>

That's because Turkey isn't halfway till election time. 
Erdogan will milk this opportunity for prestige as long as possible because it will help him win.
That's funny because Turkey isn't even halfway to democracy >

Why do we keep Turkey in NATO? We really need to lower our tolerance for dictators. >

Mostly for geographic significance probably. >

This is precisely why. >

Yep, It is where “East meets West” and the the West would prefer they lean West.
I mean imagine if Russia,Turkey, and Iran teamed up. Absolute geopolitical nightmare for literally everyone else. >

Not to mention, they control the entrance to the Black Sea.  That's access to Ukraine and Russia by water, and we'd definitely like to be able to tighten things up if Russia misbehave. >

Turkey doesn’t control it.  It’s controlled by an international treaty.  If Turkey started denying passage in opposition to their agreement it would go very badly for them.  The whole reason the treaty was established was because everyone else was sick of fighting over that strip of land in the first place.  Not because Turkey was dictating the terms of the agreement. >


Turkey doesn’t control it.

If they're at war they do which makes it a benefit to have them in NATO instead of in alignment with Russia or someone else.

The whole reason the treaty was established was because everyone else was sick of fighting over that strip of land in the first place.

~~Huh? The last fighting over that strip of land was 500 years before the treaty was made~~ <- wrong >

Gallipoli was 500 years ago? >

ww1 - and we know how it turns out - since then turkey exists! >

It's the ole Turkish ice cream trick >

Hahahaha, that made me chuckle! 🤣 >

I betcha Sweden joins NATO before russia sees Kyiv. >

Russia saw Kyiv and then they were forced to leave. They didn't see inside it, but the Hostomel Airport is close enough. >

I, too, have been to Reykjavik.
Well, I saw it from the airport during my trans-Atlantic layover. >

I think if you had heavy arms and a desire to level it, they'd consider that to be close enough to count as a visit. >

Those countries that support Sweden & Finland membership into NATO should just create individual defense pacts and bypass Turkey's veto. >

They already did. >

Do you have a link for that? I would like to read more/details >

Okay, as a Swede I'm pretty tired of this guy trying to curry favour from Russia and blackmailing the rest of the NATO. Erdogan want's us to crawl and relinquish all moral values that we have upheld over the years.
I realize that the Bosporus is very important to the US but as I see it either our real allies in NATO step up to send a signal that Turkiye can not play both sides like this if they want to be seen as a friend, or we need to back out of the process. Standing in the doorway is just painting a target on our backs and costing us diplomatic capital for nothing. >

As a Finn and proponent of Nato for 20+ years I have to concede that the arguments of the opposition about allying with an authoritarian regime like Turkey being unacceptable have merit. The process is too far to stop now, but at least no concessions should be made to Turkey no matter how long it takes. Worst case scenario we can find alternatives, its not worth sacrificing our moral principles. >

Well if we have to be stuck in this miserable limbo with someone I'm glad it's you guys. I'd vote for backing out, but I want to stick it out since we went in together and you have the tougher border. >

Relax, russia is gone. Erdogan basically has time limit on how long he can use turkish bazaar tactics. It doesn't matter if this takes decades. The most important thing is that we show on world stage that we are allied with the rest of the western world. In fact, this is good, since we don't have any obligations. One could even say that we are free members. >

I'm afraid I'm not quite as confident. A lot of people on reddit answer with bravado but the real reason we want to join is to have a binding agreement of being under the american nuclear umbrella of mutually assured destruction. We are not trying to receive incremental aid during an invasion, we are trying to deter invasion all together.
Are you saying that if Russia called the bluff and invaded Finland or Sweden, you are a hundred percent certain the US would unleash nuclear war on a global scale, changing history forever to the unimaginably worse, for someone not even a real part of the NATO alliance? Because I wouldn't if I were them. And they didn't do it for Ukraine, who trusted the Budapest Memorandum to be deterring enough. And the argument was "Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but if they invade Poland on the other hand..." >

