>

Sweden designated PKK as a terrorist organization in 1984.
Sweden would probably benefit from Finland joining in any case. >

Russian irredentists consider Finland to be rightful Russian clay along with Chechnya, the Baltics, and all of Ukraine. The Russian Empire annexed Finland before it annexed Chechnya. Putin and other Russian irredentists still hate Lenin for loosening Russian control over Ukraine and letting completely go of Finland.
The threat against Finland is real. >

Ukraine and Russia used to be a Swedish colony, so the threat against Russia from the Swedish empire is also real, according to Russian logic. >

Norse, Viking even, but it's a bit of a stretch to call it Swedish, no? Although I know little about the etymology of Swede and when it first arose, so I could be very wrong. >

Sweden's traditionally made up of Götaland ("Goth's land"), Svealand ("Swede's land"), and Norrland ("North land"), with Roslagen being a region in Svealand. Rurik was "Swedish" in the sense that he was from Svealand which later went on to give its name to Sweden, but at the time "Swedish" would not have been understood as it is today but rather as a tribe. IIRC Tacitus mentions the Suiones in one of his works, so he name is attested well before Rurik's time. >

The internet is awesome. This was interesting. >

Added bonus info dump:
Götaland and Svealand were the two "original" parts of Sweden, with Götaland split into Västra and Östra Götaland (West and East respectively) and the three united lands being represented by the Three Crowns, a heraldic symbol of Sweden used to this day (e.g. the national hockey team of Sweden are "Tre Kronor", literally "Three Crowns"). Norrland got added quite a bit later when Sweden decided that the inland parts of the country was ours too. This was a few centuries after (the coastal parts of) Finland were conquered, so relatively more recent (sort of starting in the second half of the 1500s IIRC). Whether this was colonialism or not is not a subject I particularly care to opine on, as far more knowledgeable people than I have debated the question; I feel that it's fair to mention that the answer to the question might depend on who you ask though. It's a mess.
Bonus bonus: Gothenburg is, of course, situated in Götaland, while Stockholm and Uppsala (which was a religious center of power in Svealand back during the Norse era) are in Svealand. While the area had been inhabited for a loooooong time Stockholm as a city wasn't founded until Sweden was united, in 1252. >

I want to subscribe to more Nordic history lessons. >

You should visit. >

My grandmother came to USA from Malmo…I’ve been to Stockholm, it’s beautiful!!! Love the people & want to return & see the whole country…❤️🇸🇪❤️ >

Pekka Haavisto clarifies Sweden Nato comments, joining together still the main priority

Apparently reacting to Haavisto's comments, Finland's Defence Minister Mikko Savola (Cen) said on Twitter that it was to Nato's, Finland's and Sweden's advantage if the two countries become members at the same time. >

The title on this article is just garbage. What Haavisto said was that it may be necessary to consider going alone if there's a blockade on Sweden for a very long time, but that it's too early to talk about it. Going together is still the top priority. >

Erdogan probably won't agree to Finland joining either, though. >

God he’s such a fucking tool. >

Bought and paid for.
As a person who enjoys Russian history, it's very weird to see Turkey fighting the west with Russia.  Usually it's the other way round. >

Mean while Orban is just whistling and twiddels hus thumbs… >

Of course they should. They are in a much more vulnerable situation than Sweden. We'll join later, if we can. >

Yeah. I get the symbolism/optics may not be as good as both joining at the same time, but the war has shown that maximizing the time you spend preparing for conflict is key. The earlier either country can join NATO, the earlier its forces can be integrated into existing defense systems and true adjustments can be made to those systems. We can always catch up later with Sweden if need be. They won’t be blocked forever. 
Likewise, Turkey has had a bad run with an idiot leader, but hopefully they’ll be able to get rid of him and return to the fold. Beyond Turkey’s obvious strategic importance, we shouldn’t be looking to throw countries out just for electing obstructionist shitheads (glass houses). >

