comment: >
  
  Surprised Erdogan hasn't choked on his breakfast or something.
context: This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Washington is using the potential sale of F-16 fighter jets as bait to force Ankara to ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO membership applications, Bloomberg writes.
  Following last week's protest, Turkey summoned the Swedish ambassador, opened an investigation and canceled a planned visit to Ankara by the speaker of the Swedish parliament.
  The U.S. has warned Turkey that Congress may not approve the plane sale if Ankara does not ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO bids, a senior Turkish official said on condition of anonymity.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Sweden^#1 NATO^#2 Turkey^#3 Erdogan^#4 Finland^#5 >
  
  Turkey should not be allowed to compromise NATO security. The US should do more than just hold up weapons sales. >
  
  The US will likely do more, but only if it's necessary. >
  
  The reality is Sweden and Finland already have security assurances from the US and other NATO countries, so in more ways than not they're already in NATO. The US and the rest of NATO have all the time in the world to pressure Turkey to give its vote, there's no real urgency to do it fast.
  Edit: Yes, I get it, Ukraine had security assurances too, Trump didn't uphold previous agreements, blah blah. They're in the European Union which has its own mutual defense agreement and even though it's not in the EU, Norway would absolutely not tolerate Russia invading Sweden or Finland. >
  
  Treaties ratified in the USA are binding on us as Federal law. That I includes NATO. Russia’s nightmare is knowing we WILL react if they hit these places. 
  Get them in NATO. It cripples Russia. >
  
  
  It cripples Russia
  
  Major thing to point out - it will only cripple them if they decide to attack.
  So as long as they don't act like bitchass punks, they're fine. >
  
  Basically, it "cripples" their ability to be a thuggish hegemon in the region. But if they just trade normally and do diplomacy like everyone else, theyd probably be flourishing, if not for all the attendant corruption. >
  
  AKA: Don't act like a cunt, and you won't get fucked. >
  
  Don't start nothin', won't BE nothin'. >
  
  Talk shit, get hit >
  
  What are the odds that Turkey's reluctance is just political posturing from Erdogan ahead of the 2023 general election coming up in June? Not at all familiar with Turkey's political landscape, but it does seem like a plausible explanation for Turkey's stance so far. >
  
  Not quite, Sweden's entry into NATO is protested by most of the political spectrum within Turkey. ( I have seen almost zero opposition to Finland ) 
  Erdoğan is being criticized for failing to extort enough suspects from Sweden.
  As for opposition parties, they are disdained by worsening European relations. I remember the head of the main opposition party saying "This issue should have been resolved behind closed doors." >
  
  Why is Sweden, who's bordered by NATO countries already, protested and not Finland, who borders Russia? >
  
  Their issues are not on behalf of Russia, but the support of kurds in the region >
  
  If there is one single thing the middle east can agree on it's their disdain for the kurds and their desire for independence. >
  
  I'm not middle eastern, but I'm guessing because there's many of them spanning three or four countries. If they had their country, it would take HUGE chunks from places like Turkey and Iran, which I'm sure they're not keen on. >
  
  This is indeed the case. Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran all have Kurdish populations. It's such a problem RN because due to instability in Syria among other things, they've gained a lot of autonomy/ground there. Turkey and Iraq are particularly worried as they border the kurdish populations that are in Syria and are afraid it's going to spill over/support their own separatist movements. 
  Wouldn't be surprised if Erdogan went full steam ahead with his safe zone plan in northern Syria. War gets the home support for his reelection going. >
  
  No no, lets see what will Erdogan do if the answer to his antics is just.. silence. Not like we (finland and sweden) are in a hurry. I mean we thought we might be, but it seems that Russia is going to dissolve all on its own, so.. have at it, Turkey >
  
  Yeah this whole situation got a lot less tense when it became obvious that Russia was going to struggle in Ukraine. I can’t imagine you guys are particularly worried at this stage. >
  
  Russia attacking Finland would be flat out insanity. The Finns have been prepping for almost 80 years. It was clear it would be a bloodbath even before the state of Russia's military was exposed. >
  
