Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 145

Thread: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

  1. #1

    Default NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Better to dish it out separately as this topic will get heated up in the comin days.

    NATO: Turkey outlines demands on Finland and Sweden membership

    Turkey said it could back Sweden and Finland's NATO bids if they stop supporting terrorists and lift export bans. Aspiring NATO bids require unanimous approval from existing members to join the alliance.
    Turkey has long accused Nordic countries, especially Sweden, of harboring extremist Kurdish groups as well as supporters of Fethullah Gulen, a US-based preacher wanted over a failed 2016 coup.

    Sweden, in particular, has a large immigrant community that hails from Turkey.
    Many of the migrants are of Kurdish origin and some have been granted political asylum after decades of sporadic conflict between Kurdish groups and Turkish security forces.
    Nordic countries have always been known for being safe haven for PKK members and supporters. Its partially due to immigrants from Turkey to these countries being mostly Kurdic origin. It was no coincidence that a group of PKK supporters flied a PKK flag in Stockholm today:



    So, discuss the aspects of Turkish concerns over Sweden and Finland as they apply for NATO membership here.

    And before we have someone come up and cry how YPG is not PKK:

    Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community
    The Kurdish People’s Protection Unit—the Syrian militia of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)—probably will seek some form of autonomy but will face resistance from Russia, Iran, and Turkey.
    Senior State Department Officials On the Situation in Syria (October 10)
    SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE:
    And to do that we need a partner on the ground. That partner has been the SDF, a major component of which has been the YPG, which is the Syrian offshoot of the PKK. That, of course, is the problem for Turkey, which has been suffering horrific terrorist attacks from the PKK for now 35 years, since 1984.
    Turkish intervention could trigger Syria's 'second great war'
    US diplomats and officers of all ranks who have worked with him for the past four and a half years are full of praise for Kobane, whose nom de guerre was Sahin Cilo when he was a militant in the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The PKK, which has been fighting Turkey for Kurdish independence, and now autonomy, since 1984, is on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Turkey likes to remind Washington of this irony, and it's the reason why Kobane is unlikely to be rewarded for his prowess on US soil anytime soon. His real name is Ferhat Abdi Sahin and he is on Turkey's list of most wanted terrorists.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  2. #2
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,856

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    The YPG isn't the PKK no matter how much you ignore it. Your own second article indicates they are an offshoot and thus not the same group.

    Multiple NATO countries openly work the YPG and do not consider them to be PKK or even a terror group itself. The YPG is not listed as a terror organization by any NATO country except Turkey and not even the UN.

    This is Turkey taking advantage of the situation. Proving once more Turkey is not a reliable NATO ally and will continue to put it's interests above everyone else in the alliance.
    Last edited by Vanoi; May 16, 2022 at 04:13 PM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    The YPG isn't the PKK no matter how much you ignore it. Your own second article indicates they are an offshoot and thus not the same group.
    This just really irredentist delusional reply. So in that case the United States Marine Corps are just an offshoot of the United States Navy while being charged, administered and lead by the same People?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    Multiple NATO countries openly work the YPG and do not consider them to be PKK or even a terror group itself. The YPG is not listed as a terror organization by any NATO country except Turkey and not even the UN.
    So an offshoot of PKK is not a terror organization by any NATO country or even the UN - isn´t this called hypocrisy - By the way PKK is listed as terror organization on Countries like Germany, United Kingdom, United States aswell Turkey. I guess those are some NATO Countries who has more Weight in the Alliance then the ones which you call Multiple NATO countries. Maybe you can give us a Source and a list which are those so-called "NATO-countries" since Finland nor Sweden aren´t being part of NATO.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vanoi View Post
    This is Turkey taking advantage of the situation. Proving once more Turkey is not a reliable NATO ally and will continue to put it's interests above everyone else in the alliance.
    So in that case Turkish People should turn a blind eye to a structure that killed thousands of his soldiers, public servants, doctors and teachers, smuggled people and drugs, used child soldiers, and abused children in Turkey?
    Last edited by Nebaki; May 16, 2022 at 07:11 PM.