I disagree, turkey isn't having a "leader bad" moment.
The sooner people realize this the sooner the problem will be resolved. Many people in the comments have no clue about how Turkey has always been bullying greece and threatening their borders daily even when both countries are in NATO. Greece even was one of the first countries to push Turkey into EU. Turkey in the last few years has become even worse under erdogan, but don't let that fool you, since the opposition of the government hold the same views when it comes to bullying greece. In 2020 just before covid they allowed thousands of refugees to try attack the Greek land border. Till today, they are constantly trespassing air borders and then the jets have to go intercept them.
You won't know this I assume since you are not from around here, but Erdogan literally on multiple occasions, at least few times a month past few months, comes out on the news channels or his parliament and says they will come one night and attack greece, or when they said their new missile will easily reach and possibly destroy athens. And those statements don't come only from erdogan, but from multiple other government people. The populace is also repeating these statements to Greeks in like every comment section on reddit or insta. 
So please, unless you have actual knowledge of how Turkey works and it's actions in the past decades, don't come here bulls'*ing that it's just erdogan, because it's simply not. His actions against Greece are mostly liked by the general populace. But alas, NATO has and will do nada over this. So just because Turkey isn't threatening your existence and home on the daily, it doesn't mean it's not doing it to anyone else. >

All that may be true, but ultimately Erdogan/Turkey doesn't actually care about Sweden or whether they join NATO or not. He is just using this as posturing ahead of coming elections. >

He's using it for concessions. Erdogan isn't worried about elections, that's already been decided. He does however like playing Russia against NATO, as well as getting the benefits from blocking any new members into NATO, knowing they desperately want to join and he alone can stand in their way. Erodogan has grand plans knowing that he holds the keys to the kingdom. He's already worked in a new pipeline from Russia (and all the royalties coming from that). Who knows what else he has planned. His lust for power and money knows no bounds. >

I do think that if Finland can join without having to compromise democratic values, we (Sweden) should let them join on their own. They have a large border to defend, and I am not comfortable denying Finland security if they can get it. We swedes can wait. I find it hard to see how the enemy could really attack us anyway.
Edit: I saw some notes about my use of "let them join". I certainly do not intend to imply that it is up to Sweden to dictate what Finland does only, as someone suggested, letting go of the commitment to join together. I would also prefer to stick to joining together if that is possible without risking the safety of Finland. >

That is generous of you to say so. Throughout my life, when NATO has been mentioned in a purely hypothetical conversation, the consensus has always been that Finland would only ever consider it only if Sweden did too. Never expecting that such a situation could ever arise, of course.
Now it seems that Finland may join without Sweden. I am personally uncomfortable with that. I think Biden/USA should have a serious conversation with both Erdoğan and Orbán along the lines of preventing a valuable NATO upgrade.
Time as always will tell. >

Erdogan is having elections in May. He will drop the hardliner rhetoric after them with some sweet deal from the west. This is just a play on his end. >

I mean, equally he’ll drop the headliner rhetoric if we threaten to send his economy back to the Stone Age and confiscate everything west of the Bosporus back to Greece. I don’t believe in appeasing would be dictators. >

you cannot confiscate what is not yours and alienate a vital geopolitical ally. Like it or not Turkey is a stable ally that we cannot afford to lose. >

You can confiscate something that is rightfully someone else’s. And Constantinople is rightfully Greek. Turkey is absolutely not a stable or reliable ally, hence why we’re having this discussion in the first place. All they have to do is rubber stamp Swedens membership and they can’t even do that. >


And Constantinople is rightfully Greek.

Sorry, but what? Constantinople was never greek. Please do learn your history. -.- >

Of course it is. Greece is the successor state to Byzantium. >

No it's not. This is like saying Israel is the successor to the Israelite kingdoms. Turkey is however successor to the Ottomans given that empire collapsed to birth modern turkey >

Even if Sweden can't join, it would be pretty much surrounded by NATO countries if Finland joined meaning it would be safe on its borders and the only way Russia could attack would be by sea which would most likely not end well for Russia at all >

They've been losing ships to a country with no navy... Or their own fuckups, depending on which one you choose to believe. Both don't bode well for the idea. >

They should certainly try to join as soon as possible. NATO and the West in general isn’t going to let another European country be invaded by Russia, I think they’d come to Sweden’s defense anyway - all this posturing from Turkey won’t change that. >

There's still a difference between intervening in the way the West has intervened in Ukraine, which would be the likely way we'd help Sweden/Finland as well, and having boots on the ground and pulverizing the invaders ten seconds after they cross the border. >

I don’t know, Sweden has been closer aligned to Western countries, the EU, and NATO than Ukraine was - and aren’t there a number of NATO countries that doubled down on defending Sweden? I agree with you that I don’t think we’d see boots on the ground, but I do think at this point we could see air strikes and drone strikes, definitely a no fly zone I’d bet. Even then, I bet if a country did step out of line and did put boots on the ground - you’d see other countries do the same to not look like the weak link in the alliance.
Also, it’s definitely worth mentioning that Ukraine has done a number on Russian forces and it’s absolutely wild to think Russia thinks their in a position to open up another war front in a country they don’t already have a foot in. >