  Unfortunately Finnish defence strategy is not based on deflecting the Russian invasion. It is based on making it very costly and stupid move.
  Putin has shown that he does not care about casualties nor do many russians. Finland can't really win a war where Russia would be willing to have over 300k casualties.
  In my opinion, even with the state of Russian military exposed, Russia could realistically wage a war that Finland would not be able to deflect. >
  
  Finland on its own, probably not. Finland supplied by NATO countries, as seen in Ukraine, can probably last a long time. Finnish terrain is much harder to fight in than Ukraine's, it would be way worse for Russia than they are currently experiencing. >
  
  Finland could be embargoed though.
  In case of war, I still think it would be likely that Sweden would join the war out of the danger of having Russia as its neighbour. Their best deterrent against Russia is Finland in between.
  Finnish landscape is heavy forests, lakes and swamps so I agree on that. It would be harder than Ukraine and Finland would be heavily defended and supplied by Nato members (also EU has defence pact) but in the end, Russia has shown that it doesn't really care about pointless wars. >
  
  Finlands strategy is to just fuck their shit up and complete victory is more of an afterthought.
  We have such thick forests the only way to get through is with small roads and dealing with them we have motti tactics. Bridges and tunnels are made so they can be easily destroyed and bunkers for nearly all, because we know Russia doesn't play fair.
  Compared to Ukraine the geography is switched from large fields of farm land (easy for large invasion in good weather.) To finlands small roads in bum fuck nowhere with lakes and swamps
  Oh and the government mandates that vital medicine and other products must have extra for minimum of 3 months if supplies are cut. >
  
  As we should. We’ve been far too patient with them as it is. >
  
  Remember when Erdogan came to D.C. and had his thugs beat the shit out of a crowd of protesters and nobody did shit about it?
  Fuck Turkey >
  
  Well specifically fuck Erdogan. >
  
  He was elected into office by the people, he didn't appear out of nowhere. >
  
  I can stand by his initial election. His systematic elimination of checks and balances since then is unforgivable imo, but that’s overwhelmingly on him. >
  
  Actually you shouldnt, the guy was banned from politics for live because he said "mosques are our source of obedient warriors" or something alike. >
  
  What you’re saying fits with my narrative just fine. My (less than expert/academic) understanding is that there was real popular backlash against the secularization of Turkish society. The people genuinely loved politicians who showed backbone standing up for their religious beliefs. That is an entirely legitimate reason to vote for a candidate in a democracy. >
  
  "we want democracy and freedom to vote in who we want!"
  "You guys voted in who??!!" >
  
  But that's not exactly true of Turkey. Modern Turkey was set up as a secular and modern state first and a democratic state second, or more accurately, "eventually".
  Attaturk was both liberal and a secularist but he lead a dictatorship and was rather harsh on religious sentiment. His goal was to eventually transition to a democracy but with checks and the main check was on religion. 
  That model was imported from France (laicite) and even kept the same name (laiklik/laicism) because France had the same issues with the catholic church having enormous influence and making democratic elections meaningless when it exerted it uncontrolled. 
  My point is that the mission statement of Turkey in its founding wasn't that it would be a great democracy where all voices are heard but that it would be a modern, secular and national state where voices opposed to that would fade or be faded away. >
  
  That is super interesting, thanks for sharing. Do that have separation of church and state in their constitution?
  PS sketchy username given the context lol >
  
  Erdogan is a massive asshat that needs some perspective. Hopefully this will suffice. >
  
  It won’t. >
  
  Why wouldn't it? People like him understands the use of power. >
  
  I’ve read that Erdogan’s responded to inflation with a rigid adherence to Islamic economics. He probably has advisors who understand cause and effect, but he’s responding ideologically. >
  
  When an extortionist gets extorted. Beautiful! [insert michael fassbender steve job "perfection"meme] >
  
  It is a shame that the U.S. has to use anything at all.
  Shame on Erdogan. Shame on Orban. >
  
  Good thing about a significantly weakened Russia that's mostly reduced to fighting with literal antiques, or even a disintegrated Russia that, say, loses the Caucus, is that these eastern European strongmen make much less sense as buffers. They become expendible to the EU and NATO, or, their states being depressurized gives democracy a chance to flourish. I suspect we'll see this with Belarus first post-war. >
  
