NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

[Septentrionalis]

The term of genocide is only used in context of cultural genocide and your link contains the statement saying that no nation or organization have endorsed such a view. Simply typing "Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey" and then posting the first link without reading assuming that it will contain damning evidence is a problematic argumentation tactic...

I am disappointed at the way you underestimate me. I have read the entire article. The kind of cultural genocide described in the article that you dismiss as no real genocide is exactly what people in the west understand as genocidal. Criminalizing recognition of Kurds as a nation or ethnicity, banning using their language, equating any Kurdish cultural self expression as a treason towards the Turkish state... Those are crimes against humanity in the NATO countries in which the membership of Turkey has become a concern.

You also try to jumble up Kurds with PKK. No one talks about Kurds being Kurds or speaking Kurdic languages.

I am not jumbling up anything but only commenting on Turkish jumbling up of things. I asked you a question. Are those allegations of Turkey considering speaking Kurdish, demanding cultural autonomy, and demanding education in the Kurdish language acts of treason in Turkey? Was that lady sentenced to 15 years of prison for speaking Kurdish in an inauguration true or not?

The more I listen to you, the more obvious it becomes that Turkey should find allies in other Islamic dictatorships rather than with the west. Anyone reading this thread can easily check what is the human rights situation with Kurds in Turkey.

[Nebaki]

It seems like it is hard for some Turks to really see how much damage Erdogan is doing to Turkey's reputation in the West.

Was even Turkish reputation in the West better then it is today? If you want to believe that this foreign policy is only a move from Mr.Erdogan then you are doing a big mistake. The West you are describing was a few years arming Russia or was using more an moderate policy against it. One of their Leaders named "Emmanuel Macron" described even NATO is becoming brain-dead from France.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Same Nation had even continued after 2014 to grant arms licenses to Russia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/pol...-2014-embargo/

We already know that russian Thermal Imaging on their Tanks relying on french systems:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://english.nv.ua/business/total...-50247461.html

It seems to be that if a Turkish actions happens in Geopolitics which didn't suits West then it will probably always a bad reputation.

It might look good for domestic audiences to look "though", but at some point other nations patience with these antics run out.

Which nations? sweden or finland? Why should Turkey consider to be allign with those nations which probably will never aid even being attacked. Instead they are supporting with no doubts elements which questioning Turkish sovereignty.

Both the US and the UK are some of the biggest proponents of Sweden's and Finland's bid to join NATO, neither of them will be supplying any fighters to Turkey as long as this charade goes on.

They will probably even not supply Fighters ones those other nations applications was accepted by Turkey. But United Kingdom started the Crimean War because of a Geopolitical cause and US is probably preponing any country to allign with himself like it prepared Ukraine for russian Invasion.

A quote from a former senior CIA official:

"Turkey may be biting off more than it can truly handle, especially as its economy sags. But for the West, with nostalgia for the good old days when Turkey was a “staunch western ally” those days are gone forever. An understanding of the foundation and breadth of these Turkish ambitions is indispensable to managing relations with it in the years ahead as the US itself gradually continues to lose its dominating role over the course of international politics and is forced to acknowledge new regional powers."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://grahamefuller.com/is-turkey-out-of-control/

Have to add here that i don't share Mr. Fuller conclusion in his theory that the future of Turkish States will be a transition from secular into a religious one. Your Argument here is that sweden and finland are important for UK and US to be allied. As far i know they are already allied but not official. But on the other hand you are ignoring the key factors why Turkey is part of the Alliance.

Seeing that Nebaki really is unaware of how they are viewed namely by their allies today, I took the trouble of digging up some articles from recent years. There is more where that came from. Of course there are opposing views, but I doubt a single other NATO member is in such a bad standing as Turkey.

It seems to be that you skipped to answer my question seriously and now caming with summary of some articles of mass media. If you have checked them probably will note that they are very similar in their context and are like a copy of each other. Most of them would easily fit into this Thread:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...blicity-here)!