I don't know enough about the treaties involved to say anything with absolute certainty, but since Sweden is a member of the EU, they fall under article 42.7, the EU mutual defense clause, so EU countries would almost certainly have the right (and arguably duty) to put boots on the ground in its defense. Obviously not the same as having the overblown nuclear cock of the US military budget available, but clearly more than enough to deal with Russia.
Although it should be mentioned that 42.7 is widely considered pretty toothless and this would be its first test, so who knows what would actually happen.
All that being said, I agree about the silliness of Russia opening another front, they can barely keep the one they already have together! >

Finland and Sweden have both signed mutual defence pacts with the UK, a nuclear power. And all key NATO members have publicly stated they would defend Finland and Sweden in case of any Russian attack (e.g. France, also a nuclear power). Both are well protected. 
By contrast, Ukraine never had any such guarantees or promises. In the often cited Budapest memorandum, the signatories agreed not to attack or threaten Ukraine themselves, but not to come to its aid should someone else attack. And well before the Russian invasion, all were very clear that they would not intervene with their own troops to help Ukraine. In the case of Finland and Sweden, the opposite it true. >

Between the two, Finland's application is much more important anyway. 
However, I can already see Erdogan and Orban looking for ways to block their entry as well. >

If Finland joins and doesn’t compromise itself democratically, them joining would be like both joining. Sweden would then be surrounded on all sides by NATO allies. The only route left is then for Russia to sail into the Baltic. That certainly won’t be ideal with all of those NATO countries surrounding it. Also, Russia can’t invade a country properly via land. What the hell does an invasion look like when water is involved? With what navy will they attempt to invade with >

Speaking as an American, I would love for both Sweden and Finland to be part of our alliance, but Sweden should be fine if Finland gets in and they don't.  Finland is the country most at risk of a Ukraine 2.0 situation.  There's really little risk that Russia is going to go around Finland and try to start some sort of territorial spat just with Sweden.
Arguably it's the best possible outcome for Sweden.  They get NATO protection from being nearly surrounded by NATO without being required to contribute anything to NATO directly, basically just like Austria. >

Russia has a weird affinity for Sweden.  Likely do to history, Sweden and Russia were rival empires over the Baltics, and Russia's second largest city, Saint Petersburg, was founded on Swedish land.  Russia is constantly sending fighters over Sweden and getting them escorted back.
Finland doesn't have this problem because the Finnish solution to Russia has always been "Finlandization".  Finlandization is agreeing with Russia on the international stage in exchange for peace.  It worked for Finland as Finland is also a difficult country to invade, with lots of frozen marshes on the border.  Finns were also very good at communicating through internal Russian channels, which is how they were able to get sparred an invasion by the USSR unlike most of Eastern Europe.
So... the addition of Finland into NATO is the real gamechanger... as it changes 100 years of peaceful politics and puts Finland into an alliance hostile to Russia.  Its also very good for NATO as the Russian-Finnish border is very long and Russia can't afford to defend it properly.  Sweden is good too as it is a medium sized European country and twice as large as the other Scandinavian countries. >

I blame Venice, for backstabbing the Roman Empire and allowing the Turks to conquer Constantinople. >

First, I am Turkish and opposing Erdogan.
If we let Sweden in NATO, we may face the danger of Russian attack or sanctions. In this case I personally think NATO countries will let us alone against this problem. 
I personally think NATO countries won't war for us. Most of the people in Turkiye think we are alone in case of war/sanctions; we are struggling to get an even simple touristic visa to NATO countries. In short, the only reason of Turkiye joined NATO so that the other countries in NATO do not attack or impose sanctions to Turkiye.
Turkiye has to running with the hare and hunting with the hounds because of its strategic location. This is the main reason.
Sweden's attitude towards PKK/YPG terrorists and the burning of holy book incident make things easier for Turkiye.
Last, It is Istanbul (not Constantinople) >


If we let Sweden in NATO, we may face the danger of Russian attack or sanctions.

We face the threat of Russian attacks now. Besides, Turkey is no pushover, the emaciated corpse of Russias army won't be able to do anything to you. They'd have to get through Georgia first anyway. As for sanctions, maybe try distancing yourselves from the sadistic dictatorship. No sympathy here.

