NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

[PointOfViewGun]

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.

[Vanoi]

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.

[Nebaki]

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?

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.

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?

[Vanoi]

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 .

[nhytgbvfeco2]

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?

[PointOfViewGun]

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.

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?

[Vanoi]

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.

[antaeus]

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.

Sure, currently, no Swedish fighters are patrolling Poland, but their AWACs are, and forming a part of the defence network that would respond as a collective. But we're going beyond the scope of the analogy now - the purpose of which was to illustrate that this is essentially a fait accompli. There are too many harmonies/synergies. Turkish concerns are legitimate, but they will be resolved.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

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?

I'd appreciate if you could reply to the rest of my post as well, though I suppose it is too much to expect for you to explain the disparity between Turkey being allied to HTS, which it designates a terrorist organisation, and YPG.

[Nebaki]

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?

This not true and on my previous replies i mentioned not only groups of of kurdish origin. Turkey does not openly co-operates with groups which itself designated as terrorist organisations. For example a delegation of Taliban met with anyone around the World and Turkey took as a NATO Member a Key role here and i even mentioned this even of that certain job was important for the Alliance.

They didn't just share a border, they traded with ISIS. This is the point I'm trying to make, I just want to hear them attempt to explain why an Arab terrorist organisation (by Turkey's own designation) is a good ally to have, but a Kurdish terrorist organisation (by Turkey's designation) must be purged without delay. Every single move Turkey made in Syria had been made with one purpose: to sabotage the Kurds. This is beyond obvious, I'm just interested to hear how they'll try to spin it.

That is a very strong accusation and probably even got by myself or even by @Povg on the Thread about Syria and fight on ISIL invalited. Russia even wanted to prove that and blamed himself in the entire World for lacking abilities for that. If something like that would be true, it would be really easy for USA, Europe or United Nations to fully charge Turkey for that.

....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.

Every male Finnish citizen over the age of 18 has to do 347 days of compulsory military service with a monthly salary of 11 Euros. Deserters are sentenced to 127 days in prison in addition to their military service. There are also 27,000+ Finnish citizens doing their military service in the Finnish army, which currently has 60,000+ personnel.

Besides that using a copy of AK-Style Weapon as your Service Rifle and even using more Soviet-Era designed then some newly military projects which are still on the Stage of being Project does not mean that you are using modern Stuff:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Stationary Turret outpost?

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.

I guess that Turkey is increasing that amount of deterrence since you even insisting here to being abled from Turkey to join. This is totally wrong aren´t you guys in full European Union Membership? If there should be a so-called Nordic "Alliance" then countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland can make mutual defense agreement with each other - that must have include NATO. If it´s not possible due to some kind of NATO Structure or how you would present, i got here a previous reply which you seem to be totally ignored.

Finland and Sweden are not NATO members, but since they are countries in the northern war wing of the EU, they indirectly have the capabilities and military structuring to carry out operations in coordination with NATO elements at all levels. Already in 2002, the Berlin plus agreement between the EU and NATO included the joint use of forces by NATO and EU elements in a situation that undermined security in Europe.

Source:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetd...linplus_en.pdf

So if Norway wants to help Finland in case of War they would be able to do that even of your Soviet-Era style Railnetwork wouldn´t be really helpful. Like Poland is helping for example Ukraine.

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.

So first of all there was big pressure from even your country towards Turkey to open his Borders for refugees and that you guys will take care of them - of course what foolish attempt even to believe such swj bs - later even your country didn´t want to take care of them. Those people never intended to go Turkey but it´s Turkey job to stop them from what? Turkey never invited them but your foreign policy did it. If Turkey "is such a ally" why even then bother to get Military Alliance with it?

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

Sry it seems to be anything that can be considered for you is seen as American left? I don´t think that someone else then you is aware of that.

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.

First of all there is just one more then a Source. You wanted a Source where even Finnish citiziens being part of a structure like YPG. I provided that. Aren´t there finnish anti-fa and left extremists? aren´t they offering them to find shelter and even get easily the status of a refugee/aslyum seeker in Finland? How this can even happen with support from official side?

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.

I don´t know maybe it is maybe it is not. Turkey is a State which is bound to European Union neither it´s benefit. His neighbours even a European Union Member is having a economic crisis since a decade and still struggling on it. I guess this anything has a negative impact on Turkish Economy like having a non-existent States likes Iraq or Syria as neighbours.

I'm done with the gibberish spouted by nabaki, no point in talking to him since he just throws out unfounded accusations. Added to the ignore list.

Those so called "unfounded accusations" are facts about your country and you asked for certain thing which i provided to the public. What did last time those so-called State of Finland against Turkey? They sanctioned it and condemned their military operations in Syria. Wouldn´t it be more supportive that Turkey would be sucessfull there which would too have a positive impact on the refugee Problem? Nah how dare they it´s better that entire Syria gets bombed by Russian Air Force but those people aren´t Europeans... Finlands inclusion in NATO does not contribute to Turkey, on the contrary, it is a weakness.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Turkey does not openly co-operates with groups which itself designated as terrorist organisations.

Yes, it does. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Russia even wanted to prove that and blamed himself in the entire World for lacking abilities for that. If something like that would be true, it would be really easy for USA, Europe or United Nations to fully charge Turkey for that.

Because it was done via smuggling, not official channels. Note that while that makes it sound like little, up to a fifth of the oil used yearly by Turkey comes from smugglers. And the truth is the Syrian government was trading oil with ISIS as well.

[conon394]

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.

[Nebaki]

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.

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: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...38277320080402

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...

[antaeus]

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.

[Nebaki]

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.

[antaeus]

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.

[PointOfViewGun]

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.

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.

[antaeus]

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.

[Nebaki]

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.

[StarDreamer]

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.