The relationship with NATO or being a NATO Member has normally nothing to do with relationship between US - European Union and his member states - Turkey and their foreign state policy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr4695/BILLS-116hr4695eh.xml
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/2641/text

As above with a simple trick "promoting stability" can change into "destabilize region and protect my interests" at anytime. An assertion that nothing fundamental changes in world politics is invalid.

As far as the articles I have read are reliable, Turkey has not skimped on contributions like some lackluster European members have. And I am not only talking about defence spending but committing to operations. However, there are increasing calls for Turkey to be excluded from NATO.

Turkeys contribution to NATO even today has not really changed. When it was before a Nation which benefitted from the Alliance educating his Military personel today it became one of the fews which is teaching members of Nato and their personel. But as above mentioned countries always have their own agenda of foreign policy. Our viewpoint (Turkish) is simple as that the relationship between US or European Union always was the same like a half century ago:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Back in the days Turkey faced too many embargos from Alliance aswell non-members of NATO. It is funny but we got a even Thread for that:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...priot-dispute)

But feel free yourself to find articles from those days about the political form in Turkey or even about the Turkish government.

[PointOfViewGun]

I am disappointed at the way you underestimate me. I have read the entire article. The kind of cultural genocide described in the article that you dismiss as no real genocide is exactly what people in the west understand as genocidal. Criminalizing recognition of Kurds as a nation or ethnicity, banning using their language, equating any Kurdish cultural self expression as a treason towards the Turkish state... Those are crimes against humanity in the NATO countries in which the membership of Turkey has become a concern.

I am not jumbling up anything but only commenting on Turkish jumbling up of things. I asked you a question. Are those allegations of Turkey considering speaking Kurdish, demanding cultural autonomy, and demanding education in the Kurdish language acts of treason in Turkey? Was that lady sentenced to 15 years of prison for speaking Kurdish in an inauguration true or not?

The more I listen to you, the more obvious it becomes that Turkey should find allies in other Islamic dictatorships rather than with the west. Anyone reading this thread can easily check what is the human rights situation with Kurds in Turkey.

When people talk about cultural genocide they say "cultural genocide." The article itself dismisses the cultural genocide allegations as not something supported by any nation or organization. Yet, you ignore that. In fact, that seems to be the only ammo you have; to ignore any damning point or evidence that doesn't sit well with your distorted reality. Leyla Zana was not sentenced to 15 years of prison for speaking Kurdish in an inauguration. She was tried and sentenced years later for PKK affiliation in 1994. None of those acts are considered acts of treason by the Turkish state. One thing to say some people might oppose a sub-set of them an other thing to deny reality. Kurdish is spoken in daily life, songs, movies and TV on a daily basis. Not sure what cultural autonomy would be. It's quite clear that its not a matter of facts here but that you try to keep your narrative alive at any cost. With the standards you're applying its more appropriate that your own country finds some allies with known "Islamic" dictatorships.

[AnthoniusII]

John Boldon for Turkey.
https://twitter.com/abdbozkurt/status/1619965008112406528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1619965008112406528%7Ctwgr%5Ed93dc9ab0509c401dbf5034c5b14f276f1bc29f4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ptisidiastima.com%2Fjohn-bolton-fires-away-on-turkey%2F

1. Erdoğan behaves like a blackmailer to his own people, it is not strange that he behaves like this to others.
2. According to the legal principle rebus sic stantibus (which says that agreements are valid as long as the conditions that led to their conclusion remain) anything can happen regarding Turkey's position in NATO.
3. Essentially, Bolton said that Turkey can - because of its behavior - be expelled from the Alliance.
4. Buying the S-400s was practically equivalent to withdrawing from NATO.
5. The completely unjustified blocking of Finland and Sweden's entry into NATO shows that it is time for them (the US) to decide whether to consider Turkey as an ally.
6. Sweden should do nothing more to change Erdogan's mind.
7. Erdogan puts such obstacles in NATO because it is a "bad element, a budding Mussolini".
8. He tries to impose on other countries the oppressive way he acts in his country.
9. Times have changed. Now we (the US) have the ability to remotely control the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles.

