有哪个欧洲国家能凭一己之力打败土耳其？

Ken Tucker
There is no chance a single European country alone could beat Turkey in a contained one-on-one fully engaged conflict…especially outside of using nuclear weapons, and i would no be so sure that Turkey does not have nukes at least limited tactical warheads supplied by Pakistan. Quite frankly I don't even see a dual European combination (say France and UK) beating Turkey in an isolated face off. They would have little chance in a land attack and perhaps less with a naval or air approach and could never attempt a land invasion.

在一场一对一的全面冲突中，没有哪个欧洲国家可以单独击败土耳其，尤其是在不使用核武器的情况下，我也不确定土耳其是否拥有核武器 --- 至少巴基斯坦能向土耳其提供有限的战术核弹头。坦白地说，我甚至看不到有两个欧洲国家联盟（比如英国和法国）能在孤立的对决中击败土耳其，他们几乎没有机会从陆地上发起进攻，也许更不可能通过海空接近土耳其，也许永远都不会尝试对土耳其进行陆地入侵。

The British have already lost two major conflicts to the Turks in the massive Gallipoli invasion and again in invading Turkey with France, İtaly, Greece, Armenia and Georgia and failed miserablely in both. Brits would never consider such an attempt again.
Btw, way at both times the Turks were at their weakest most vulnerable periods in the crumbling Ottoman Empire..the Turks had very little in terms of weapons and supplies, resources, even food and still soundly defeated these combined European forces.
At the later stage of this Turkish War Independence the French sent resupplied naval forces to invade Iskendrun Turkey to take Hatay and other parts of southeastern Turkey to add to Syria in their disastrous Skyes-Picot MidEast border drawing. This was a time when the Turks were even more depleted of weapons and resources, scrounging for last minute purchases from the Russians. French were soundly defeated and its would be foolish for them to even think about repeating.
Actually putting this question in current perspectives is rather improbable and perhaps unrealistic to the average European. But this exact scenario repeating itself is an actually modeled threat for Turkey triggered by Greece. The Turks are preparing for this exact possibility in facing a multi adversary European or Mideastem threat so they will be far better prepared the for this time around.

英国已经在两次主要的冲突中输给了土耳其，第一次是对加里波利的大规模入侵，接着是与法国、意大利、希腊、亚美尼亚和格鲁吉亚一起入侵土耳其，两次都以惨败告终。英国人再也不会考虑这样的尝试了。
顺便说一句，在这两个时期、土耳其人都是处于最脆弱的时期，是奥斯曼帝国摇摇欲坠的时候，彼时土耳其人的武器和物资、资源、甚至食物方面都非常匮乏，但仍然能够有力地击败这些欧洲联军。
在土耳其独立战争的后期，法国派遣海军部队入侵土耳其的Iskendrun，占领Hatay 和土耳其东南部的其他地区，意欲将这些地区划入叙利亚，彼时法国人在中东划定了灾难性的赛克斯-皮科边境线。当时土耳其人的武器和资源更加枯竭，他们在最后关头从俄国人那里抢购一批武器，法国人被彻底打败了，还想重蹈覆辙？甚至动这个念头都是愚蠢的。
事实上，把这个问题放在当前的角度来看是不太可能的，也许对普通欧洲人来说是不现实的。但这一幕重演，实际上是希腊对土耳其的一种模拟威胁。土耳其人正准备面对欧洲或中东的多个对手的威胁，所以，这次他们的准备会充分得多。

Aykan Kepekli
, lives in Istanbul
As a Turk I will try to answer this as unbiased as possible, like viewing from a 3rd side. First of all the problem with generalized questions is that, lack of specified detail to problem means you will get a partial true - partial wrong answer. A key detail is left out in this question - the question of “where”. Where is this hypothetical conflict going to take place? Are we talking about Turkey attacking one of its neighbors? Are we talking about Turkey mounting a sea expedition to far shoes? Are we talking about someone attacking Turkish homeland? Or are we only talking about naval - air battles? Or are we talking about a campaign that is not at homeland but adjacent - very near to Turkey? All of these can play out in a different way and show different results.
Generally, the most likely scenario is that, since both sides of the conflict are “supposed to be” on the same side of the alliance NATO; there will not be a major conflict but if at all a minor one; today such conflicts do happen and it does not escalate further than regional tensions. Tensions like these have happened for example on Libyan shores or Aegean Sea or East Med. In all of these tensions nobody fired on anybody else (worst thing that happened was ships bumped into each other).

