NATO: Turkey vs. Sweden/Finland

[Nebaki]

Europe has far more to gain from NATO than the USA – even though of the EU states only Portugal is a necessary NATO member, the alliance’s essential function is to defend continental Europe from a potential Russian attack. The key members fulfill a strategic role that allow the USA to project military strength in the region and safeguard forward positions around Russia – all in favor of preserving the (usually western) European status quo.

In terms of direct US interests, this doesn’t really matter. It’s the US protecting direct EU interests, in an era where Russia is not capable of reclaiming lost Soviet-era provinces, let alone threatening western Europe, and the EU is increasingly unwilling to accept US influence. In terms of historic US military interests, Turkey is the more appealing partner than any EU member, even if the military interest is a Russian rivalry.

In fact, the EU has contrary interests in many cases. In terms of historic Turkish military interests, the USA is a more appealing partner than the EU, which actually opposes it in its interests. So why should the USA and Turkey break off their alliance over the EU, which they labor to support but conflicts with the two’s interests, especially when the two share those interests?

NATO relies on Turkey to protect EU interests. Turkey, like the USA but in a much reduced capacity, only benefits from EU/NATO members in terms of marginal influence which is increasingly rejected by Europe. The EU cutting out Turkey from NATO to let in more non-strategic members (though Finland would certainly be more useful than, say, Slovenia) would be an act of either utter stupidity or sheer insanity.

The EU needs Turkey in NATO. Turkey does not.

[alhoon]

Please remember to respect the Terms of Service and the rules of the mudpit. Specifically, try to make your posts impersonal, address the post, do not attack the poster. Avoid constructing your posts in a way to elicit a strong response.

[StarDreamer]

So lets look at Turkeys demands from Sweden, Finland and NATO:
https://yle.fi/news/3-12450437

-Let back into F-35(US issue)
-Purchase more F-16(US issue)
-declare PKK and its sister organizations terrorist organisations(PKK already is, they just want this to also include YPG and any other organisation they feel are related to them)
-removal of sanctions/arms embargoes placed due to Turkeys involvement in Syria. This arms embargo was of course placed due to Finland and Sweden not wanting to supply ongoing conflicts(pre- 24 Feb 2022). This shouldn't be hard to reverse now.

So once again, this was always about concessions not about any alleged support of terrorists by Finland or Sweden. I think the YPG issue is likely to be more of a US issue also since they have actually supplied them with arms.

[PointOfViewGun]

So lets look at Turkeys demands from Sweden, Finland and NATO:
https://yle.fi/news/3-12450437

-Let back into F-35(US issue)
-Purchase more F-16(US issue)
-declare PKK and its sister organizations terrorist organisations(PKK already is, they just want this to also include YPG and any other organisation they feel are related to them)
-removal of sanctions/arms embargoes placed due to Turkeys involvement in Syria. This arms embargo was of course placed due to Finland and Sweden not wanting to supply ongoing conflicts(pre- 24 Feb 2022). This shouldn't be hard to reverse now.

So once again, this was always about concessions not about any alleged support of terrorists by Finland or Sweden. I think the YPG issue is likely to be more of a US issue also since they have actually supplied them with arms.

It's still primarily about PKK's presence in these countries, mostly Sweden. If Finland applied alone it wouldn't be such a big issue. You are merely picking secondary/tertiary requests as the main concerns. It's interesting that these articles don't even mention the requests Turkey publicly declares even in a passing sentence, such as the requests for PKK and FETÖ members' extradition to Turkey.

Even the Bloomberg article your own article references provides a different take:

While the officials said Turkey isn’t looking to bargain over subjects beyond Finland and Sweden’s stances on the Kurdish conflict, Ankara’s gripes with NATO run deep and its wish-list is long.

This is like a game of telephone...

[sumskilz]

So lets look at Turkeys demands from Sweden, Finland and NATO:
https://yle.fi/news/3-12450437

-Let back into F-35(US issue)
-Purchase more F-16(US issue)
-declare PKK and its sister organizations terrorist organisations(PKK already is, they just want this to also include YPG and any other organisation they feel are related to them)
-removal of sanctions/arms embargoes placed due to Turkeys involvement in Syria. This arms embargo was of course placed due to Finland and Sweden not wanting to supply ongoing conflicts(pre- 24 Feb 2022). This shouldn't be hard to reverse now.