Turkey has the 2nd largest army (in NATO) only because it is directed against Greece It is noted that Bolton served as the 27th National Security Advisor of the United States from 2018 to 2019. Currently, although he does not hold any public office, he is considered to express the most hard-line line of the US towards Turkey. There is special value in publicly acknowledging that Turkey is no longer as important to the West as it once was.

[Septentrionalis]

If you have checked them probably will note that they are very similar in their context and are like a copy of each other.

Of course I have checked them. I provided excerpts of each one. What kind of argument is that that they are similar? Of course they are similar, because they are all voices citing the problems with keeping Turkey in an alliance where it clearly doesn't belong. Of which you two have convinced me. Your thinking is so alien to ours and your constant blatant denial of Turkey's crimes is completely at odds with western values.

[Nebaki]

Of course I have checked them. I provided excerpts of each one. What kind of argument is that that they are similar? Of course they are similar, because they are all voices citing the problems with keeping Turkey in an alliance where it clearly doesn't belong.

It seems to be that you skipped to answer my question seriously and now caming with summary of some articles of mass media. If you have checked them probably will note that they are very similar in their context and are like a copy of each other. Most of them would easily fit into this Thread:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...ublicity-here)!

Voices? from whom? Countries which want to be part of the Alliance which Turkey is already part of it? Maybe you don't noticed but those countries want from Turkey something and not the other way around it.

Of which you two have convinced me. Your thinking is so alien to ours and your constant blatant denial of Turkey's crimes is completely at odds with western values.

People like you totally convinced me what especially are the so-called Western (Nordic) values. Perhaps since swedish is one of the official languages of Finland as finlandssvensk you can probably atleast answer to this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.di.se/nyheter/sapo-pkk-t...ras-i-sverige/

What is especially Ms. Susanna Trehörning stating out here? Can you give us your own expression of so-called western (Nordic) values?

The relationship with NATO or being a NATO Member has normally nothing to do with relationship between US - European Union and his member states - Turkey and their foreign state policy.

[Septentrionalis]

Voices? from whom? Countries which want to be part of the Alliance which Turkey is already part of it? Maybe you don't noticed but those countries want from Turkey something and not the other way around it.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

People like you totally convinced me what especially are the so-called Western (Nordic) values.

One of the value misalignments is that oppressing an ethnic group, labeling their resistance as terrorism, and then attributing all of their activities as terrorism that justifies said oppression to continuing is alien to modern western values.

Perhaps since swedish is one of the official languages of Finland as finlandssvensk you can probably atleast answer to this:

What is especially Ms. Susanna Trehörning stating out here? Can you give us your own expression of so-called western (Nordic) values?

Yes, I can read Swedish and I am familiar with the newspaper you linked. That person, the chief of Swedish anti-terrorism unit in the Swedish Security Services is very scarce with what she says, but she admits that PKK does recruitment, inciting to action, and funding in Sweden by people of Turkish nationality (not ethnicity). She goes on to specify that while they cannot give any sums, the funding is significant.

Dagens industri is a respected media source. I think your source is legit and PKK is very active in Sweden.

EDIT: She is also being quite unsatisfactory in her responses about what they are doing to prevent those activities. Such is common with these national security types in general, but I was still left with the feeling that she does not want to admit that they are doing very little.

[StarDreamer]

Yes, I can read Swedish and I am familiar with the newspaper you linked. That person, the chief of Swedish anti-terrorism unit in the Swedish Security Services is very scarce with what she says, but she admits that PKK does recruitment, inciting to action, and funding in Sweden by people of Turkish nationality (not ethnicity). She goes on to specify that while they cannot give any sums, the funding is significant.

Dagens industri is a respected media source. I think your source is legit and PKK is very active in Sweden.

EDIT: She is also being quite unsatisfactory in her responses about what they are doing to prevent those activities. Such is common with these national security types in general, but I was still left with the feeling that she does not want to admit that they are doing very little.