作为一个土耳其人，我会尽可能公正地回答这个问题，就像站在第三方的角度看待这个问题一样。
首先，一般性问题的问题是：缺乏对问题的具体细节，这意味着你会得到部分正确或部分错误的答案，这个问题忽略了一个关键细节 -- 即“在何处开战”的问题。
这一假设的冲突会发生在何处？我们说的是土耳其袭击它的一个邻国？还是说土耳其进行远海征服？还是说有人袭击土耳其本土？
还是说我们只讨论海空战斗？或者我们讨论的是一场不在本土、而是在土耳其毗邻地区的战斗？所有这些都可以以不同的方式进行，并显示出不同的结果。
一般来说，最有可能的情况是：由于冲突双方“本应”站在同一边 -- 也就是北约，所以不会发生重大冲突，但如果有轻微冲突呢？当前，这类冲突确实在发生，但不会造成地区紧张局势进一步升级。像这样的紧张局势已经发生在利比亚海岸、爱琴海或东地中海了。在所有这些紧张局势中，也没有哪个国家向其他任何国家开火（最糟糕的事情也仅仅是船只相撞）。

The main reasons for this are a) these countries are again “supposed to be” allied and are obliged to act so… And b) usually Turkey backs action with much force than minimum required and it is a sure thing that it will not be enough to just fire - destroy one thing alone; it will surely escalate to a regional war which will complicate things even more as it will pull other big players from both western and eastern sides. So if a war breaks out the results will negatively far outweigh the possible and very hard to gain small regional gains. It is not logical to do so. If against all these facts there will be an illogical tension then it will be pointless and fruitless as France have experienced. Late conflicts with Turkey have played out very unfavorably for France in terms of political results. Because after much boasting and as expected nothing happened to change the result in the end. Any intervention which does not have enough power to deter the opposite side (either militarily, politically or economically) will look stupid in the eyes of world politics in the end.

其主要原因是：
a）又一次的、这些国家再次“本应”结盟，并有义务这样做……
b）土耳其通常只会以仅超过最低要求的火力来支撑军事行动，而且可以肯定的是，仅仅开火摧毁一座建筑是不够的，它肯定会升级为一场区域战争，这将使事情复杂化；更重要的是，它将吸引来自西方和东方的其他大型玩家。因此，如果战争爆发，其结果会是 -- 负面影响远远大于正面影响，而且获取小小的地区利益都是很难的，这样做不合逻辑。如果违背所有这些事实，则会产生一种不合逻辑的紧张局势，这将是毫无意义、徒劳的。正如法国所经历的那样，近期与土耳其的冲突、对法国造成了十分不利的政治结果。因为在法国大吹特吹之后，正如预期的那样、结果也并没有什么改变。所以，任何没有足够的力量（无论是军事上、政治上还是经济上）的干预、最终在世界政治的眼中都会显得愚蠢。

So all in all I think the question as it stands is that such a conflict cannot happen.
There is also the question of “When”. The above answer is only true for current situation. However a very quick change in regional - global alliances is also possible even in near future. And then said conflict may very well be possible. History is full of such alliance shifts. In a possible future where NATO is dissolved or Turkey has either left or will have been expelled from NATO such a scenario could play out.
If that will be the case than Turkey will surely be more advantageous than the attacking power in homeland defense or near regions like Syria, Cyprus, East Med etc… The reverse will also be true against Turkey if Turkey decides to go far expeditiously. However as it stands, currently Turkey knows its limits in terms of force projection so is only active near her borders - or if going far like Libya, only when the political advantage is reassured at start.
I know this answer has looked at the political aspect of the problem and the reader most probably is interested mainly in a What If scenario. However I believe it is very important to know the limitations and conditions of such a what if beforehand.