So once again, this was always about concessions not about any alleged support of terrorists by Finland or Sweden. I think the YPG issue is likely to be more of a US issue also since they have actually supplied them with arms.

Any reasonable external observer can plainly see that this is the case.

[StarDreamer]

It's still primarily about PKK's presence in these countries, mostly Sweden. If Finland applied alone it wouldn't be such a big issue. You are merely picking secondary/tertiary requests as the main concerns. It's interesting that these articles don't even mention the requests Turkey publicly declares even in a passing sentence, such as the requests for PKK and FETÖ members' extradition to Turkey.

Even the Bloomberg article your own article references provides a different take:


This is like a game of telephone...

Extraditions in Nordic countries is always a legal process, politicians can't influence this and it would be a scandal if they would try. They can only influence what sort of treaties about this we have internationally. If there are treaties in place and enough legal evidence is provided then they will get extradited.There is a separation of powers and quite frankly as a demand here ridiculous, if the demand is to make sure there is a legal framework to make extraditions possible, then that could be possible to do.

[PointOfViewGun]

Extraditions in Nordic countries is always a legal process, politicians can't influence this and it would be a scandal if they would try. They can only influence what sort of treaties about this we have internationally. If there are treaties in place and enough legal evidence is provided then they will get extradited. There is a separation of powers and quite frankly as a demand here ridiculous, if the demand is to make sure there is a legal framework to make extraditions possible, then that could be possible to do.

I'm not sure if the judicial process is as impartial as we hope it to be. I'm sure its less partial compared to Turkey but that's merely a comparison. However, as I pointed out earlier, apparently we even had Sweden outright ignore extradition requests while rejecting others. It's no surprise that PKK members could open a PKK flag in the middle of Stockholm while lighting torches.

There there are cases like having a PKK militant from Kandil:



Lecturing under Öcalan for YPG:



To having meetings with Swedish foreign minister Ann Linde:

[antaeus]

In Sweden, while the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General have input, the decision ultimately lies in the hands of the Government.

Although, the important set of considerations to take into account, are whether there are any impediments to extradition... which include the risk of persecution, or whether the offence is even considered a crime in Sweden - in these cases, the government wouldn't even be requested to make a decision - it would be excluded before it reaches their desk.

I would imagine a case could be made for the likelihood of persecution in Turkey by anyone of Kurdish background on an extradition list.

Although, that's besides the point. Turkey will probably relent on this matter during negotiations.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The main point was about YPG being the Syrian branch of PKK. That's what you were responding to with your parallel. That's what pointed corrected in detail. In order not to acknowledge the difference between groups like YPG/PKK and Al Qaeda/HTS/ISIL you jumped to talking about HTS in a vacuum. By the way, its not just USA that recognizes PKK as a terrorist organization. Sweden and Finland recognize them as a terrorist organization too since they are members of the EU and EU recognizes them as such.

YPG is an offshoot, not a branch. One rapport from the Trump admin doesn't change that.
My point is that Turkey's issue is with Kurds, not with terrorists, and your continued refusal to adress that speaks volumes.

Just because Turkey is acting currently moderate towards HTS that does not mean that are not seen by Turkey hostile.

Turkey isn't acting moderately towards HTS, it is actively defending HTS. It operates freely in HTS territory and has observation posts and soldiers within HTS territory. Can you imagine the US operating observation posts on ISIS territory to prevent the SAA from attacking ISIS?

So in your opinion Turkey should take another armed conflict against something called like HTS while it can even find a unarmed solution? This is not something that Turkey is supporting or cooperating with HTS.

Of course, Turkey only starts armed conflicts against Kurds.

There is no SAA it´s more like a Satellite State of Russia which was protected by Russia. In case of Turkey is going fully for a violently option it would direclty face-off Russia. I´m pretty sure that you are aware of that. HTS does not have an territory because of Turkey but probably because of

If Turkey didn't diplomatically intervene every time the SAA launched an offensive HTS wouldn't have any territory left. It's not Saudi Arabia operating observation posts in HTS territory, nor is it the UAE. It's Turkey. Only Turkey.