  4. #4
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    15,118

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Sorry POVG Turkey needs a big cup of STFU at the big boy club. Last I checked the UK did not leave 5 eyes because you know the money IRA raised or the guns in bought in Boston. Going Russian with the S-400 was kinda not good NATO play its Turkey who should be risking their status not new members.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  5. #5

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Sorry POVG Turkey needs a big cup of STFU at the big boy club.
    This big boy Club is NATO isn´t it? Maybe we should determine what the NATO is and what importance or even meaning of Turkey for the Alliance is and I´m not just about some important spot on the Globe.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Going Russian with the S-400 was kinda not good NATO play its Turkey who should be risking their status not new members.
    How it comes still being there and now more important to the Alliance then something called like Finland or Sweden or some other unimportant countries located in Europe. Germany for example started and even really wanted a Gaspipeline to Russia (Nord Stream 2) which even makes the country more depended from Russia (Which even no paralyzed Germanies actions towards Russia). Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder even lobbyed for Rosneft and Gazprom. I already mentioned other NATO Members like Greece (Still being Pro-Russia) which even using more just S-300 system from Russia and still being Member in the Alliance and didn´t even get sanctioned like Turkey. In other hand there is France which even started a joint Operation in Mali with assitance from Russia Wagner Group, didn´t i even mentioned the Libyan Theatre of War or even the Mistral Ship Deal with Russia?

    Then too we got the War in Ukraine where now all the Military Material like FGM-148 Javelins, Stingers, Switchblade Drones, NLAWs and now even heavy Arms on the table to a non-NATO Member getting donated. How it comes especially those manufacturers located in those Countries even refused to sell small arms to Turkey. We are talking about stuff like Pistols and they are doing this for decades not just now and not because Turkey procured a System like S-400 from the biggest rival of the Alliance called Российская Федерация.

    Aren´t they aware that those Stuff can too get in the Hands of China? Since there ware enough pictures in the World Wide Web which are confirming that newly delivered Stuff is getting into Hands of the Enemy and not the ones who are determined to receive it.

    Yeah in my opinion Turkey really check too his Status in the Alliance called something like "NATO" or more some European Union Members with some SWJs views. What gonna happen next if Turkey is out of NATO for example? Then we got what? European Union States and USA? I can bet Turkey and United States will make a new deal without the European Union Members for newly forged secruity Alliance and Turkey would be part of it. I guess then nobody can reject Finlands and Swedens application into the NATO Alliance.

    Maybe you have forgotten but Macedonia wasn´t even allowed to call himself Macedonia since a country like Greece rejected their application into the Alliance just because of a Name - you need a Source here i got a one for you:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Imagine rejecting a country into a Alliance just because of his Name but @conon394 you are right somone really needs a big cup of STFU...
    Last edited by Nebaki; May 17, 2022 at 01:25 AM.

  6. #6
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,258

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    If Britain now has mutual security pacts with Sweden and Finland, and Britain and Turkey are obliged to defend each other... then Erdogan's posture, while understandable in it's application of Realism in IR - seeking security concessions in exchange for mutual defence, is ultimately futile. Because Turkey would likely aid in Sweden or Finland's defence anyway, Kurdish issue aside.

    That said, I think chances are we'll see Sweden and Finland offer some exchange of pleasantries towards Turkey that allows things to proceed, as the Kurdish issue is not existential for Turkey (unless Erdogan is electioneering), is an issue that is already a point of contention with other NATO allies who would absolutely defend Turkey in a crisis Kurdish be damned, and the benefits of expanded NATO are certainly there to be reaped.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  7. #7

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    If Britain now has mutual security pacts with Sweden and Finland, and Britain and Turkey are obliged to defend each other...
    Maybe you can find the logic failure on your own how Turkey is not under this mutual secruity pact obliged to Britan, Sweden or Finland.

