Roaches get fucked.
Erdogan was holding up the NATO ratification of Finland and Sweden unless they turned over Turkish political dissidents to him en masse. Having basic respect for human rights and the concept of an independent judiciary, they said no. So there has been an impasse throughout 2022.
NATO member Turkey requested in October 2021 to buy 40 advanced F-16 fighter jets, 79 kits that would upgrade Turkey’s existing fleet of aged F-16s, as well as hundreds of bombs and missiles. The U.S. has warned Turkey that Congress may not approve the $20 billion sale if Ankara does not ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO bids, a senior Turkish official said on condition of anonymity.
Turns out you can't run an airforce off of little TB-2 drones. Turkey's air force is based on F-16s, and they need the US for modernization, upgrades, and maintenance.
If you disagree, feel free to make your case.
Why would Turkey buy Russian fighter jets when:
The Ukraine war proves they're trash that can't even win against Soviet-era SAM systems from the 1980s and older. Nothing Russia has can compete with modern F16s. We know that now. The US was able to operate F16s successfully in Iraq against an Iraqi SAM force that was just as capable as Ukraine's. Russia can't. There is a generational inferiority with Russian equipment.
Russia doesn't have slack production to sell to other countries when it's doing everything it can to replace its own losses.
Turkey already has an air force entirely made of F16s plus some super old F4s that Israel modernized. The whole force is built around the F16s, and trying to transition to totally incompatible technology would be a nightmare.
The US punished Turkey for buying Russian SAMs by cutting it from the F-35 program. Actually switching out NATO fighters for Russian ones would carry far more serious consequences, such as the US completely cutting Turkey off from further servicing of its existing fleet of F16s, making them instantly lose most of their value and capability. Modern fighters need a steady flow of spare parts and other support.
No, that's stupid. NATO is a defensive alliance, but it does not include any provision obligating the US to supply its military technology to any member. The US would be obligated to assist Turkey "as [the US] deems necessary", but isn't required to sell or supply Turkey with anything.
The treaty also doesn't apply to conflicts between members (eg Greece, Turkey), and there are side agreements within the alliance (eg Greece, US)
The US can also abrogate the Treaty re: Turkey if its relations with Turkey deteriorate enough, and even though NATO has no expulsion provision, Turkey could be functionally "locked out" if enough members agreed to simply not let them in. It's not a particularly strong or formalized alliance. In the past, for example, France adopted a "one foot in, one foot out" approach.
Russia has no sphere of influence. Spheres of influence are defined by military power. Russia lacks the military power to credibly threaten anyone right now. It pathetically stands by and does nothing to help Armenia - it's ally - from constant attacks and pressure from Azerbaijan, because Russia doesn't have a single soldier to spare given its debacle in Ukraine.
Even if there was a cease fire agreement tomorrow freezing the front lines and ending the war in Ukraine, Russia couldn't credibly threaten anyone besides maybe Kazakhstan. Even Georgia would be able to slap the Russian military around now that it's clear it would benefit from Ukrainian advisors and help.
Maybe not even them. The Kazak president has been getting squirrelly recently and started thumbing his nose by taking up stance that would anger Russia (including implying he sides with Ukraine), and Russia's response has been fuck and all.
This is an anal-ysis straight from r/noncredibledefense and the #NAFO trannies on Twitter, dude. Get real.