>

Unfortunately, Turkey isn't ruled by someone like Atatürk these days, but that incompetent, corrupt and delusional asshole Erdogan.
I dislike Turkey as much as everyone else but to be honest its kinda weird to have a ban on arms sales to a country you are supposed to be in a military alliance with. 
But i know other NATO countries have a ban on sales of weapons to Turkey and i dont know the backstory, so for all i know it could make sense. >

Turkey is the only NATO country with the S-400, which is a Russian anti-aircraft / anti-missile defense system. The response was to not sell Turkey advanced jets like the F-35 because the fear was the S-400 could be used to determine the F-35s' weaknesses and flaws - whether done overtly by Turkey, or covertly by Russia.
It should be noted there are a few other NATO countries that have the S-300 system (developed in the mid/late 2000s) which is still dangerous, but no longer cutting edge or as much as a threat to the more advanced fighters. >

IIRC it was a networking issue. The US did not want an f35 to be on the same network as a s400 setup. >

CBA to change that WiFi password 🤷 >

Don't be silly. The F35 runs on Bluetooth >

That's why the recent f35 crash happened, lost its connection to remote controller >

The one in Texas? >

Yeah >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)


HELSINKI - Finland and Sweden have adopted a common "Future ally" approach with Turkey in an attempt to fast-track their NATO membership - something hindered by the Ankara government.
Neither Finland nor Sweden imposed a formal ban on arms exports to Turkey.
In soliciting Turkey's support for NATO membership, Sweden and Finland have also found themselves defending their positions and policies toward the Kurdish PYD Democratic Union Party and its armed militia, the Syrian Kurdish YPG. The PYD has links to the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, which the U.S. and the European Union, including Finland and Sweden, consider a terrorist organization.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Turkey^#1 Sweden^#2 Finland^#3 export^#4 NATO^#5 >

Not that I advocate this, but is there anything to stop them from reversing the policies once they are full members? If the situation changes, Sweden and Finland could change their minds back. Maybe I’d feel differently if Turkish democracy would go forward again and Erdogan stop jailing his opponents. >

It would be exactly what Türkiye deserves. A slap in the face for selling NATO membership in such a corrupt way. The deal is we defend each other if attacked. Not a corrupt deal of I'll let you in if you help me get revenge on these people that I'm accusing of staging what I'm calling a coup even though accoring to me I did nothing wrong. This kind of corruption will ruin our institutions. >


The deal is we defend each other if attacked.

I want you to let me in a military alliance where you are obliged to defend me if it necessary, however I will put arms embargo on you yet you still have to approve my application because as a westerner I am entitled to anything I want. >

Most of NATO has arms embargos against Turkey, a situation that Turkey went out of its way to achieve. >

"Most" is exaggerating. Turkey still gets a lot from other members. With the exception of Erdogan being authoritarian and buying S400, all other decisions that caused sanctions were worth it. 
Plus, bold of you to assume Turkey would let the others in if they were in Finland or Sweden's position. >

One thing people overlook is that turkey is one of the oldest NATO members. Does it matter here? Probably not