Finland has been preparing for Russian invasion for 80 years so even if Russia tried they would have miserable time. In all the Nato discussions in Finland the importance of independent defence was always included. 
Given that Russia is throwing everything they have into Ukraine there have are no threat for years, probably decades. >

Of course they would have a bad time, but name any invader that had a good time the last 50 years. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan 1, Afghanistan 2, Iraq etc. (I guess the 1991 Gulf war sticks out).  Didn't stop any of those wars from happening. And as it stands right now Finland might actually survive on it's own. But as I see it, that's not our goal with NATO, our goal is to not become a battleground. And I think a stable and predictable Russia is a safer neighbour than an unstable Russia.
And think of it like this: we are smaller countries, like Ukraine (but even smaller). Ukraine is putting up a hell of a fight, but we must also not be blinded by feats of heroism. Ukraine has been in full war economy and mobilization, their economy is right now living off of donations, they receive state of the art intelligence without which they would be blind, they receive training in untouchable facilities abroad. Western air defence systems have denied the crucial air superiority and has been absolutely vital for aid packages from NATO protected supply lines in Poland that Russia cannot strike. Remove any of those advantages and we might not be laughing.
Russia in the meanwhile has had a small partial mobilization and still has peace economy. Without the massive and instantaneous sanctions their economy would not have budged.
I agree with the sentiment Russia has overestimated their forces, underestimated the resilience of the Ukrainian people. They have further underestimated the fast economical and diplomatical response of primarily the United states and United Kingdom.
As a Swede, we have been unprepared for every major conflict during the 20th century, in a false sense of security that other countries won't or can't start wars. During the 21st, for once, I'd like to be over-prepared instead of under. >


Ukraine is putting up a hell of a fight, but we must also not be blinded by feats of heroism. Ukraine has been in full war economy and mobilization, their economy is right now living off of donations

In 2021, before the war, the average Ukrainian only made about 23000 UAH a year. That's equivalent to 6555 SEK or 6145 NOK with current exchange rates. I think you guys can afford a lot more than they could if you had to, without being overly reliant on donations.
Americans with money tend to admire the Nordic countries as well, much more than UA before the war, so I think you'd have an overabundance of personal donations on top of the better economy. >

Yes of course, we are richer so war is nothing to us. Hell, we should practically welcome war at our door step. The logic is astounding.
You think some things are hard to argue against on reddit like "I prefer to not have war in my country" but atleast 4 people have tried to argue it would be just fine. Some even thought we should counter invade Russia while we are at it lol. >

I told you to relax. Daym man :D. Yes, russia was a threat before the start of this year. Attack would have sucked. I would probably be dead too, being a fucking reservist. I realise the stakes here. But that was then. Russian attack on Finland never made any sense: Finland is bad farmland, doesn't have natural resources to speak of and doesn't alone control any important waterways, people and culture have nothing in common (even russian minority tends to be anti-russian, or distrustful of russians), and it borders on Norway, a NATO country. And only 5m or so people. Finland was a perfect buffer against NATO for russia because Finland wanted to use trading with russia to prosper and thus had incentive to stay neutral. It was somewhat controversial topic but wasn't gonna change. Yes, we were aligned with the west but we wanted to be neutral ground, that means no missiles flying in either direction of our country if we had something to say about it. We didn't want to, and still don't want to, become the battleground of a potential war. In invading Finland russia would have done the exact thing it didn't want to: expand its border with NATO. So the whole NATO debate was just that. There wasn't really a point in actually joining because there wasn't really going to be a conflict due to points above.
However, as we know, russia isn't always a rational actor and thus can do pretty damn stupid shit just to expand its empire, and this is why we never abolished our defense forces. To further incentivize russia to not do it. It also worked to show russia that in a hypothetical scenario that west was gonna march its troops to russia through Finland finnish defense force would stop them, or at least slow them down. We kinda did this in the past (although it was half theater).
But this war with Ukraine showed us that russia, or rather putin, is far more gone than we hoped, being complete basket case. Thus we determined that negatives outweight the benefits and decided to act.
Now we get to current date. Russia has lost most of its modern weapons, its elite troops, equipment etc. The remaining stuff is people and junk and while you could still overwhelm Finland by sending millions of clubmen here this time West is awake and can send ammunition and equipment fast, given that Finland isn't even blocked now. The war on 2 fronts is even harder for russia, and given their show of logistics in Ukraine, impossible for them. They are in no shape to start another war, even if they wanted to. So relax.
But even if russia becomes non-threat there are still threats in the world. It's always wise to maintain some military preparedness. But don't lose sleep over it.
Merry Xmas. >