We have to mention this since they are too an actor in Syrian Crisis. You came up with that since it is from viewpoint more interesting what is happening Syria then somewhere else.

I'm talking about Turkish support for HTS, which Turkey calls a terrorist organisation, because I'm pointing out the stark contrast in Turkey's treatment of Kurdish militant groups vs non Kurdish militant groups. The gulf states do not designate HTS as a terrorist organisation as far as I'm aware.

Well yet they worked with them and even supplied them with arms and financial aid.

Your source is directly contradicted by the US's actions.

It´s called Wikipedia. The most common Source for accusations to show a country in bad light especially if those People from their country aren´t allowed to use the platform properly due some interference of some kind from the Administration. I don´t think that you would accept something that would be pro-Turkish so i took one of the most anti-Turkish one.

It's no wikipedia, it's some random blog called moon of alabama. A quick look through it shows that it's an anti-US conspiracy website full of Russian propaganda. How bad is this source? Here's a quote from it: "European leaders are stupid, coward and incompetent, but at the end, they are vassals. The villains are in Washington. There will be no peace until the empire gets at least a bloody nose. Waiting for the economic collapse, the Chinese strategy, may come too late."
What article is this quote from? Why, it's from Why shouldn't Russia threaten US carriers?, an article openly calling for Russia to attack a US carrier with a hypersonic missile.
So, no, this isn't a good source to make claims about US policy from.

What should Turkey do in your opinion? Do you think they will go over to the Side of Assad or join the YPG? In my opinion Israel can take them on a voluntary basis but i don´t think that they will settle down their arms in that case.

Tell the SNA to attack HTS. Simple as. Or at least stop preventing the SAA from wiping them out.

This Hoax and some Big Players failed of this accusation. It now became already decade and you are still insisting on it. Maybe something was smuggled in and even out but was never from the Official Side and they would not even bother take something like that serious.

Smuggling happened in that Region before and probably will be a Issue even after a century. It´s a illegal trade nothing else.

Indeed, and one Turkey will continue to turn a blind eye to because it benefits from it.

[PointOfViewGun]

YPG is an offshoot, not a branch. One rapport from the Trump admin doesn't change that.
My point is that Turkey's issue is with Kurds, not with terrorists, and your continued refusal to adress that speaks volumes.

Interesting play with words, especially since you downplay the Trump administration's take while it is the official from his administration that used the "offshoot" label. Many pieces of evidence have been posted to show the organic tie between PKK and YPG. Not just one "rapport". I have no interest in entertaining your tangent if you can't acknowledge basic facts on the matter that you jumped into.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Interesting play with words, especially since you downplay the Trump administration's take while it is the official from his administration that used the "offshoot" label. Many pieces of evidence have been posted to show the organic tie between PKK and YPG. Not just one "rapport". I have no interest in entertaining your tangent if you can't acknowledge basic facts on the matter that you jumped into.

Whether or not YPG is a branch of PKK is irrelevant to the point I was making, and that's something you're fully aware of. You can continue to adress the irrelevant sidenote part of my post if it makes you feel like you're achieving something, but the truth is you refuse to debate the crux of the argument being made.

[Nebaki]

YPG is an offshoot, not a branch. One rapport from the Trump admin doesn't change that.
My point is that Turkey's issue is with Kurds, not with terrorists, and your continued refusal to adress that speaks volumes.

This is not true and there other plenty various reasons which got already mentioned in this Thread.

Turkey isn't acting moderately towards HTS, it is actively defending HTS. It operates freely in HTS territory and has observation posts and soldiers within HTS territory. Can you imagine the US operating observation posts on ISIS territory to prevent the SAA from attacking ISIS?

It´s not defending HTS. Maybe on your perception but where should HTS go or even don´t start a violent conflict inside that territory? If you believe that SAA was really attacking ISIS then this is a foolish attempt by yourself. Everytime SAA attacks more refugees moved towards Turkey since there is no option left for them to escape - I´m talking here about innocent People and not some extremists.

Of course, Turkey only starts armed conflicts against Kurds.

That´s what you want. I guess all other Theatres of War where Turkey presence was sighted was too against some "Kurds" or whatever you seen in them.