  8. #8
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,258

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebaki View Post
    Maybe you can find the logic failure on your own how Turkey is not under this mutual secruity pact obliged to Britan, Sweden or Finland.
    No, I'd like you to explain to me how Turkey is not obliged under Article 5 to aid Britain in case of an attack.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  9. #9

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Turkey is a key member of NATO along with Portugal, UK, Norway, and USA. Canada and Denmark are also very important, though their strategic roles are also fulfilled by the key countries. Then come the continental powers (France, Germany, Italy, Poland) and the Baltics. After that come all others. Neither Finland nor Sweden provide strategic value not already covered by other members. Turkey, however, fulfills a necessary strategic role (control of the Bosphorus, forward position in the east, native sociopolitical influence in the Muslim world) that no other member can provide. Turkey is more important to NATO than most of the other members combined, including countries like France and Germany. They, like Sweden and Finland, are useful but not necessary. Turkey is necessary. NATO doesn’t need funding or land or equipment or manpower from its members – it is an alliance founded on very particular strategic concerns. Turkey and the other key members fulfill these strategic concerns, everyone else is just along for the ride.

    The country called Sweden is astonishing unnecessarily arrogant and ungrateful towards the Turkish nation, such that, They always say history repeats itself. It is impossible not to participate. Their so called heir ones upon a time "Carolus Rex" King, called the twelfth Karl by western historians, leaned on the Russians in the early 1700s. Was defeated as a result of a number of wars, on his heels fade he take himself to the Ottomans. He says I want to take shelter in you, protect me, take care of me, need back up against Moscow. Although the Ottoman Empire suffered a heavy defeat after Vienna, it is still the most effective power in Europe, accepts the fugitive king. A little bit of wind and more with the motive of revenge for Karlowitz, a war is opened against the Russians.

    While the Russian Armies were about to be destroyed, the Pruth Treaty was signed with the Russians in 1711, although it was said because of the intrigues of the Baltacı Mehmet Pasha with Tsarina Catherine, it was a result of the Pasha's distrust of the corrupt Janissaries. It is also stated in the articles that the Swedish king can freely return to his country.

    That King - the twelfth Karl is the lord, doesn't show it even if he is upset about it. He will not return to his country. Ours say enough, the short stay is acceptable, because of you we also fought with the Russians, we signed peace, we don't want to be a at war again, so politely go away. This so called King, who refused to go for a long time, is nicknamed "fixture", which means that he screwed up with witty Janissaries and was included in the Ottoman Inventory.

    When you look at it, Sweden, which had a King who escaped from the battlefield with an embarrassing nickname and flocked us to the Russians like gossip neighbors, is trying to bring us face to face with the Russians again for the sake of their gentle butts in these recent events, and this is not in accordance with the manners, but like 300 years ago. They want to behave like their brazen kings who don't go when they say go.


    Sweden did not enter NATO for years and considered themselves a blessing. Now when they want to enter, when someone opposes them, they experience the shock of "No, we want to enter - Turkey is against it" and they were debating whether we would defend Turkey if war broke out. You fools Turkey have manpower ready for military service that is three times your entire population. We protect ourselves, look what you would do without the support of USA.

    In the previous NATO discussions, I thought that we should not leave, but I hope this Sweden issue will bring us to the brink of being removed from NATO, and we ourselves will approve and leave. They don't sell air defense system, don't sell weapons, support terrorism against my country. Didn't you ever think, Johansen? while you protecting and watching my enemies in your front yard, which is attacking me in my lands, what will happen if the Russian bear will come and knock on your door? Who you call for aid this time?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    I claim that if Turkey leaves NATO today, Russia will immediately dive into Poland. A country of 80+ millions on your South is no longer an threat for you, so focus with all your power to the West.
    Last edited by Nebaki; May 17, 2022 at 12:11 AM.

  10. #10
    StarDreamer's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Finland, Espoo
    Posts
    2,260

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebaki View Post
    You have conscription just because you lack of Manpower that is why even Womans are having to serve in your Army and that "amount of military" i already mentioned something about it and how obsolote it already became with even influence of Soviet Military Design and Rail Network.

    Then protect your country why you need Allies? Ukraine isn´t even in the NATO and still doing a good job and why you guys are not making some Nordic Alliance?