Cute because Erdrogan is not even halfway to being a fraction the leader Atatürk was. >

You set the targets wrong. Erdogan wants to be Putin 2.0.
His competitor is potato man from Belarus, not a historic leader. >

That's Lukashenka. Putin is an FSB/mafia hybrid from St. Petersburg. >

That's OK, Turkey isn't half way to EU candidacy so I suspect it evens out somehow. >

Please, someone get rid of Erdogan already. >

Translation: Turkey has their hand out for NATO subsidies and concessions. >

Soon Turkey will be the only one saying that so it is more of an issue to Nato open doors policy than it is to Sweden / Finland. I hope we wait as long as it takes, not worth appeasing dictator wannabes.
Edit: fixed grammar >

Erdogan could be gone in 6 months anyway they should just wait to negotiate after the elections. >

GIVE GREECE F35S NOW! BOOT THE WATERMELON SELLER FROM NATO! >

Yeah, I feel giving Greece F35s is probably the best way to send a message to Erdogan. >

Is this some sort of cultural thing? It's like every interaction in that part of the world has to be swindled and exploited with zero good faith involved. >

It's an authoritarian leader in a nation that is still more democratic than it isn't tossing weight to the outside world in a bid to appear strong to his base in a coming election. 
Erdogan ran the nation into the ground. Following Turkey's rejection from EU candidacy, Erdogan's policy has been one of "fuck you EU, not only does turkey not need your stupid club, you need Turkey."
At first this was just grand standard to his nationalistic base, but then the migrant crisis happened and, honestly, it was the best thing that could have happened to him extending his rule. Turkey actually had a bargaining position that could be spun to make Erdogan look like a strong leader to the so-called "West." 
Well, years later and after running the economy into the ground and bringing the nation into a controversial proxy war with Russia, Erdogan has been revealed as an emperor with no clothes. All this stuff with Sweden is him grasping at straws to still look strong for his base. 
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the first actions of whoever replaces him (assuming it isn't the islamist party) will be to end this charade, bring Sweden, and by extension Finland, into NATO and start rebuilding relationships. >

Fucking Turkey 🦃! Sweden and Finland should call their bluff….or should I say Erdogan’s bluff >

I’m 100% sure that in case of an “emergency”, Turkey will do nothing as member of NATO. They will avoid protecting others! They simply don’t care and don’t have the same values. >

Couldn’t they just make a new treaty as an addition that includes Sweden et al, and tell Turkey that if those *new countries are attacked, Turkey isn’t responsible for defense? This way, non moronic NATO nations would be signatories to two treaties, NATO and the “Northern Europe defense alliance “ or whatever.
This would seem to satisfy all parties involved.
Pretty sure that we could handle things without Turkey’s assistance. >

Fuck Turkey. At some point that dictatorship is more trouble than it's worth. >

Turkey can start by shipping all the criminals that committed crimes in Sweden that are in hiding in Turkey.
We don't  have an extradition agreement.
We protect free speech (most people they want extradited are journalists). They protect childmolesters, rapists and murderes from facing justice in my country. 
So I say it again, suck my ass Erdogan. >

The only criminals that turkey cares about are their political opposition members that seek asylum in other countries >

Being a political opponent doesn’t magically make someone into a criminal that can be extradited. There has to be… actual crimes involved that are so serious that extradition would be considered. By the courts, which don’t take orders from politicians, hence it’s pointless for Turkey to harp on about it. >

