NATO is a defensive alliance, not a trade organization.

Correct, and this is the latest in a serious of decisions made by Türkiye which imperil NATO's collective defense.

Rare earths are vital for military equipment. This action is coming from a country that NATO has trusted with its best technology and they continue to flirt with both Russia and China, NATO's primary threats.

Do you see how my comment is about the impact on NATO's ability to wage war? What if Türkiye begins sharing military secrets with China? They are working with China on the mine referenced in the article. They are not trustworthy.

I can only laugh at this statement. There are way many events where usa did act like an not trustworthy. Maybe you should start asking questions like “why my allies seeking external alliances, am I doing something wrong”

Apparently, rare metals are becoming critical for defence industry.

what's left of it after it's dismantlement you mean? it isn't much of an alliance now. and if it is going to be used to twist arms in trade disagreements, it is already dead.

While it has its challenges, it is not dead.

He didn't say that either. He said that if you start to tie trade deals to nato membership, like you are suggesting, that it's dead.

You want to kick them out of NATO because the USA and Turkey currently do not have a trade agreement on rare earth elements? Because that's what you are claiming.

Türkiye is a highly effective arms manufacturer and is pretty aligned with NATO most of the time. They've been one of the more surprisingly strong supporters of Ukraine. They shot down a Russian jet a few years ago just to emphasize FAFO.

Yes they have their specific regional interests they will emphasize even when they offend NATO sensibilities, like giving Armenia the finger in their war with Azerbaijan, but that is not a major cost compared to what they give the US and EU strategically.

"when they offend NATO sensibilities, like giving Armenia the finger in their war"

Or when they support islamists in Syria against the kurds and annect illegally parts of it. Who cares about those things nowdays anyway.

But if we want NATO to not just be a military force, but something something freedom and human rights, maybe we should care more about it.

Yes, this is what I mean. Should the US sacrifice the security of Europe to make a (pointless) statement about Syrian internal politics? Frankly, it's unreasonable for Turkey to not have an opinion about the PKK. If there was a comparable terror group in Mexico, the US would absolutely be doing airstrikes!

Punishing Turkey over this will accomplish nothing and sabotage the relationship. The US already had a reasonable plan in Syria, supporting the non-PKK elements while maneuvering towards a political reunification.

Who has ever wanted that?

FAFO? Yet another moronic acronym of the day. Jeez...

This is a perfectly reasonable acronym to describe how Russia violates their neighbors' airspace just to push boundaries and be irritating.

I should blame the Russians then for introducing stupid acronyms into English language. It is not nice to use the word f!@k in a public forum, but wrapping it in a dumb acronym is just fine.