    Yes now we blame "Turkey" for getting under pressure from European Union to open his Borders to refugees which want to arrive at European Border while it held his South-Eastern Borders closed. Now after Turkey was willing to open his Borders we blame that country why he let the refugees passing and not stopping them. Typical western hypocrisy isn´t it? - Did ever figured out that one of these refugees wanted to arrive somehwere near Turkey or migrate into Minor Asia? Of course not but it is ok for you if they dirt into Turkish border and territory.

    First you blame Turkey with wrong reasons and you came with "American left ideology" while nobody mentioned something like that? It´s the European behaviour we are talking in that case. Most of the North Americans even reactioned Turkeys possible rejection of Finland & Swedens apply into NATO rational.

    No I don´t think so and i even showed you some Sources which now even don´t want to accept if they are Facts on 2022. There is not a repeat of Weimar Germany and it can´t even be. How you came up to that conclusion? Those are different things and you really should refresh your knowledge about the "Weimar Republic" or Germany back in the times.
    1.We don't conscript women, they serve on a voluntary basis. Due to Conscription we don't lack manpower. Our Army has lots of modern equipment, listing some of the older equipment while ignoring the modern stuff is straw-manning, and I ignored it as such.

    2. We would like not to ever have to protect our country unless we have to, joining the alliance would be a deterrence. A Nordic alliance is not possible because most Nordic countries are in NATO and it wouldn't be possible to create this due to that fact.

    3. You might want to check your history, EU never wanted Turkey to open its borders to allow a uncontrolled migration, that is why it paid Turkey to stop it. Such an ally Turkey is. Unfortunately refugees only have a right to arrive in the first safe country, not pick and choose, unless approved with the receiving country.

    4. The behaviour/values you attributed to Finland, I recognized as values typical of the American left, it is very much atypical to Finland.

    5. You showed a source about Finnish citizens, ethnic Kurds saying they are members of YPG, that is it. Nothing about their supposed crimes. Nothing about official support, nothing about anything else. In other words you sourced .

    6. Isn't you inflation above 70%? That would seem to be inflation that is close to going out of control, which is why I compared it to a country known for out of control inflation.
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
    https://www.politicalcompass.org/ana...2.38&soc=-3.44 <-- "Dangerous far right bigot!" -SJWs

  11. #11
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,258

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    None of that actually explains how Turkey is not obliged under Article 5 to aid Britain in case of an attack. All you gave me was a bunch of subjective drivel and personal grievance. Thankfully NATO doesn't manage it's affairs based on that alone.

    The reality is, that Sweden and Turkey have reasonable economic relations, and already do regular military exercises together (alongside Greece FYI).

    It is logical that the already integrated defences (as illustrated early by showing that Sweden already plays a role in NATO's defence), that likely would already assist each other to some extent in case of an attack from outside, make things formal. And that while NATO countries can and do have very real disagreements between them, that they also have a shared defence framework that recognises they are stronger together.

    It is also understandable that Erdogan would seek to settle outstanding security issues between the two prospective new nations before progress is made, and seek concessions in exchange. But ultimately, NATO is stronger for the addition of two countries that are already well integrated, and if NATO is stronger, Turkey is stronger. So this process will occur once the political jostling has been done. No matter what happened 300 years ago.
    Last edited by alhoon; May 17, 2022 at 08:37 AM. Reason: misquotation deleted
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  12. #12

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Finland and Sweden had and continues to be the political supporter and financial financier of terrorist organizations such as pkk, ypg, pyd, ypj, yps, hpg, tak, isid/deash/daesh, dhk-c/ dhkp-c, mlkp. However, Finland together with Sweden also continues to aid and abet the perpetrators of crimes against humanity by providing shelter to the members of the specified terrorist organizations, under the name of "refugee/refugee", based in Finland.