  That's an interesting, hopeful take on the situation!
  Regarding Belarus, how do you mean? Do you think Lukashenko will try to be more democratic? Will the people rise up against him because there's no more support from Russia left? Something else? >
  
  Lukashenko may not have Russia to come step in for the next uprising against him. >
  
  I don't get this title. The US isn't "forcing" Turkey. Continuing the sale of F-16 fighter jets was one of Erdogan's goals with blocking the ratifications.
  Another goal is to get free rein in Northern Syria to kill the YPG, which the US will most likely grant. A final goal would be the resumed participation of Turkey in the F-35 program - that one would be a huge win for Turkey if granted. Given that Finland and Sweden are unlikely to give in to Turkish demands, I wonder if Turkey will push harder for the F35 program especially given the recent news that Greece is getting them. >
  
  Just isn’t possible while S-400’s are present in Turkey. The U.S. literally doesn’t want the jet scanned by that RADAR. >
  
  Turkey gives s400s to Ukraine. Us gives f35 and patriots to turkey, in exchange for ratifying Sweden and Finland into NATO. Bingo bango. >
  
  That won't happen either, because Turkey wants technology transfer also for the AA system (patriot or otherwise), which USA is unwilling to share. Only Russia was willing to share the technology for S-400. >
  
  Turkey didn't get full technology transfer as they wanted from Russia. >
  
  Which makes their decision even more baffling than before. They knew that purchasing a Russian AA system would jeopardize their position in the F-35 program, so getting less than what they wanted and losing their place in that program just doesn't make sense long term.
  Unless they got something else also (like the promise for nuclear weapons knowledge transfer). >
  
  Allegedly Russia cut Turkey a real good deal for the S-400s to wheedle their way in. >
  
  A really good deal would have to compensate for the jobs lost in Turkish defence industry (Turkey was manufacturing the wings for F-35s), and give something extra too.
  I'm getting more and more convinced they got a deal for nuclear weapons technology transfer, on top of the second nuclear station that Rosatom will build in Turkey. >
  
  There we go. In theory the Western nations should be able to apply enough diplomatic pressure to get it done. If someone like Erdogan decides to go all in and ignore it, though, NATO has a big problem. >
  
  I am of the perception that if Erdogan throws his toys out the pram and blocking Sweden and Finland, then NATO will simply do like the EU does with Hungary and basically work around them.
  Sure, neither will be real members, but they will just be included and covered so much that there really wont be much difference.... save perhaps that no soldiers from Finland and Sweden will be visiting Turkey and vice versa... and Erdogan may have to wait even longer for those new jets. >
  
  
  said "why are we supporting Ukraine so much when they are not in Nato?".
  
  Kind of scary that people have forgotten WW2 already. You can't appease a dictator - appeasement means you have a bigger fight later. >
  
  Hahaha, what a way to name a situation in which Erdogan gets the best deal with US from ratifying Sweden and Finland NATO entries.
  This reminds me of a Soviet joke:
  "A Foot Race In Moscow Between World Leaders” read the headline.“Today in Timiryazevsky Park world leaders participated in a 100 meter foot race.  Our Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, finished a very respectable second place.  The poor American President, John F. Kennedy finished a miserable next-to-last." >
  
  Some comment that Turkey could leave NATO. Turkey can’t leave NATO because If they do, they can’t bully Greece any more. >
  
  Worse than that - if Turkey leaves NATO, NATO loses control of the Bosporus, the only way in or out of the Black Sea for ships larger than river barges from the Rhine-Main-Danube. 
  Russia hasn’t reinforced its Black Sea fleet as Turkey has cut off access to the Bosporus for them. Simply put, they’re too strategically important for NATO to risk losing. >
  
  Yes, this is it - Turkey sits on strategically important land, and therefore they will be in NATO.
  And so they must be appeased, to a certain extent. >
  