If Turkey didn't diplomatically intervene every time the SAA launched an offensive HTS wouldn't have any territory left. It's not Saudi Arabia operating observation posts in HTS territory, nor is it the UAE. It's Turkey. Only Turkey.

It´s funny that now a guy from Israel is becaming the advocate of SSA. There is no SAA just a Militia which is direclty directed by Russia and Iran. But i got a solution Israel takes all the People who currently need urgently secruity for their living being and Turkey stops protecting that Region or even Israel Defense Force direclty deals with HTS instead of bombing the SAA behing the Golan Heights? When the State of Israel stop that occupation there?

I'm talking about Turkish support for HTS, which Turkey calls a terrorist organisation, because I'm pointing out the stark contrast in Turkey's treatment of Kurdish militant groups vs non Kurdish militant groups. The gulf states do not designate HTS as a terrorist organisation as far as I'm aware.

Again there is no Turkish Support for HTS just a conflict of interest. HTS has to be calm down to not start another armed conflict with various other groups.

Your source is directly contradicted by the US's actions.

It's no wikipedia, it's some random blog called moon of alabama. A quick look through it shows that it's an anti-US conspiracy website full of Russian propaganda. How bad is this source? Here's a quote from it: "European leaders are stupid, coward and incompetent, but at the end, they are vassals. The villains are in Washington. There will be no peace until the empire gets at least a bloody nose. Waiting for the economic collapse, the Chinese strategy, may come too late."
What article is this quote from? Why, it's from Why shouldn't Russia threaten US carriers?, an article openly calling for Russia to attack a US carrier with a hypersonic missile.
So, no, this isn't a good source to make claims about US policy from.

Did you even seen the replies of some Members of this Board from USA? This is even moderate.

Tell the SNA to attack HTS. Simple as. Or at least stop preventing the SAA from wiping them out.

Tell the IDF to stop attack SAA or at least go and extrate them from that Region I don´t think Turkey would say no. Really simple.

Indeed, and one Turkey will continue to turn a blind eye to because it benefits from it.

This is called conspiracy and if you want to continue on that behaviour we got a extra Thread for it: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...blicity-here)!

It's still primarily about PKK's presence in these countries, mostly Sweden. If Finland applied alone it wouldn't be such a big issue. You are merely picking secondary/tertiary requests as the main concerns. It's interesting that these articles don't even mention the requests Turkey publicly declares even in a passing sentence, such as the requests for PKK and FETÖ members' extradition to Turkey.

It would since Sweden would be then easily secured by Norway and Finland aswell the NATO structure. In the other hand we got this:

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 I´m asking myself why they insist to join when they would already get the fully support of Members of the European Union except non-Members of that Union? It´s seems to be that slogan "Kick Turkey out of NATO" didn´t really aged well.

So lets look at Turkeys demands from Sweden, Finland and NATO:
https://yle.fi/news/3-12450437

-Let back into F-35(US issue)
-Purchase more F-16(US issue)
-declare PKK and its sister organizations terrorist organisations(PKK already is, they just want this to also include YPG and any other organisation they feel are related to them)
-removal of sanctions/arms embargoes placed due to Turkeys involvement in Syria. This arms embargo was of course placed due to Finland and Sweden not wanting to supply ongoing conflicts(pre- 24 Feb 2022). This shouldn't be hard to reverse now.

So once again, this was always about concessions not about any alleged support of terrorists by Finland or Sweden. I think the YPG issue is likely to be more of a US issue also since they have actually supplied them with arms.

"The primary demand of the Turkish administration is that Finland and Sweden declare the PKK, the Kurdish Workers' Party, and its related organisations, to be a terrorist group. The EU and all other Nato member states have declared the PKK a terrorist group. Despite this, the United States has provided armed support to PKK's sister organisation in Syria, the YPG, in the fight against Isis."

We already mentioned here that Finland and Sweden are the safe harbour for those terrorists since they demanded it and USA seeked for Allies who would do that and don´t bother about their relationship towards Turkey. Finland and Sweden can easily refuse to became a safe harbour those kind of groups, yet they didn´t even hesitated and probably even doing this in a voluntary basis as it looks likes that.

[PointOfViewGun]

Whether or not YPG is a branch of PKK is irrelevant to the point I was making, and that's something you're fully aware of. You can continue to adress the irrelevant sidenote part of my post if it makes you feel like you're achieving something, but the truth is you refuse to debate the crux of the argument being made.