    In a century of universal law, The necessity of fighting terrorism, terrorism and terrorists internationally is the indispensable principle of all civilized nations, and the most important mobilization of civilized states in this regard is a universal virtue requirement of international cooperation. But unfortunately, as of today, Finland, just like Sweden, besides being a civilized nation and a civilized state, it cannot be a party to universal law, on the contrary, It is moving away from the identity of a civilized state day by day by executing government policies in favor of and on the side of terrorism and terrorists. Unfortunately, between being a European-centered state and a state that embraces the virtues of humanity, huge gaps are widening every day, and Finland, a European state, is approaching the mentality of an old Europe that has moved away from the "common supreme human values" that the European Union claims to have adopted.

    Finland, which was once an exemplary nation and state, has become a Finland that goes backwards in its basic human values ​​day by day, and has turned into a Finland that only presents its "human rights" claim to terrorists but does not present it to the victims of terrorism, and does not care about the noble members of humanity brutally murdered by terrorists. By this transformation, which looks like a disaster, In line with this information, it is sadly very clear that a Finland, which has evolved from a civilized state identity to a "terrorist supporter state", cannot take part in NATO as an alliance member. Our hope is that the Finnish government re-adopts the values ​​of civilized humanity and not that of terrorism and terrorists, is on the side of the oppressed, innocent and victims who fight terrorism and lose their lives for this cause.

    If Finland follows this honorable advice to which we wish, only then will it be worthy of benefiting from the power of NATO, which can be a state representing a civilized nation and adopt the motto "we are strong together", and it should not be forgotten, The Republic of Turkey has been a member of NATO with the most unique and strongest and most active professional Force for 70 years, it is the professional, effective and ready active Force in NATO.

    NATO means, in other words, an alliance that can only be completed with Turkey's unique military strength and power. Anyone who wants a place in NATO must first give Turkey what Turkey wants.

    If you want something from us, first give us something we want, and hand over the traitors, whose place is our country's prisons, to Turkey. Organized in Turkey over a few European countries, especially Finland and Sweden, Deliver those heedless people who committed the crimes of black propaganda, disinformation, incitement to hatred and enmity to our Turkish justice authorities.
    Last edited by Nebaki; May 17, 2022 at 01:10 AM.

  13. #13

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    Sorry POVG Turkey needs a big cup of STFU at the big boy club. Last I checked the UK did not leave 5 eyes because you know the money IRA raised or the guns in bought in Boston. Going Russian with the S-400 was kinda not good NATO play its Turkey who should be risking their status not new members.
    If the state of Massachusetts was lenient towards IRA members in their effort to finance their campaigns in UK, sure, the British had every right to raise it as a concern. S-400 was a necessity, not an option. It was not even the first pick. What is not good is USA harboring a known fifth columnist and being buddies with an organization that is a threat to Turkish national security in and on the borders of the country. You may ask Turkey to STFU but in reality the rest needs to wake up.


    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    If Britain now has mutual security pacts with Sweden and Finland, and Britain and Turkey are obliged to defend each other... then Erdogan's posture, while understandable in it's application of Realism in IR - seeking security concessions in exchange for mutual defence, is ultimately futile. Because Turkey would likely aid in Sweden or Finland's defence anyway, Kurdish issue aside.

    That said, I think chances are we'll see Sweden and Finland offer some exchange of pleasantries towards Turkey that allows things to proceed, as the Kurdish issue is not existential for Turkey (unless Erdogan is electioneering), is an issue that is already a point of contention with other NATO allies who would absolutely defend Turkey in a crisis Kurdish be damned, and the benefits of expanded NATO are certainly there to be reaped.
    Turkey is obliged to defend Britain, not Sweden or Finland. Britain having security pacts with each of those countries doesn't cross extend. Not sure what you're trying to argue there. The PKK terrorism in Turkey is quite existential as a bomb they exploded near my football team's stadium killing 46 wounding 166 people in December 2016 was certainly existential to me.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  14. #14

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    It hasn't been even a month since the Swedish Defence Minister met with the PKK/YPG leader in Syria who is directly responsible for the Bayrampaşa bombings in Istanbul and gave them $376m worth of support, and you are expecting Turkey to say "welcome" to Sweden with open arms, and give them a right to say over what Turkey can get from the NATO for its security? You are out of your mind. You may as well take your enemy to your house for a sleepover with all his daggers on. Sweden (and Finland in certain areas) can't get a yes from Turkey unless they go through some fundamental changes in their policies about Turkey, and convince Turkey that they will not go back to their old ways after joining in. Otherwise they will stay out.