In this case I personally think NATO countries will let us alone against this problem. 

The United States takes its treaty obligations very seriously. We don't like half our 'allies', we still defend them.

I personally think NATO countries won't war for us. Most of the people in Turkiye think we are alone in case of war/sanctions;

Countries don't express enthusiasm to fight for a belligerent authoritarian asshole, more news at 10.

we are struggling to get an even simple touristic visa to NATO countries.

Have you tried not electing a belligerent authoritarian asshole?

In short, the only reason of Turkiye joined NATO so that the other countries in NATO do not attack or impose sanctions to Turkiye.

Right. Because Greece is just the biggest threat to turkey on the face of the earth, and France and Italy are clearly chomping at the bit to invade in order to... do something I guess.
Turkey has used NATO to be belligerent to Greece and Cyprus with no consequences. Also Kurds. Also Armenia. I'm sensing a pattern here.

Turkiye has to running with the hare and hunting with the hounds because of its strategic location. This is the main reason.

Turkey doesn't have to do jack shit. If Turkey abandoned authoritarianism and the religious bullshit its let seep into the government with Erdogan, Europe would be far more receptive to letting you into the EU. Instead erdogan wants to recreate the Ottoman empire for some stupid reason.

Sweden's attitude towards PKK/YPG terrorists

Turkey thinks newborn infants are terrorists when it comes to Kurds. Sweden calls the actual terrorists terrorists, they just acknowledge the people who want to be treated better than third class citizens have a good cause.

and the burning of holy book incident make things easier for Turkiye.

Freedom of speech exists in the west. Deal with it. Want to be treated like a civilized country? Act like it.

Last, It is Istanbul (not Constantinople)

May the traitors of the 4th crusade roast in agony for all eternity. >

Is it a joint application? Surely Finland can join regardless of whether Sweden is allowed. >

They have a close relationship. It’s hard to be sympathetic though. They have a country to run. Join or not, it is their decision. Regardless the world will keep going. >

Finland has a land border with Russia, Sweden does not. 
Finland should join, and Finland joining will help protect Sweden as Russian forces would need to go through Finland to get to Sweden and thus trigger NATO. >

Fuck Erdogan, this guy was searching the first pretext to refuse Sweden entry for electoral gains. Türkiye will be better without him at its head. >

If I was a Swede, I’d be pissed at Turkey for electing this asshole and letting him endanger their country for political posturing. Absolute scumbag on a Trumpian level. >

It’s not just him though. Quite a lot of Turks hold a grudge against the Swedes >

For what reason? PKK? >

I suspect so, but since I am not a Turk I do not know. There is false propaganda against Sweden in some Turkish media which I have seen linked here on Reddit quite many times. Sweden has never supported the PKK, not even back when we supported various weird left-wing movements. And we do not send weapons to YPG despite what some Turkish media claim.
It is hard for Sweden to stop doing things we never have done. >

I just find it funny that Turkey blames Sweden for funding the PKK and YPG when the US up until Trump funded and trained the YPG and other Kurdish groups since the US occupation of Iraq along with a decent amount of support amongst those who know about these groups and those who have worked with them >

Turkey protests USA pretty much every week openly and privately about this but USA shrugs since Turkey has no leverage on them. If Turkey had any way to sabotage USA and France diplomatically, they would do it. The openly negative attitude towards Sweden is also meant against USA and France, indirectly telling them that they won’t have Turkey’s cooperation next time they need anything from them. >

“Meanwhile, in Sweden” continues >

The headline is wrong, it would be right to if it were "Finland must consider THE POSSIBILITY of joining NATO without Sweden".
Source: Im a finn >

That's not at all what he said. He said that this will hold us back couple more weeks and ratification will now happen probably after Turkey's election instead before that. Source, I am Finnish and watched that on live. >

You should of course join without us anyway , you are unfortunately closer to the bitch in the east and an alliance with NATO is more important for you at this moment. >

We need you guys too. Nato needs land line to supply us, even though I don't think that would be problem for you even if you weren't in Nato. In any case I don't think we should just give up in front of a dictator that Erdoğan is. Northern solidarity. >

It will probably be solved a week after Erdogan is reelected. >

Hopefully he won’t get reelected. He already lost all major cities to opposition. >