所以，总而言之，我认为目前的问题是，这种冲突是不可能发生的。
还有一个“冲突发生在何时”的问题，以上答案仅适用于当前情况。然而，即使是在不久的将来，区域/全球联盟也有可能迅速改变，在这之后、题主所说的冲突倒是有可能发生。历史上充满了这样的联盟变更，在未来，北约有可能解散，土耳其也有可能离开北约或被逐出北约，这样的情景可能会上演。
如果真是这样的话，在本土防御或靠近叙利亚、塞浦路斯、东地中海等地区，土耳其肯定要比进攻国更具优势……但如果土耳其决定远征，情况就会恰恰相反。然而，从目前的情况来看，土耳其知道自己在武力投射方面的局限性，因此只在靠近其边境的地区活动，如果土耳其走得更远的话（比如远至利比亚），只有当政治优势在一开始就得到保证的时候才能这样干。
我知道这条答案是从政治的角度来考虑问题的，读者最感兴趣的可能是一种“假设情景”。然而，我认为事先了解这种假设的局限性和条件、是非常重要的。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Lastly, I am going to play this game (scenario) anyway. As I said in a possible future where alliance and escalation are no longer concerns for anybody, a conflict may arise near or around Turkey. In all of these scenarios Turkey will have the advantage in terms of logistics. The conflicts are usually hybrid and they involve land, air, sea power all together and will likely to be so in the future. At land battles with the logistics advantage I do not think any force will be successful against Turkish land forces, so a conflict’s results will depend on the situation on the sea and air. The western advantage in naval and air heavy industry and tech is obvious, however at sea Turkey is closing up. At air for now we are limited to mass and clandestine tactics like UAVs for now (I am assuming in such a “far from home what if” scenario current Turkish western purchased fighters will not be usable or will be able to be used in a very limited way). Turkey like she is doing now will try to project a strong area denial weaponry to the conflict zone to deter the otherwise stronger opponent at sea and in the air. So it is very clear that if a conflict starts, tech on weapons technology will change a lot of things. An example is Karabag today, it played out as a pure land and air support battle, however one side’s UAV tech advantage brought the victory.
So it is very clear that this “what if” question with a different “when” is more dependent to technological and economical capacities of Turkey in that future scenario. As it stands, our economy is strained a lot. For the sake of world peace let us hope it will recover, because whenever Europe and Turkey went to war with each other millions died in the past. So a balance is the best choice for world politics, just like today’s balance of powers between western and eastern blocs.

最后，我还是要玩一玩这个“假设”的游戏（场景）。正如我所说的，如果未来没有人再关心联盟、也不再关心地区紧张局势，土耳其附近或周围可能会发生冲突。在所有这些情况下，土耳其在后勤方面都具有优势。这些冲突通常是混合作战，涉及陆地、空中、海上力量，而且在未来很可能就是这样。在具有后勤优势的陆战中，我不认为有任何一支部队能够成功地击败土耳其陆上部队，因此冲突的结果将取决于海军和空军。西方在海空重工业和技术方面的优势显而易见，然而在海上，土耳其会把大门关上；在空军方面，目前我们仅限于大规模秘密战术，如无人机战术（假设“西方远程奔袭”的情景，目前土耳其向西方购买战机的情况将不再适用、或者说非常有限），就如土耳其现在正在做的那样 -- 土耳其将尝试设计一种强大的区域防御武器，以在海上和空中威慑更强大的对手。所以很明显，如果发生冲突，武器技术将能改变很多事情。今天的纳卡战争就是一个例子，它作为一场纯粹的陆地/空中支援战而上演，然而、其中一方的无人机技术优势却带来了胜利。
所以，很明显，这个“何时发生冲突”的假设，更多的是取决于土耳其在未来情景下的技术和经济能力。从目前的情况来看，我们的经济是非常紧张的。为了世界和平，我们希望土耳其的经济能够恢复起来，因为在过去、每当欧洲和土耳其开战时，就会有数百万人死亡。所以，平衡才是世界政治的最佳选择，就像今天东方集团 VS 西方集团之间的力量平衡一样。