  15. #15
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,856

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebaki View Post
    This just really irredentist delusional reply. So in that case the United States Marine Corps are just an offshoot of the United States Navy while being charged, administered and lead by the same People?
    The Marine Corps isn't an offshoot of the Navy. They are part of the Navy itself. Nice job failing at that analogy.



    So an offshoot of PKK is not a terror organization by any NATO country or even the UN - isn´t this called hypocrisy - By the way PKK is listed as terror organization on Countries like Germany, United Kingdom, United States aswell Turkey. I guess those are some NATO Countries who has more Weight in the Alliance then the ones which you call Multiple NATO countries. Maybe you can give us a Source and a list which are those so-called "NATO-countries" since Finland nor Sweden aren´t being part of NATO.
    The list of NATO members is available on NATO's website.



    So in that case Turkish People should turn a blind eye to a structure that killed thousands of his soldiers, public servants, doctors and teachers, smuggled people and drugs, used child soldiers, and abused children in Turkey?
    The YPG formed the in 2011. They haven't killed thousands of Turkish citizens. So stop the .

  16. #16

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Arguments stemming from USA nationalism gotta be the most pointless type of nationalistic arguments there is.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  17. #17
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    5,258

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Turkey is obliged to defend Britain, not Sweden or Finland. Britain having security pacts with each of those countries doesn't cross extend. Not sure what you're trying to argue there. The PKK terrorism in Turkey is quite existential as a bomb they exploded near my football team's stadium killing 46 wounding 166 people in December 2016 was certainly existential to me.
    I'm playing word games to illustrate a point. The WW1 analogy is apt. The opening phase of WW1 happened when a series of diplomatic and alliance trip-wires were set off. Britain had no obligation to Serbia, but ended up at war with Austria-Hungary thanks to that complicated set of alliances. In our present, Britain has promised to come to Sweden's aid if it were attacked... say for argument's sake, by Country A. If Country A then attacks Britain directly or pre-emptively, it could end up at war with Turkey, amongst others. Nations don't have to be direct allies to accidentally end up at war.

    What I was illustrating, is that Sweden in particular is already integrated with NATO, and there are already plausible scenarios whereby an attack on Sweden would end up drawing in NATO, as evidenced above, Sweden already trains with NATO, and already takes part in NATO's actual surveillance and observation missions directly - an attack by Russia on Poland for example, might actually be picked up and responded to first by Swedish observation aircraft patrolling Polish airspace - this is the situation now. Taking into account how integrated Sweden is with the EU and other pan-European institutions, I find it highly likely that even without being in NATO, attacking Sweden would be a bad move for anyone.

    The overall point I was getting at, is that while Erdogan has genuine reasons for being hesitant, and looking for concessions from Sweden and Finland, I find it highly likely that token accommodations will be made by them to Turkey and in time, both countries will join.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  18. #18
    nhytgbvfeco2's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    5,508

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebaki View Post
    This just really irredentist delusional reply. So in that case the United States Marine Corps are just an offshoot of the United States Navy while being charged, administered and lead by the same People?
    ISIS was originally an offshoot of Al-Qaeda. Is ISIS Al-Qaeda?
    HTS was also originally an offshoot of Al-Qaeda. Are HTS and ISIS the same thing? If so why is Turkey de-facto allied to HTS?



    So an offshoot of PKK is not a terror organization
    Correct.

    isn´t this called hypocrisy - By the way PKK is listed as terror organization on Countries like Germany, United Kingdom, United States aswell Turkey.
    Isn't it hypocrisy how Turkey is only concerned with Kurdish groups it labels as terrorists, yet openly co-operates with non-Kurdish groups it itself designated as terrorist organisations, such as HTS, on the territory of which Turkey set up observation posts to prevent other factions from attacking HTS? Is it perhaps that Turkey doesn't care about the "terrorist" label, but only the "Kurdish" one?

