As a swede I am on the fence on wether Sweden should join NATO in the first place, but at least we’re not out for the stupidest fucking reason anymore.
Sweden currently would be in a perfect selfish situation.
Norway and Finland are in. So sweden cannot be attacked by russia without NATO helping them unless russia only attacks islands. But Sweden has free choice to participate or ignore NATO being attacked.
Now Sweden has to help NATO wherever they are being attacked.
Finland and Sweden have been cooperating in matters of defense for a long time. Now they both are NATO members, that united defense should be a credible deterrent to Russia. In Sweden was left out, that structure would have been weaker.
I think most people who have switched sides, who were originally for/split, would today argue that it’s unlikely that Russia would stage another war in the coming years. Looking at how poorly they are performing in Ukraine.
So getting into NATO with the possibility that Erdogan’s demands will have an actual effect on the Swedish laws has not been deemed worth it right now.
I also doubt anybody reasonable would consider some of his demands to be achievable, Turkey in EU today?
Worth noting I am partly speaking from my own assessment as well. I want us to join NATO but I don’t find it to be an affair that is as urgent anymore and I’d preferably have it done without any greater effects on our justice system or other parts that Erdogan was unhappy about.
However, it’s worth noting that there are still a reasonable amount of swedes who are completely against NATO.
West was coping a few weeks ago with an internal conflict incited by Prigozhin, so that Putin can die and Russia stop. Even Greta Thunberg is now part of the psyop, its gotten so bad. Stop the cope, Russia won this war of attrition months ago.
Moreover, the list of wunderwaffen game changers that failed continues to grow:
Javelins
Nlaw’s
Bayraktars
T-91 twardys
Himars
Large numbers of apcs mwraps
M-777’s
Leopard 2’s
…
The only thing on the horizon is NATO preparing for a final scream of agony, a final war to end wars, considering now all of NATO media is suspiciously quiet over USA sending banned cluster bombs to Ukraine. This only sets a precedent for the other banned weapon - nuclear.
I’m not saying Ukraine should/shouldn’t be in NATO, but if Ukraine was in NATO would Russia have invaded?
Don’t larger military alliance disincentivize violent conflict?
I understand if a conflict were to break out it would be much larger, but we can’t know the extent of the smaller conflicts that have not happened due to the existence of NATO.
Don’t larger military alliance disincentivize violent conflict?
Not necessarily - and NATO sure doesn’t seem to mind when their own members wage genocidal wars on the third world (like Turkey is doing with it’s ISIS-staffed proxy-militias in northern Syria).
NATO has shown that it will happily play midwife to US neocolonialism - remember that time the US invaded Afghanistan using an even flimsier pretext than the ones Putin uses? At this point, we should be thankful that the US didn’t allow Russia itself to join NATO (something Putin is still pretty sore about)… but the US sure didn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
With all the requirements stipulated through this agreement it feels more like blackmail than anything. Glad they’re finally in, or in the process of getting in, but the whole thing just seems unreal and unfair.
This is an interesting topic you’re talking about here. What If NATO had such a section in their treaties that allowed a country to be kicked. How would that effect the alliance?
One of the key features of an alliance is trust, if you are at risk of getting kicked out, then you might not want to join, or you take it less serious?
Before I watch the video, my response is that it should still need a supermajority and only work during peacetime (by some reasonably expansive definition of it) but it should be possible. Otherwise you end up situations like the one we’re in. If it’s that hard to get kicked out I would feel fine about it for my own security, at least.
“European customs and values” is a bit hard to define I feel. The eastern European states are quite different from the rest. Poland and Sweden are in stark contrast to one another, as is even Sweden and Germany.
I’d like to say that the EU is quite strongly in favour of democracies, which Turkey definitely isn’t. I’ve a dear friend who basically didn’t dare discuss politics because of the potential fallout that could have on his job and living situation. He’s since moved away from Turkey and his life has improved dramatically.
It’s difficult for me as a Swede to reconcile the fact that speaking out against the state could land me in hot water. Like I can call our PM a bag of dicks, and make poop-caricatures of any parliament member all day if I wanted to, and it wouldn’t necessarily have any fallout beyond burning some bridges with people.
Turkey’s also heavily religious conservative, and as a gay person that doesn’t sit well with me. That extends to all currently-in-the-EU countries that match that description as well, though.
I think you touched on the main aspects where things are different. Although, yes, there are many cultural differences across Europe as well (and I see that as a strength) they don’t run as deep. I would add my worry about their treatment of the Kurd minority. To be fair, however, things do change over the years, and there are a couple more countries that have turned for the worse, IMO.
Oh yeah, the treatment of the Kurds is harrowing. During the early days of Sweden’s bid for NATO, Turkey asked for a lot. They gave us lists of people to be extradited, and even made requests for our constitution to be changed to accommodate this. Basically extortion.
Needless to say, Turkey (and Hungary) hasn’t exactly garnered a lot of goodwill here in Sweden lately. A part of me is even a bit bummed out about the NATO thing, because the idea of allying with Turkey, and potentially having to deploy troops to defend them should it come to that, doesn’t sit well with me.
the idea of allying with Turkey, and potentially having to deploy troops to defend them should it come to that, doesn’t sit well with me.
That a good thing which comes from a larger coalition. The more countries involved that won't attack each other, and the more counties that will aid other countries in the coalition if needed, the less likely there is a need to raise those defenses. I'm glad to see Finland and Sweden joining, not because of the troops and resources they might commit, but because it improves everyone's self sovereignty, including those nations which aren't full members.
Quite the shock when Erdogan tried to blackmail his country into the EU. I hope Sweden will also not give in when it comes to burning religious books.
I would say there is a huge difference in culture and values when comparing to those people from Turkey who are very conservative or religious. We even have some here who voted in Germany for Erdogan!
But the difference isn’t that big with secular, non-conservative people. It is like Turkey has two sides.
European values are irrelevant for being a NATO member. But I believe being a democracy is a requirement, but USA is a somewhat flawed democracy too. But hen again no democracy is perfect.
Not NATO, the EU. Turkey is in NATO already, the other poster was probably mentioning EU because Erdogan has recently indicate he wanted to join before letting Sweden in NATO.
That doesn’t even make any sense. Erdogan has done nothing but backpedal on all the efforts Turkey had done before him to increase cooperation and become a member of EU. Erdogan clearly does NOT want Turkey to become a member of EU.
Also it’s completely unrealistic for Erdogan to wish to Join EU before Sweden becomes a member of NATO. In NATO all members want Sweden in, except Turkey and Hungary. In EU there are ZERO countries that want Turkey in the EU. So how would he realistically imagine it would be possible for Turkey to join EU before Sweden joins NATO.
Turkey is probably more at risk of being thrown out of NATO, unless they begin to moderate their behavior. Technically they don’t meet the requirements to be a member of NATO anymore.
It’s not even about customs or abstract values in general. Some of the past and present aspirants or aspirants in spe seem to see only the economic side of things, while considering the legally binding parts of the treaty like the European Convention on Human Rights or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union more like an optional thing.
Quite the shock when Erdogan tried to blackmail his country into the EU. I hope Sweden will also not give in when it comes to burning religious books.
I would say there is a huge difference in culture and values when comparing to those people from Turkey who are very conservative or religious. We even have some here who voted in Germany for Erdogan!
But the difference isn’t that big with secular, non-conservative people. It is like Turkey has two sides.
Isn’t abolishing the death penalty part of the requirements? And there’s some more that makes it simply unrealistic to think it’s happening in the next decade or two.
It’s like a 30 point check list and so far they’ve completed zero or maybe one. It’s a long way.
Erdogan reinstated the death penalty at the coup, so basically he has moved away from EU membership since taking control.
I think it’s a good thing that it is a long process, even if people moan about Ukraine not getting a shortcut. Imagine if Turkey had completed the membership before the coup. That would have been horrible today. Similarly it would be unwise to allow Ukraine in right now, since we have no idea of what will happen after the war. A dictator could potentially take the power there too. The requirements aren’t just bureaucracy, they do serve a purpose.
Personally I hope that they both succeed eventually, but it has to be done properly. Both Ukraine and Turkey could contribute positively to EU if only they manage to get proper democratic governments and follow human rights etc. first.
Per the NYT, here’s what Sweden and NATO would do in return:
In return, Sweden and Turkey would continue to work bilaterally against terrorism, Sweden would help reinvigorate Turkey’s application to enter the European Union, and NATO would establish a new “special coordinator for counterterrorism,” he said.
Interesting, the idea of Turkey entering the EU was considered pie in the sky around the time of the Brexit referendum, now Sweden are helping them apply.
Not to mention, the governmental policy and structure work themselves. And the governmental structure and policy changes made by Erdogan are more or less what the EU wants fixed (e.g. erosion of judicial independence and rule of law; imprisonment of political opponents; strong democratic process that operates without internal interference). Sweden will abide by the letter of the agreement, as they should: they’ll help Turkey improve their EU bid. It’s just that “improve” absolutely encompasses moving that accession bid from “lol no” to “pretty goddamn unlikely but technically not impossible”.
Erdogan will probably be sore about that later, but he’s really only got himself to blame. If you wanna be in a club that has a rule where you’ve got to be a full and thriving democracy, it’s frankly stupid to be surprised when they won’t let you in because you’ve stopped being a full and thriving democracy. And the club members are under no obligation whatsoever to help you pretend that you are a full and thriving democracy when you clearly aren’t.
This isn’t happening it’s just grandstanding before the summit. Sweden said they’ll put in a good word for Turkey to join the EU, Erdogan said he’ll put in a good word to Turkish parliament. After the conference someone will do something trivial and they’ll fake outrage and go back to Sweden not joining.
They’ve had F-16s for years, producing most of them domestically (under license). Maybe some upgrades?
Turkey’s been developing their own “5th gen” fighter, and they do have a pretty decent domestic military industrial base, but they got barred from purchasing the F-35 in 2019 when they bought an S-400 system from Russia - I wonder if he wants those. It’d need some US congressional cooperation to make happen, though.
bbc.co.uk
Active