Cenk Okyar
, Professional Seal Hunter Hunter
Which European country alone can defeat Turkey militarily or none?
These kind of questions are easy to ask but almost impossible to answer in the sense that the questioner hoped to see answered. It’s like “If my pigeon had long enough legs, could it ride a bicycle?”. Yes you made your point clear, I understand your hypothetical terms but they’re virtually inapplicable to any real life scenarios because there are millions of other parameters to consider. Is your pigeon willing to ride a bike? Can it ride a bike? What kind of bike is it? Pigeon bike or human bike? How much distance should it cover in order to accept this as a bike ride?

有哪个欧洲国家能凭一己之力打败土耳其？
还是说没有？
这类问题问起来很容易！但要给出提问者想要的那个答案？那根本就没法回答。
就好比在问：“如果我的鸽子有足够长的腿，它能骑自行车吗？”。
没错，你把观点表达地很清楚，我也明白你的假设条件，但是它们实际上不适用于任何真实的生活场景，因为还有无数其他因素需要去考虑。比如：你的鸽子愿意骑自行车吗？它会骑自行车吗？骑什么样的自行车？鸽子自行车还是人类的自行车？骑多远？

But still I’ll do my best. Turkey is way too strong, dangerous and politically influential for any kind of invasion attempt. On the other hand, Turkish military doctrine is built on protecting the motherland (not invading other countries) and building a strong enough army to simultaneously annihilate forces of 3 separate invader countries. Although being a superpower in the region, there’s no logistical capability or weapon in the Turkish military arsenal to remotely threaten any Western European powers like U.K., Germany or France in the away game.
So let me ask a similar question with a simpler answer: Which European country alone can take Turkey as a good and reliable ally or none?
The answer is: All of them can but none of them will because real peace, prosperity and mutual thrive was never on the table for two-faced western hypocrites.

但我还是会尽我所能地回答这个问题。土耳其太强大、太危险、太有政治影响力了，任何入侵的企图都无法达成。另一方面，土耳其的军事理论是建立在保护祖国（不侵略他国）、建立一支足够强大的军队以及同时歼灭3个独立的侵略者的基础上的。虽然土耳其在该地区是超级大国，但土耳其的军火库并没有后勤能力或武器、来远程威胁任何西欧强国，如英国、德国或法国。
所以，让我来问一个类似的问题、并给出一个简答的答案：有哪个欧洲国家可以将土耳其视为一个好的、可靠的盟友呢？还是说一个也没有？
答案是：所有欧洲国家都可以做到、但没有一个愿意将土耳其视为盟友，因为西方那些两面三刀的伪君子从来都不会把真正的和平、繁荣和共赢摆到桌面上。

David Wilson
, lives in Hampshire, England, UK
Unless Turkey does something exceptionally stupid, there is zero chance of general war and so it is impossible to answer the question sensibly.
Setting aside minor clashes or 'incidents,' Turkey would have to fully mobilise and invade another country to trigger an old fashioned nation Vs nation war. The only European countries bordering Turkey are Greece, Bulgaria and arguably Cyprus (forget force projection farther afield, Turkey lacks the means).
Any such invasion will certainly attract coalition partners, almost certainly including NATO. So there is zero prospect of a European country taking on Turkey alone.
As for attacking Turkey itself, that is even more far fetched. Even if any European country could stomach the certainly of many civilian casualties, none possess the means. Greece and Bulgaria have land borders they could cross - and they would be beaten badly. Only the UK has the means to project forces across water - and the Falklands was a close run thing. The British Army is now less than half its size then, perhaps able to put 20k combat troops on the ground. Not enough.
So, zero prospect of any European country taking on Turkey alone. Why would they anyway, unless attacked?