Aaaand we're back to post #40 and post #19 by association.

[Sir Adrian]

So lets look at Turkeys demands from Sweden, Finland and NATO:
https://yle.fi/news/3-12450437

-Let back into F-35(US issue)
-Purchase more F-16(US issue)
-declare PKK and its sister organizations terrorist organisations(PKK already is, they just want this to also include YPG and any other organisation they feel are related to them)
-removal of sanctions/arms embargoes placed due to Turkeys involvement in Syria. This arms embargo was of course placed due to Finland and Sweden not wanting to supply ongoing conflicts(pre- 24 Feb 2022). This shouldn't be hard to reverse now.

So once again, this was always about concessions not about any alleged support of terrorists by Finland or Sweden. I think the YPG issue is likely to be more of a US issue also since they have actually supplied them with arms.

Turkey's demands will never be met because of this

• Lastly, the United States would cease preventing Turkey from exporting military products containing Western components.

Erdogan wants to be able to sell NATO technology to China.

[PointOfViewGun]

Turkey's demands will never be met because of this
Erdogan wants to be able to sell NATO technology to China.

What now? China hardly needs NATO technology from Turkey. Turkey sold drones to Ukraine which helped decimate many Russian armored columns and major Russian navy ships. The camera for that drone is currently banned from being sold to Turkey from Canada. Where is China in that?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

This is not true and there other plenty various reasons which got already mentioned in this Thread.

Every single military action undertaken by Turkey in Syria was aimed at the Kurds. This while being de-facto allied to non-Kurdish terrorists. It is very much true.

It´s not defending HTS.

It is.

Maybe on your perception but where should HTS go or even don´t start a violent conflict inside that territory? If you believe that SAA was really attacking ISIS then this is a foolish attempt by yourself. Everytime SAA attacks more refugees moved towards Turkey since there is no option left for them to escape - I´m talking here about innocent People and not some extremists.

HTS should go to hell.
SAA was also not attacking ISIS, I never claimed otherwise. SAA was attacking HTS, for example 2 years ago when they took Saraqib and Turkey sent the SNA to help HTS. In fact up to 72 Turkish soldiers got killed in that offensive attempting to defend HTS territory. And who negotiated a ceasefire to save HTS? Turkey. Who threatened military action if the offensive against HTS wouldn't stop? Turkey. So don't tell me Turkey does not defend HTS, because it does, very obviously.
Now tell me, if the SAA would launch an offensive against the SDF would Turkey send soldiers to defend the SDF? Would Turkey threaten the SAA with military action? Would Turkey send the SNA to help the SDF defend its territory? Would Turkey broker a ceasefire to prevent the SAA from taking SDF territory?
We all know the answer to those questions.

That´s what you want. I guess all other Theatres of War where Turkey presence was sighted was too against some "Kurds" or whatever you seen in them.

Certainly in Syria and Iraq, yeah.

It´s funny that now a guy from Israel is becaming the advocate of SSA. There is no SAA just a Militia which is direclty directed by Russia and Iran. But i got a solution Israel takes all the People who currently need urgently secruity for their living being and Turkey stops protecting that Region or even Israel Defense Force direclty deals with HTS instead of bombing the SAA behing the Golan Heights? When the State of Israel stop that occupation there?

I'm not an advocate of the SAA, I'm very much against it. Being opposed to the SAA does not however mean that I have to be in favour of everyone who is against them. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.

Did you even seen the replies of some Members of this Board from USA? This is even moderate.

What are you on about?

Tell the IDF to stop attack SAA or at least go and extrate them from that Region I don´t think Turkey would say no. Really simple.

It may be very simple, but I have no idea what you've said here. Can you rephrase?

Aaaand we're back to post #40 and post #19 by association.

The point I'm making is that Turkey doesn't care about terrorists, and has no qualms being allied to them (so long as they're not Kurds), it cares about Kurds. If you're not going to respond to that then I do not see a point in continuing to reply to you.