Well the article did state that in Sweden a new law would come into force in the summer criminalizing participation in a terrorist organization. And that is going to increase the number of investigations they will have.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's official. Finland's NATO accession protocol is signed into law by Turkey.

[Cyclops]

It's official. Finland's NATO accession protocol is signed into law by Turkey.

Thats a huge sea change in Europe.

I'm quite ignorant of how NATO works at a basic level, is it too big to operate effectively now or is there balance? Is the US still driving firmly or is there more slack in the reins?

[Sir Adrian]

NATO is a defensive military alliance, nobody is driving anything. There are quality standards and a general harmonization protocol that have to be met and member states often engage in collective training exercises but otherwise everyone does their own thing.

[StarDreamer]

Thats a huge sea change in Europe.

I'm quite ignorant of how NATO works at a basic level, is it too big to operate effectively now or is there balance? Is the US still driving firmly or is there more slack in the reins?

Admitting of new members requires all existing members to ratify, otherwise I think most issues are done on a lower level.

Finland will be joining as soon as all the paperwork is done. That is to say Turkey's ratification is at some department in Washington. NATO Secretary General will then ask Finland to join, Finnish foreign minister will sign a document and have it delivered to Washington. At which point Finland is a member. Then by some sources Finland will at the same time as we deliver our document to join also deliver the Finnish ratification of Swedish membership. This will by all indications happen this week.

Then who knows when and in exchange for what Hungary and Turkey will stop to stall Swedish membership.

[Alastor]

Meanwhile Sanna Marin, the PM who decided that Finland should join NATO, just lost the elections. That's a shame, she was easily the world's hottest leader.

[StarDreamer]

Meanwhile Sanna Marin, the PM who decided that Finland should join NATO, just lost the elections. That's a shame, she was easily the world's hottest leader.

Note, she lost not because of NATO, but because of her lets say "open-ended spending policy". Of those 8 parliamentarians who voted against joining NATO only 3 were elected back into parliament, all from one party "The Left Alliance". And the party she lost to(National coalition party) has been and still is the strongest proponent of NATO in Finland. Essentially this election did not become a NATO election, but an election focused on left-right economics.

EDIT: On NATO and the election: This was because joining NATO was not an issue on which Finns are divided, as Russian propaganda will try to portray. Only a small minority was opposed after 24 february 2022, as the former handwave on NATO(we have the option to join NATO) was no longer avaiable after Russian sphere demands and demonstrated willingness to full-scale invasions were apparent.

[Mithradates]

Then who knows when and in exchange for what Hungary and Turkey will stop to stall Swedish membership.

Only Turkey. Hungary has no demands, and as happened with the ratification of Finland's membership, Hungary will also ratify Sweden's membership a few days before Turkey.

Orban is stalling in order to score good points with Erdogan, but he alone would not prevent Swedish accession, this is all about Erdogan and his demands.

[PointOfViewGun]

Orban is stalling in order to score good points with Erdogan, but he alone would not prevent Swedish accession, this is all about Erdogan and his demands.

Orban has nothing to gain from scoring good points with Erdoğan.

[Mithradates]

Orban has nothing to gain from scoring good points with Erdoğan.

I know, Orban's foreign policy is a disaster.

[PointOfViewGun]

I know, Orban's foreign policy is a disaster.

That's no reason to think that he's doing it to please Erdoğan.

[Mithradates]

That's no reason to think that he's doing it to please Erdoğan.

Then why is he doing it? He has no demands, no conditions, he even declared that he will ratify it, his stalling doesnt matter.
It is a friendly gesture towards Erdogan (and Putin)

[PointOfViewGun]

Then why is he doing it? He has no demands, no conditions, he even declared that he will ratify it, his stalling doesnt matter.
It is a friendly gesture towards Erdogan (and Putin)

He has no reason to make friendly gestures towards Erdoğan and he made no indication that his stalling was tied to Erdoğan. He is likely trying to get some personal gains from it, acting all tough for his own voters, unrelated to legitimate concerns of Turkey.