SOURCE: AFI
Recent sightings of Turkish naval ships docked in Karachi and frequent military flights between Turkey and Pakistan have sparked concerns about the potential ramifications of Turkey’s growing military ties with Pakistan amid escalating tensions with India. As the India-Pakistan standoff intensifies following the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam terror attack, a critical question emerges: If India, in self-defense, were to down a Turkish ship, fighter jet, or other military asset in Pakistan, would it trigger NATO’s Article 5, compelling the alliance to treat an attack on Turkey as an attack on all members? The answer is a resounding no, but the implications of such an incident could still complicate regional and global dynamics.
Turkey’s deepening defense cooperation with Pakistan has been evident in recent years, with joint military exercises, arms deals, and high-level exchanges. The docking of Turkish Navy ships in Karachi and increased military flights suggest a strengthening of this partnership, possibly aimed at bolstering Pakistan’s capabilities amid its tensions with India. Posts on X have speculated that Turkey may be providing logistical support, training, or even advanced weaponry, such as drones or missile systems, to Pakistan. This presence, while not unprecedented, raises the stakes in the volatile South Asian theater, where India and Pakistan are locked in a dangerous escalation involving missile tests, airspace closures, and trade bans.
In the event of an escalation between India and Pakistan, India might perceive Turkish military assets in Pakistan—such as ships in Karachi or aircraft operating in Pakistani airspace—as legitimate threats, particularly if they are actively supporting Pakistan’s military operations. If India were to strike these assets in self-defense, the question of NATO’s response, specifically under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, would arise. Article 5 states that “an armed attack against one or more [NATO allies] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” potentially triggering a collective defense response. However, several factors make it highly unlikely for Article 5 to be invoked in this scenario.
Why Article 5 Would Not Apply
- Nature of the Conflict: Article 5 is designed to address unprovoked external attacks on NATO members, typically in the context of a clear aggressor violating a member state’s sovereignty. In this case, Turkey would not be the victim of an unprovoked attack. By deploying military assets to Pakistan, a non-NATO country engaged in a conflict with India, Turkey would be voluntarily entering a regional dispute outside NATO’s mandate. An Indian strike on Turkish assets in Pakistan, especially in self-defense during active hostilities, would not constitute an attack on Turkey’s sovereign territory or a direct assault on NATO.
- Geographical Limitations: Article 6 of the NATO Treaty explicitly limits the scope of Article 5 to attacks on a member’s territory in Europe or North America, their islands, or their forces, vessels, or aircraft in specific areas, such as the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic. Pakistan’s territory and its surrounding waters fall well outside this geographical scope. A Turkish ship in Karachi or a jet in Pakistani airspace would not qualify for Article 5 protections, as the incident would occur in South Asia, far from NATO’s defined operational theater.
- Turkey’s Role as a Belligerent: If Turkish assets were actively supporting Pakistan’s military efforts—through combat operations, intelligence sharing, or logistics—Turkey could be viewed as a co-belligerent in the conflict. NATO’s collective defense clause is not intended to protect members who willingly engage in non-NATO conflicts, especially if their actions provoke a response. India’s targeting of Turkish assets in such a context would likely be seen as a legitimate act of self-defense, not an attack on NATO itself.
Turkey’s position within NATO adds another layer of complexity. As a NATO member since 1952, Turkey is a key ally with the alliance’s second-largest standing army. However, its relations with other NATO members, particularly Greece, have been fraught for centuries, marked by territorial disputes in the Aegean Sea and ongoing tensions over Cyprus. Turkey’s acquisition of Russian S-400 missile systems in 2019 led to its expulsion from the U.S.-led F-35 program and strained ties with Washington. Additionally, Turkey’s support for non-NATO allies like Pakistan and its assertive foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia have raised questions about its alignment with NATO’s broader objectives.
In the context of an India-Pakistan conflict, NATO allies would likely be reluctant to invoke Article 5 to defend Turkey’s actions in a distant, non-NATO theater. The alliance’s cohesion could be tested, as members like the United States, which maintains strong defense ties with India, or Greece, which has historical animosity toward Turkey, might oppose framing an Indian strike as an attack on NATO. As one X user noted, “Turkey’s NATO card doesn’t work when they’re playing war games in Pakistan’s backyard. Article 5 isn’t a blank check.”
Even if Article 5 is not invoked, an Indian strike on Turkish assets would have significant repercussions. Turkey could retaliate bilaterally, escalating the conflict and potentially drawing in other regional players. Ankara’s domestic politics, already polarized, might see the incident as a rallying cry for nationalist sentiment, prompting President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to take a hardline stance. Diplomatically, Turkey could push for NATO consultations under Article 4, which allows members to discuss threats to their security, though this falls short of collective defense.
For India, such an action would risk straining relations with other NATO members and complicating its strategic partnerships, particularly with the United States and France, both of which are deepening defense ties with New Delhi. However, India’s position as a counterweight to China and its growing global influence might temper Western criticism, especially if the strike is clearly framed as self-defense.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.