Any reason why they are waiting for Sweden? >

Sweden and Finland have perhaps the closest defensive cooperative spirit of all the Nordic Countries. Look up the Soviet-Finnish winter war, several thousand Swedish citizens volunteered to fight on Finland's behalf and the Swedish government supplied guns, ammo, financial aid, food, medicine and even fighter planes. It wasn't completely unlike what's happening between Poland and Ukraine today. >

there's no way russia does a naval invasion of sweden even without nato, finland is the important one to get in >

It's more important that Finland join, with or without Sweden. The Swedes will understand. >

Honestly, what’s the point?  If the Turks and Hungarians are making it this hard then what are the chances of them actually coming to help if Russia did ever attack? >

Exactly. >

I thought its a nobrainer to join eitherway >

Euronews is owned by Orban's friends. >

Even if Erdogan succeeds in keeping Sweden out, Finland is still a natural barrier between them and Russia. Its not the same as a defense treaty, but it helps. >

As a swede I support this 100% >

Can we just trade Turkey for Sweden? See how they’d enjoy fending off Russia on their own. /j >

Finland needs it more. >

Be careful! Russian simps will soon organise a Koran burning in Helsinki.
Hopefully the Finnish authorities will not allow it. >

Final and Sweden joining NATO now is merely symbolic and a show to Russia that the western world is United. Russia was never going to invade Finland (stop listening to Medvedev. He is very infamous here in Russia but the west keeps on giving him audience)
We know Finland and Sweden are not Ukraine so we can't even make a mistake of invading it because we understand that even these countries make excuses to give weapons to Ukraine would be the first one to even send ground troops to Finland. It will be us against the entire world. Even Africa would come to Finland aid because most African countries depend on that donor money they get from Scandinavian countries.
Regarding Turkey,they are in a tight spot. They owe us money for gas and they have been asking for delay of payment till 2024 and they want a 25% off on this year's delivery,in addition they need us to be visiting their country. So Turkey is having a hard choice between F-16s and gas+trade+ tourist. >

Most people didn't think Putin would try to invade Ukraine, even though he had annexed Crimea. Can't take such a big risk with this lunatic even if the chance is tiny. >

I will say it again. Finland and Ukraine are different because the invasion of Ukraine was predicted and planned way before Ukraine got it's independence. There are hundreds and hundreds of videos on YouTube from 1990s and 2000s which clearly shows that the invasion of Ukraine was going to happen. It was just a a matter of "when". Nothing could have prevented Russia from invading Ukraine even if someone different was in power. Russia does not view and has never view Ukraine as an independent country. Russia views Ukraine, Belarus as one country.
What reasons would Russia have to attack Finland? Russia and Finland don't share the same culture or origin. >

I think it would have been for the best if Finish and Swedish minister talked this through before making statements like this. I fear that this signals to Erdoğan that his pressure has worked on Finland and he might very well come up with bullshit demands for Finland as well. And while the Turkish election is a big part of this, nothing prevent him from keeping this line up after the election if it seems like it's popular among the autocratic muslim voters. >

I think it's more of a risk for Sweden if Finland joins NATO without them. I mean, I don't see this a real risk, but in theory it's possible:
Sweden will have coastal access to Baltic Sea that's NOT NATO controlled at that point.
I do hope that we get to join NATO ASAP. I never wanted to be in NATO. Then again I never wanted Russia to attack Ukraine in 2014 either, but here we are. >

Finland in NATO means land assault against Sweden is impossible, and almost impossible for Russia to send mass barrages of missiles like they're doing to Ukraine. And the EU might feel a little more obligated to act against Russia when they're the ones being attacked. >

I don’t think any Swedish person expects Finland to wait any longer, they’re in the most risk since they have border with Russia. I say go ahead, although Erdogan will probably find some other bullshit excuse for why Finland can’t join NATO anyways, like the little power-greedy goblin he is. >

Yea i would like sweden to join with us at the same time, but erdogan clearly doesn't want to do that. >

So, let's not give Erdogan what he wants. >

I'd rather not. If an attack is imminent, I'd understand but right now we have no reason to not wait for our swedish brothers. >

Just like in an airplane, put on you oxygen mask first before helping us. We will benefit from you entering NATO. >

all this is due to some stupid childish religious shit. people need to grow up and ditch their sky daddies. >