除非土耳其做了一些特别愚蠢的事，否则爆发全面战争的可能性是零，因此不可能理智地回答这个问题。
抛开小冲突或“事件”不谈，土耳其将不得不全面动员并入侵另一个国家，以引发一场老式的国与国之间的战争。唯一与土耳其接壤的欧洲国家是希腊、保加利亚，塞浦路斯也算是吧（忘了远程投射吧，土耳其缺乏这种手段）。
任何这样的入侵，肯定会引起联盟伙伴国的注意，几乎肯定会包括北约。因此，一个欧洲国家单独与土耳其较量的可能性是零。
至于攻击土耳其本土，那就更牵强了。即使有任何一个欧洲国家能够承受大量平民伤亡，也没有哪个国家有这个能力。希腊和保加利亚与土耳其有陆地边界，他们可以跨过边境进入土耳其，但他们可能会被揍得很惨。只有英国有能力在水面上部署兵力，然而在当年的马岛战争中，双方也只是势均力敌，而英军现在的规模还不到当年的一半，他们也许有能力在地面部署2万名战斗部队，但这是不够的。
所以，有哪个欧洲国家会单独与土耳其作战？可能性是零！除非受到攻击，否则他们为什么要这么做？

Suleyman Aras Ortac
, Occupational Health and Safety Specialist. (2019-present)
Every military can do that.
It is all about gathering intelligance, careful planing.
If you can disable high command and cut all communications, then you can defeat any army. Even San Marino, Lesoto, Swaziland can defeat USA, Russia, China this way.
And “defeat” isn’t specific things. Look at Azerbaijan - armenia war for example. If armenia didn’t surrender, they may keep fighting. They had still weapons and human power to do so. Yet, they see they can’t turn to tide. That’s why they defeated.
Another example, Vietnam & USA. Vietnam’s casulties was much more higher than USA. Then how they manage to defeat USA? They break their soul with their courage. USA can send more troops, more planes, many more bombs to Vietnam in the end.
On head to war, except Russia, which is clearly huge military advantges over many nations.
France and England has forbidable armys. Italy and Germany has great potencial army.
So, France and England can defeat Turkey. Especialy if they decide use nukes. But, even both scenario, their loses will be considerable. The problem hypotetical war between Turkey and any european power (except border neighbors of course), they had to carry all of their war machines close to Turkey. That will strecth their logistics line.

每支军队都能做到
这一切都是关于情报收集、周密计划
如果你能中断高层指挥、并切断所有通讯，那么你就可以击败任何一支军队。即使是圣马力诺、莱索托、斯威士兰也可以用这种方式击败美国、俄罗斯和中国。
然而“击败”并不是一件具体的事情，就以阿塞拜疆 - 亚美尼亚战争为例吧，如果亚美尼亚不投降，他们可能会继续战斗，他们仍然拥有武器和人力；然而，他们看到了大势已经无法逆转，这就是他们被“打败”的原因。
另一个例子 -- 美国和越南，越南的伤亡比美国高得多，所以他们是如何打败美国的？他们用勇气打破了美国人的灵魂？美国最终也可以向越南派遣更多的军队、更多的飞机、更多的炸弹。
在战争方面，除了俄罗斯，显然，相比于许多欧洲国家，俄罗斯拥有巨大的军事优势。
法国和英国拥有令人敬畏的军队，意大利和德国也拥有强大的军队。
所以，法国和英国可以打败土耳其，尤其是如果他们决定使用核武器的话。但是，即便这两种情况都存在，他们也将损失惨重。如果有任何欧洲大国与土耳其开战（当然了，边境邻国除外），他们都必须将所有战争机器带到土耳其附近，这将拉长他们的补给路线。

Robert Hill
, Polymath
I’m no military expert, but Russia seems the obvious answer. They’ve got the military might, the Black Sea fleet gives them fairly easy access, and thanks to their peacekeeping duties in Nagorno-Karabakh they’ve got soldiers and weapons on the Turkish border.
Russia also has nuclear weapons while Turkey doesn’t. I doubt they’d use them, but the threat counts for something.
Given the centuries of animosity between Russia and Turkey over access to the Black Sea, I’m reasonably confident that Turkey has mixed feelings about those Russian soldiers on their border.
I also note that you only mention Turkey here, but since Turkey is a member of NATO, the USA (and a lot of other well armed countries) is obligated by treaty to view an attack on Turkey as an attack on itself. Whether they actually would rush to Turkey’s aid is another matter, but again the threat counts for something.
This is probably the best guarantee that Russia won’t invade Turkey any time soon. It could get really ugly, really fast.