  19. #19

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    I'm playing word games to illustrate a point. The WW1 analogy is apt. The opening phase of WW1 happened when a series of diplomatic and alliance trip-wires were set off. Britain had no obligation to Serbia, but ended up at war with Austria-Hungary thanks to that complicated set of alliances. In our present, Britain has promised to come to Sweden's aid if it were attacked... say for argument's sake, by Country A. If Country A then attacks Britain directly or pre-emptively, it could end up at war with Turkey, amongst others. Nations don't have to be direct allies to accidentally end up at war.

    What I was illustrating, is that Sweden in particular is already integrated with NATO, and there are already plausible scenarios whereby an attack on Sweden would end up drawing in NATO, as evidenced above, Sweden already trains with NATO, and already takes part in NATO's actual surveillance and observation missions directly - an attack by Russia on Poland for example, might actually be picked up and responded to first by Swedish observation aircraft patrolling Polish airspace - this is the situation now. Taking into account how integrated Sweden is with the EU and other pan-European institutions, I find it highly likely that even without being in NATO, attacking Sweden would be a bad move for anyone.

    The overall point I was getting at, is that while Erdogan has genuine reasons for being hesitant, and looking for concessions from Sweden and Finland, I find it highly likely that token accommodations will be made by them to Turkey and in time, both countries will join.
    In such a case, however, third party nations would require a larger involvement of the belligerent country in Britain to jump in. If British forces get attacked in Sweden NATO countries won't rush to declare war on Russia and start strikes. They would at least wait for mainland Britain to get affected in a major way. Not even a few cruise missile strike would do. I have no confidence that those Swede jets would start striking down Russian jets to save Polish cities. I'm not sure how much real trust remains between states to make such a big move. Promises made behind closed doors no longer mean anything. There are too many of failed ones that I'm not sure a Swede commander would give the kill order in such a situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2 View Post
    ISIS was originally an offshoot of Al-Qaeda. Is ISIS Al-Qaeda?
    HTS was also originally an offshoot of Al-Qaeda. Are HTS and ISIS the same thing? If so why is Turkey de-facto allied to HTS?
    The word "offshoot" here is used synonymous to a branch which is what is often used. The intelligence assessment calls YPG the Syrian militia of PKK. I understand some people's confusion but it's long due that people get accustomed to these terminologies. In fact, PKK is the parent organization. It contains YPG in Syria, PJAK in Iran, PÇDK in Iraq and PKK in Turkey with all under Koma Civakên Kurdistanê (KCK). With PKK being the oldest, the parent, and where most of the senior leaders of other organizations come from, it is used interchangeably for these organizations as they often share fighting forces and . Öcalan, founder of PKK, is the leader of all of them. Can you talk of the same relationship with Al Qaeda and ISIL?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  20. #20
    Vanoi's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    16,856

    Default Re: NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    The word "offshoot" here is used synonymous to a branch which is what is often used. The intelligence assessment calls YPG the Syrian militia of PKK. I understand some people's confusion but it's long due that people get accustomed to these terminologies. In fact, PKK is the parent organization. It contains YPG in Syria, PJAK in Iran, PÇDK in Iraq and PKK in Turkey with all under Koma Civakên Kurdistanê (KCK). With PKK being the oldest, the parent, and where most of the senior leaders of other organizations come from, it is used interchangeably for these organizations as they often share fighting forces and . Öcalan, founder of PKK, is the leader of all of them. Can you talk of the same relationship with Al Qaeda and ISIL?
    No where in the US intelligence article you posted does it once say the YPG is part of the PKK. They describe them as an offshoot which by definition means they aren't the same group. And no, Ocalan is not the leader of the YPG.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto...and_East_Syria

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peop..._Defense_Units

    Ocalan is not the commander of the YPG nor is he part of the autonomous administration that Kurds and other minorities have set up in North Eastern Syria.

    None of what you just said was even sourced either. I'd love sources for all those claims. Non-Turkish please.

Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •