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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bbc.co.uk
Oldest