Unlikely. Erdogan is "playing the game" geopolitically. He's also quite aware that Turkey is more important to NATO than Sweden and Finland combined. He could be attempting to squeeze out some wins from NATO countries behind the scenes (such as procuring 40 new F-16 jets), he could also be trying to use the affair as part of his reelection campaign by linking it to cracking down on the Kurds. 
Another factor could even be that Erdogan is making some sort of deal with Putin to frustrate NATO enlargement in return for some boon, for instance they could be receiving Russia support for a Turkey friendly settlement in Syria. >

Eh either way they're both getting in. Turkey can protest but Sweden joining NATO is too important to let Turkey have their way. Undoubtedly the US and others will use ever form of political leverage they have to make it happen. We're already seeing it with the US withholding arms sales to Turkey. >

Its very unrealistic that Sweden and Finland enter NATO unless the opposition wins the election in May 14th. If Erdogan stays in power its never going to happen. >

Why you think the opposition would allow Sweden? There is no problem with Finland though. >

Because the implication is that the opposition is fine with NATO expansion if they can come to an agreement with Sweden on their ties with YPG (Which they can) unlike the current government that wants that and also many other things on the side that makes Sweden joining NATO impossible. >

You are right about YPG but they will also want Gülenists which caused hundreds of deaths during attempted coup as well >

What do you mean by they will want Gülenists as well? Like people that are affliated with them extradited to Turkey? If so then no the opposition wouldn't want them extradited because 1. They know that it is impossible for them to extradited 2. if they did want them extradited they would also block Finlands attempt to join since they also have people affliated with both YPG and Gülenists. >

Erdogan was always going to play both sides.
Unfortunately that means that you cannot rely on Turkey and this is a dramatic example of this unreliability.
He holds a whole nation (and a whole continent) hostage to score points with his islamistic voter base, while his priority should be to strengthen NATO.
Instead he is weakening it and aligning with the interests of the enemy. >

I disagree, Turkey is very predictable.
Russia is fighting Turkey in several fronts while cooperating at other issues. They find it very easy. >

why do we give so much power to these totalitatian dimwits… >

NATO needs to re-evaluate whether Turkey still meets the qualifications for membership. >

Literally any country surrounding Sweden would be nato then wich means russia could not attack them anymore. Sweden would have quite the perfect shield then. They cant invade sweden by land because no nato partner would allow them to cross their country. Nato would also be in control of the airspace and depending on how serious the danish guys take it they even could block the sea. 
Correct me when im wrong. >

Questin is also if the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty Organization would be better of with Sweden an Finland than with a SOUTHERN dictatorship that constantly plays both sides? >

Finland might not be approved by Turkey either.  Its Erg's chance to press US for 81 year old Fethullah Gülen.  (Gulen supporters may have many large charter school organizations.)   Erg. still thinks Gulen was behind attempted coup. >

Both of them would most likely join during this year, but yeah, if Finland can get membership sooner they will do it since they are more endangered. I wonder if Russia succeded to take over Ukraine quickly would they do something similar to stop Finland from joining NATO. We cant know for sure but its quite probable that Finland would be in much bigger danger than now when Russia is too occupied with Ukraine to be involved anywhere else. >

Finland is only 250 miles away from St. Petersburg.  The Russians are so fucked. >

I mean, if we need to make room, do we absolutely NEED, Turkey...? >

One day we're going to look back on this and ask why we allowed Russia to start ww3, something tells me Finland will move ahead without them >

So what’s Turkey’s big hold up on Sweden? >

From what I understand, it seems like Finland joining is more important as they're the ones that share a border with Russia. It in a way seems that Sweden is seeking to join more as an act of solidarity. >

As a finn: No, unless Sweden gives a go ahead. >

As a swede: Why though? Is there some advantage to joining together? I don’t see why Finnland should say no out of solidarity. Your position is more vulnerable than ours. >

Sweden being the only non-NATO country (besides Russia) compromises their position on the Baltic Sea, while any Russian aggression is incredibly unlikely they have proven to be a extremely unpredictable nation which further deteriorates Swedish baltic security.
Finland already has a bilateral defense agreement with UK (so does Sweden) and is negotiating one with the US so our security position is more stable. If the agreement with USA goes through In my opinion the best option is to enter NATO together with Sweden, if only to send a message to Turkey that you cannot bully democratic nations into submission. >

Even without joining I suspect Sweden will be effectively a NATO nation in all bar name anyway, in terms of coordinating defence etc. Sweden already has been conducting joint training missions with NATO nations, and has bilateral defence agreements with individual NATO nations >