  Yeah. If NATO had to pick between Sweden/Finland and Turkey, they would pick Turkey 100%. Not only is Turkey infinitely more important strategically than Finland or Sweden, but also they know that neither Finland nor Sweden are going to fall out of their sphere of influence even if they aren't in NATO. Meanwhile if Turkey left NATO, they wpuld definitely just fall off their friend list entirely and in worst case scenario maybe even end up siding with Russia at some point in the future. >
  
  It's about time someone twisted Erdogan's arm for abusing their position in the alliance. >
  
  "Let us be part of F35 program again, or we won't approve." -Erogdan
  "Uhh, how about no F16s?" -US >
  
  This is the only logical step. Turkey is too important to NATO strategically and Erdogan knows this. 
  Sweden and Finland said it best: "We have bent over backwards meeting Turkey's demands and they just keep moving the goal posts."
  Now if Turkey wants to play jet ball, they need to check their bullshit. >
  
  That's not really what happened. Turkey made demands from the start that were outrageous and that Sweden/Finland would never meet (rightly). >
  
  Sort of, their demands haven't to my knowledge been given as a point by point list - it's always been couched in general 'concerns'.
  The deal which Sweden and Finland struck have been adhered to, the problem is that which was agreed to is being spun and interpreted by Turkey in a way that's never going to fly. 
  For example, Sweden agreed to process their extradition requests through the legal system and the next day Turkish spokespeople comes out with a list of people they claim will now be extradited, including political refugees like journalists who are protected from such extraditions by law. >
  
  Again again I think thank fuk the Joe is in charge in the states instead or the orange muppet >
  
  yeah, can you imagine how bad the situation in europe and nato would be if that puppet was still in the big chair?   
  How the heck did people ever vote for cheeto mussolini? >
  
  I approve. >
  
  You and everyone who is not an imbecile >
  
  As a Finn I feel embarrassed that USA already has to bail us out. Though I hope that the military industrial complex won't be too much inconvenienced at the responsibility of making more money.
  Finland and Turkey used to have a special sort of relationship, if only because it was one of our main places to go on holidays. I was in Turkey many years ago and there were even locals who had learned the Finnish language just to serve those tourists better. I doubt that the relations have ever been worse than they are now.  Once we're in Nato we really need to take a much tougher stance on Turkey, at least until Erdogan is hanging from a tree or rotting away in a prison cell. >
  
  
  As a Finn I feel embarrassed that USA already has to bail us out.
  
  Nobody else in NATO sees this delay as any fault of Finland or Sweden, it's literally just Erdogan being a little bitch.
  You guys are plenty welcome. >
  
  Good. Let the little troll choke on that. >
  
  Good, Erdogan should remember he isn't the biggest kid on the geopolitical block. He's overplaying this hand and needs to fold. >
  
  
  Good, Erdogan should remember he isn't the biggest kid on the geopolitical block. He's overplaying this hand and needs to fold.
  
  He isn't even the biggest kid in Europe. >
  
  Is it "you wont get planes if you dont ratify" or "you will get planes if you ratify"?
  Im pretty sure Turkey was banned from purchasing F16s due to other shit they pulled off. "Baiting" them with f16s seems like turkeys win >
  
  I thought they only got kicked out of the F35 club (for buying russian S300 missile systems)? >
  
  It’s a little weird because turkey actually purchased S400 anti-air systems because they wanted to purchase United States patriot batteries, but they were asking for too much because they also wanted technology transfer to be partially constructed in turkey domestically. The US said that was absolutely not possible with good reason. Hell it’s very rare for even the absolute closest of allies to get any kind of technology transfer much less on the highly sophisticated patriots. 
  So Turkey started the process to purchase S400 systems. They were told repeatedly that that would get them removed from the F35 program. F35 is only for trusted allies and it’s simply not possible to include a country 
  that is doing close weapons purchases from Russia. Plus they did not wanna sell F 35 to a country that operated S 400 since they did not want, the radar signature of the F 35 to be scanned and tested on the S 400 before it’s absolutely necessary. Basically turkeys overplayed their hand and thought the US was bluffing. >
  
  Ankara..... Messi? >
  
  More like Erdogan ensured the continual sale of fighter jets and set the precedent that he can leverage NATO votes for weapons.