Fuck Turkey >

Sweden and Finland joining NATO makes the baltic into a NATO-sea. There are more bodies of water than the bosporus, you know? >

The fact that Turkey has the power to prevent Sweden from joining NATO is ridiculous. >

So let's say there was a defensive alliance called the "Even More North Atlantic Treaty Organization" (EMNATO).  EMNATO consist of Sweden, Finland, and all of NATO's members except Turkey and Hungary.  EMNATO works just like NATO, they will copy/paste all of NATO's doctrines and standards and whatnot. Functionally identical otherwise, just with a slightly different membership list.  Oh and it gets all the budget money, too. >

Or US can just go “yeah we’ll nuke anyone who unilaterally invades Finland or Sweden. The end.”
What? That’s absurd! What kind of new NATO are you forming?
“Nothing. It’s just an assurance to a couple of allies. Purely defensive. We don’t need a name for it.” >


unilaterally 

Why does it matter if it's unilateral or not? >

Fuck Turkey >

having a large military is not the key thing to being in a defense alliance. how you plan on using your military is key to being in a defense alliance. and who trusts Turkey, after how Erdogan's been behaving lately? its big military does no good to anyone if the Turkish political leadership decides not to be a dependable, trustworthy partner. >

If Sweden and Finland would fail to join, that would be the greatest failure in international diplomacy in decades. The US should step up efforts to make Erdogan step in line, this is a failure being the most powerful NATO member >

I was wondering how this was the US' fault this time lol >

Could always ship some freedom to whoever needs it… >

Isn’t it 28/30 the way there you fucks? >

Time for NATO 2.0, without Turkey and Hungary. >

Can we just ignore Turkey for a bit. >

When you have "allies" like Turkey, you don't need enemies >

I have an idea: Let's swap Turkey for Sweden. Sweden at least contributes to human civilisation and has never performed genocide on anyone. >

Not true, unfortunately. The "försvenskning" in the 1600s  most definitely qualifies as a genocide, and not many people know about it. >

Ok but can we go ahead and allow Finland in ? Finland is the one bordering Russia and would be the one that would be invaded first. >

Finland and Sweden made joint statements early on in the process to the effect that their applications were a package deal, both of them or neither one. i hope they both stick to that, personally, having either one left out would be politically and practically difficult for the other. >

It's best to throw Putin-loving Erdogan's Turkey out and have Sweden and Finland if ErDOGan keeps playing hardball. He wants Sweden to extradite all the Kurds to Turkey for summary execution. >

turkey occupies too strategically important an area, they know they cannot be thrown out. The thinly veiled threat is that they would give the strategic advantage to russia if they are thrown out. 
That's why erdogan is trying to squeeze every bit of concession out of finland and sweden. It's how the game is played. >

And NATO would have to defend corrupt Turkiye? How about Turkiye out and Sweden in? Turkiye acting reckless picking fights in Crete, Greece, Armenia, and Syria, and is one of Muscovy's biggest partners. No thanks to that security liability... >

Turkeys geography makes it essential and an important strategic ally.
Edit: im not saying we should give in to discount dictator Erdogans blackmailing btw, and im 100% supporting SWE FIN NATO accession. Just stating that "just kick Turkey out of NATO" isnt going to happen. >

I saw you downvoted because people are frustrated, but you're right. Let's not shoot the messenger guys.
Edit: if you'd like to dispute the fact the Bosporus has immense strategic value instead of down voting, feel free to add to the discussion lads. I will forward it to the strategic institutes. >

Thanks, i was just stating the objective fact, not saying we should give in to Erdogan. >

Yeah, I think you are on the money. Erdogan knows he has a good geopolitical position to abuse whether we like it or not.
Not aknowledging that just makes every other NATO country look bad for not intervening. >

Turkey should never be in NATO in the first place especially considering he’s making war threats to Greece, another NATO country. >

AKA: Is the US watching this? We want american designed nuclear reactors; this is a quid pro quo >

But this türkyish Dictator is beyond half of his lifetime! >

How long until Turkish elections?