patriots and did not get any response, naturally it was inclined to S-400s as an alternative.
With the above points on Turkey's response to U.S. concerns about damaging "the Reduction of Russian Influence on Europe and Eurasia" nothing could be clearer. Why if one may ask the question, it is quite apparent who pushed Turkey onto an alternative route toward Moscow and has in fact led to the rise of Russian influence in Europe and Eurasia.
With all of these events unraveling what I am curious about is President Donald Trump's attitude toward this matter. He has the choice to find a middle ground with NATO ally Turkey to protect its effectiveness in the region. In the meantime, this can be an influential answer to the circles who argue that he won the 2016 elections with Russian support.