Indeed. But without Article 5, Russia's unpredictability still compromises Sweden's security. >

Ergodan could consider not being a religious fucktard here. What is it their right to impose their religious opinions on another country? >

It’s election time not gonna happen >

Politics and religion.. 
r/Whatcouldgowrong >

They should just join now. Sweden will get to join after Turkish election. Erdogan is once again playing politics to rile up his conservative base. America probably indulges them until after the election but after that its over for Turkey and Sweden get’s to join.
Having said all that i think Nato should seriously re-examine Turkey’s membership. Geographically they are very important but do they really have much in common anymore with any other Nato member? Even their strategic military long term objectives seem opposed.
If Turkey and its people prefer a proto Ottoman future the West should be clear it cannot align with them anymore >

Alternative titles: 
Turkey must consider new leadership. 
Nato must consider booting autoritarian members. >

Real question: can we trust that Turkey will cooperate fully and be a valuable member of NATO should there be a conflict with Russia or China at some point?
Because with Finland and Sweden the answer is yes.
Turkey seems to use pressure to demand concessions and for internal political gain. 
Yes they have a large military, yes they are well located. Will it matter if they don’t cooperate? Erdogan is a terrible leader and terrible ally. >

I think Finland should join on their own. And Sweden should give Nato a time limit before we withdraw the application. Solve it internally within Nato or we will try to regain our dignity and not have this thing with Turkey hanging over our heads. >

The problem is that, officially, Sweden has been neutral. When we decided to join (apply to) NATO we left that behind. Basically, if we don’t get to join NATO we only lost something. Historically, Sweden has been in a unique position to meddle in conflicts during the Cold War because we weren’t in NATO. In fact ,we regularly criticized USA especially during the Vietnam war (but obviously we depended on USA for help if we were invaded). We saw ourselves as the moral police of the world. Nowadays I don’t know how much we do, but not joining NATO now would be devastating. >

Having the choice between democratic, militarily advanced, rich Sweden and strongman, poor, domeztically challenged Erdogan, I wouldn't hesitate å second. The only reason he can do this power play is that his country is part of NATO. Challenge him, place a couple of aircraft carriers around the Hormus and see how he buckles. I'm so sick of the democratic west giving in to wannabe strongman. That's the reason we're in this situation for God's sake. >

This is the problem with the over-expansion of NATO. Turkey's pissed at Sweden because Turkey just doesn't give a shit about freedom of speech and Sweden won't hand people over to be persecuted. Turkey's nothing but an inconvenient truth for NATO at this point and their idea of governance is not inline with west. >

We should consider Sweden joining NATO without Turkey >

Well, if it comes to a case where Turkey (gobble gobble) is still refusing Sweden after their elections, then as a Swede I say the Finns should go on alone. Will mess up some of the defense agreements between Sweden/Finland, but Finland should look out for its best interest.
However, Turkey (gobble gobble) should expect there to be consequences to its standing in western geopolitics. Sweden isn't a perfect country, but its inclusion in Nato would have strengthened the alliance. >

I think it’s time for Sweden to seek a new defence pact; with its Nordic neighbors, the US, UK, Canada, and as many European allies as will join. >

They've already got that, more or less. Aside from the already existing Nordic structures, Sweden and Finland signed bilateral mutual defence agreements with key nuclear countries such as the UK shortly after announcing their NATO bid. 
It's the main reason why people aren't freaking out over the delays, they're already protected by the same deterrent that protects NATO. Actually joining is more about unifying command structures, equipment provisions and general diplomatic formalities. >

As a Finn I understand the predicament. I say join, but then push for rule change to simple majority to allow new members in NATO. Also, same with kicking them out. All up for kicking Turkey out or at least until they have a regime change. >

As a Turk I would fully support Finland becoming a member of NATO (even if it means Turkey is leaving it). However I don’t have same sympathy for Sweden, I simply don’t understand what is the game Sweden is playing. >

well, they deem it important to protect their civilians rights. That includes the right to protest. That being said burning the koran may not be the best thing to do however it's just a fucking book. It's contents may be deemed holy by it's followers but that doesn't mean it's protected by anything special. Burning books is always stupid though, however it's their right to do so. No person is harmed in the process, just peoples feelings. >

They can burn as many Qurans as they like, it wouldn’t bother me. I would deeply respect their stand on civilian rights and freedom of speech. But supporting terrorists organisations is another issue and can’t be forgiven.