[StarDreamer]

Lets be honest here, Turkey had a chance before this case to bring any issues to the knowledge of either Finland and Sweden. They said there were no issues, in fact they stated the opposite, they would welcome Finland and Sweden. Then when Finland and Sweden could no longer back down Turkey took its chance to seize a bargaining chip. This is not about Finland or Sweden in any way, this is about Turkey wanting concessions from other NATO states. It is a of a dictatorship with it's finances in the gutter looking for any way to profit, no matter the damage they do to themselves on the international stage. Any talk of terrorist that, terrorist this is just smokescreens.

It is sad that a state so against NATO's values feels the need to stay in it and be a towards all others in the alliance. Demanding that new members go against the alliances values to join it, glorious irony.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Lets be honest here, Turkey had a chance before this case to bring any issues to the knowledge of either Finland and Sweden. They said there were no issues, in fact they stated the opposite, they would welcome Finland and Sweden. Then when Finland and Sweden could no longer back down Turkey took its chance to seize a bargaining chip. This is not about Finland or Sweden in any way, this is about Turkey wanting concessions from other NATO states. It is a

of a dictatorship with it's finances in the gutter looking for any way to profit, no matter the damage they do to themselves on the international stage. Any talk of terrorist that, terrorist this is just smokescreens.

It is sad that a state so against NATO's values feels the need to stay in it and be a

towards all others in the alliance. Demanding that new members go against the alliances values to join it, glorious irony.

The irony is modern Turkey, like Russia, is a parody of its historical self with a vastly overinflated sense of its geopolitical clout. Like Putin’s sheepish capitulation that perhaps NATO expansion isn’t actually an inherent threat once he had no choice but to save face, I suspect what is needed is a swift kick in the pants to remind the wannabe Sultan of his place. There are umpteen ways to do this so I’m surprised Erdo is really pursuing this gambit. But then, we’ve seen how high Putin has gotten on his own propaganda, so it’s predictable that his Turkish counterpart is no different in that regard. In the interim, I’m sure the alliance will proceed with haste with or without Turkey’s formal cooperation:

Sweden and Finland are starting to win assurances of help if threatened by Russia in the interim period between an expected application to join defense alliance NATO and an eventual entry.

The U.S. is “ready to provide various forms of security assurances” to both countries, Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde said on Wednesday after talks with Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Washington, D.C., according to public broadcaster SVT.

Also on Wednesday, U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told reporters in Finland that “it’s inconceivable that Britain would not come to the support of Finland or Sweden if it was ever attacked,” regardless of what stage of the NATO entry process they are at, according to multiple media.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz this week sought to calm fears about the security risk on the path to membership, saying that as fellow Europeans, Sweden and Finland can “in any case always count on Germany’s support, independently of NATO membership and also during the period before it’s decided within NATO.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-road-to-nato

Erdo was already outmaneuvered before he even began his little tantrum. I say ignore the insolent er; let him scream into the wind.

[PointOfViewGun]

Lets be honest here, Turkey had a chance before this case to bring any issues to the knowledge of either Finland and Sweden. They said there were no issues, in fact they stated the opposite, they would welcome Finland and Sweden. Then when Finland and Sweden could no longer back down Turkey took its chance to seize a bargaining chip. This is not about Finland or Sweden in any way, this is about Turkey wanting concessions from other NATO states. It is a of a dictatorship with it's finances in the gutter looking for any way to profit, no matter the damage they do to themselves on the international stage. Any talk of terrorist that, terrorist this is just smokescreens.

It is sad that a state so against NATO's values feels the need to stay in it and be a towards all others in the alliance. Demanding that new members go against the alliances values to join it, glorious irony.

Say what now? Earlier you misrepresented your own source to keep this narrative alive and now you're outright making stuff up about it.

Every single military action undertaken by Turkey in Syria was aimed at the Kurds. This while being de-facto allied to non-Kurdish terrorists. It is very much true.

Is this lie blatantly stupid or maliciously deceptive?

[StarDreamer]

Say what now? Earlier you misrepresented your own source to keep this narrative alive and now you're outright making stuff up about it.




Is this lie blatantly stupid or maliciously deceptive?

https://yle.fi/news/3-12446441

"The Finnish president said he was "confused" by this statement. He referred to a call with Erdogan about a month ago, in which he said the latter had raised the issue of Nato, saying that Turkey would support a bid."

Lets drop the charade.