我不是军事专家，但答案是很显然的，俄罗斯就能做到。他们拥有强大的军事力量，黑海舰队给他们提供了相当容易的通道，由于他们在纳卡地区维和任务，他们在土耳其边境部署了士兵和武器。
俄罗斯还拥有核武器，而土耳其没有。我怀疑他们是否会使用核武器，但威胁也是有意义的。
鉴于俄罗斯和土耳其在黑海通道问题上的敌意长达数世纪之久，我有理由相信，土耳其对边境上的俄罗斯士兵有着复杂的感受。
我还注意到，你在这里只提到土耳其，但由于土耳其是北约成员国，美国（以及许多其他装备精良的国家）有义务根据条约、将针对土耳其的攻击视为对自己的攻击。他们是否真的会急于向土耳其提供援助是另一回事，但同样的，这种威慑也会起作用。
这可能是俄罗斯不会很快入侵土耳其的最好保证，（如若不然）情况可能会很快变得非常糟糕。

Eric Barter
, lives in Frankfurt am Main
The U.K is better prepared in a short war, France could sustain a longer war because they have a better industry and Germany is the worst prepared from these 2 but Germany’s internal industry could sustain a longer war.
In a hypothetical scenario, none European country would leave behind any European partner in a war. In the case with Europe today, if you are in a war with any of us, you are in a war against all of us, as simple as that.
The U.K and France would take the lead during the early stages and Germany would take the lead later once their industry is efficiently adapted into a warfare industry.
Even the industrial complex in the state of Catalunia, Spain has better chances to potentially sustain with iron plates, etc…
Germany’s industry is flexible, all the machines they have in so many industries, big machines that fabricate specific pieces for cars, for trucks, airplane parts, all of them are only fixed with many gears, you only have to remove a couple of huge screws such as here.

英国在一场短期的战争中准备更充分，法国则更擅长持久战，因为法国人拥有更好的工业，德国对战争的准备最差劲，但德国的内部工业可以维持更长的战争。
在假设的情况下，没有一个欧洲国家会在战争中把任何欧洲伙伴抛在身后。以今天的欧洲为例，如果你与我们中的任何一个发生战争，那么你就是在与所有欧洲国家作战，就这么简单。
在战争早期阶段，英国和法国将会打头阵；一旦德国的工业有效地适应战争工业，他们将在随后打头阵。
甚至是西班牙加泰罗尼亚的工业综合体，也有很大的机会能支撑住钢铁消耗。
德国的工业是灵活的，他们在许多行业中拥有各式各样的机器，拥有各种制造汽车、卡车、飞机零件的大型机器，所有这些机器都仅仅以齿轮固定，你只需拆下几个这样的大螺丝即可。

Once you remove them, Germans have to just replace them with other types of big machines they already have in reserve, Germany has a ghost weaponry complexity that can be activated at any moment.
Car industries such Daimler, VW, BMW or electro industries such Siemens, Miele, etc… they all have contracts of emergency with German military industries such as with Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, Heckler and Koch, Airbus, Haenel, Mauser, Krieghoff, PW Group, ThyssenKrupp, Maschinenbau Kiel GmbH, Rheinmetall AG, etc… In cases of emergency, all of them temporarily merges, those complementing each other in the process.

一旦你移除了这些机器，德国人只需用其他大型机器取代他们即可，他们可是有库存的。德国拥有幽灵般的武器装备，随时都可以激活。
汽车行业，如戴姆勒、大众、宝马；电子工业，如西门子、美诺等等...这些企业都与德国军事工业签订了紧急合同，比如与克劳斯-玛菲威格曼公司、Heckler and Koch、空客、Haenel、Mauser、克里格霍夫、PW Group、蒂森克虏伯、Maschinenbau Kiel GmbH、莱茵金属等等...所有这些公司都会临时合并，在这个过程中互相补充。