>

Sweden should not give in anything more, specially considering Kurds or journalists who have criticized Erdogan.
It would be in Turkeys own best interest if Kurds would have their own country. This involves also Iran, Iraq and Syria. The current oppression only creates grudge among Kurds. They are fighting self created terrorism.
Finland used to be part of Sweden and Russia. I understand the yearning for own independence as a nation. No one likes to live under someone one elses mercy.
This being said, different people could coexist in same nation, if everyone have fair representation, and democracy is not used to oppress the minorities. Autocratic Turkey does not comply with this.
OK, but I doubt sultan Erdogan will agree with this statement if not every single demand of his is fulfilled. >

Erdogan Will ham and haw and extract as much as possible, but when he will become assured that no more can be extracted, he will vote "yes." >

Tell me you don't understand geopolitics without telling me you don't understand geopolitics. >

Wait, geopolitics are more complicated than my fifteen word Reddit comment? No way! >

There is no nato mechanism in place to kick turkey out.
Turkey would turn to Russia and Iran.
Turkish tensions with Greece would escalate dramatically.
The Kurdish issue would get worse.
Turkey has early warning radars vital to NATO defence.
Turkey provides access to the middle east, suez canal, and bosphorus for NATO.
Turkey would dump its migrant problem on the EU.
The list goes on and on.
Claiming NATO would even consider kicking turkey out is ignorant. Claiming Erdogan (and his ego) would even consider it a possibility is beyond ignorance. >

Sounds like The they could use a little freedom brought about by an alphabet agency looking to destabilize the area and secure a more favorable regime. >

And Americans wonder why everyone hates them >

All Sweden has to do now is wait until Erdogan loses the next elections which are in June. >

Even if Erdogan loses(which he'll do everything he can not to) he won't go peacefully. >

Isn't Erdogan very popular in Turkiye? >

Turkey >

They recently changed their official name to Turkiye. There's supposed to be some accents in there somewhere, but I'm not typing those. >

Yeah but the English language name for the country is still Turkey. You don't call Sweden 'Sverige' or Finland 'Suomi', do you? So why call Turkey 'Türkiye'. >

Most countries have an official English name that they use at the UN (and other places, of course). Sweden and Finland are officially "the Kingdom of Sweden" and "the Republic of Finland" respectively. Greece is perhaps a better example of us failing to respect that, as their name is officially the Hellenic Republic. Anyway, Türkiye did indeed formally register Türkiye as its English language name with the UN last summer >

The important members of NATO have already made mutual security agreements with Sweden and Finland.  If Turkey continues to to be obstructive those agreements will likely expand until we have NITO - Not Including Turkey Organization. >

That's the important thing. Both countries have been working with and conducting exercises with NATO for years and those security agreements now in place make joining NATO more of a formality than anything that matters for European security. >

The recent agreements are just dog and pony show stuff, since they joined the EU they've had stealth membership in NATO.
EU has its own "NATO A5", through the CSDP agreement that member states adhere to. >

The UK also has bilateral deals with Sweden and Finland to place them under the British nuclear deterrent. The UK also works with Sweden for some joint military projects, so is unlikely to really jettison what is a solid and reliable partner to it. >


The UK also has bilateral deals with Sweden and Finland to place them under the British nuclear deterrent. 

Is information about the nuclear deterrent deal publicly available? I suppose if it is a deterrent it must be, since a secret deal wouldn't deter Russia from nuking them. >

Does it even matter if Sweden is technically a NATO member if they are in every other since. If war breaks out and Russia is perceived to be the aggressor. Sweden will almost certainly side with like-minded neighbors. The next time NATO has war games just say your inviting Sweden as a guest! >

It's not about who Sweden sides with, it's about who sides with Sweden. >

Everyone in NATO sides with Sweden except Turkey. And that’s cuz, quasi-dictator: Erdogan is a gad-fly and a problem. >

Alright Türkiye, no more currupt demands.
I interpret this as a take it or leave it type of scenario. 
Ratify already. Or leave. >

NATO would never give up kick out Turkey. They're way too important strategically. >

Compared to Finland and Sweden?  NATO makes that trade 7 days a week. >

I don't think so. I mean, from a personal opinion point of view, absolutely. But from a strategic point of view for the alliance? No way. Turkey's location has incredible strategic value, not to mention that they have the 2nd largest military in NATO. It is larger than France and Germany combined. 
I get where you're coming from. Under Erdogan, they do not align well. But /u/Viktorfalth is right, NATO isn't going to give up or kick out Turkey. As much as it would give me personal satisfaction to see it happen. :) >

The strategic value of their geography is of no doubt, but I have to admit I have serious concerns they'd actually honor Article V beyond the bare minimum if a western nation came under serious attack. They might do something half-assed like agree to patrol some waters or close the Bosporus if requested, but I don't see Turkey mass-mobilizing to rush to Sweden's aid, were they truly attacked. At risk of being a little blunt, they're just not culturally close enough to be considered "brothers in arms" like that. As a Dane, it certainly isn't Turkey's military that makes me a proponent of NATO. >

Turkey is the 3th country that suffered the most casualities in NATO missions.
And a question, do you see Sweden mass-mobilizing to rush to Turkey's aid? >

Yes. Both would go to extreme lengths to not have to put boots on the ground, but I absolutely think Sweden would do it for Turkey, before Turkey would do it for Sweden. 100%. And why? Because Turkey is an autocratic regeme with fascist tendencies, and Sweden is a functioning democracy with trustworthy elections and proper seperation of judiciary systems and state, independent media, independent educational institutions, etc. We know damn well autocrats cannot be trusted. Just look at Victor Orban or even Putin himself, if you must, for other examples. These are the reasons I cannot put my faith in Turkey as an ally. >

Fuck antidemocratic Turkey calling shots on who can join NATO. How could NATO's charter be revised, so it takes more than one member country to block another country joining? >


How could NATO's charter be revised, so it takes more than one member country to block another country joining?

By not requiring members to protect each other. As long as Turkey has to protect Sweden making them join without their approval basically guarantees the alliance will be abandoned if war breaks out. >

Erdogan: “They haven’t bent the knee and kissed the ring.” >

accept Sweden and Finland, or leave the club. >

Fkn this. >

Yeah but Turdogan will throw his toys out of his pram. >

Türkiye is the NATO version of Matt Gaetz. >

Yes. Yes they have. >

Good now the rest of Nato should pressure Turkeys and if the protest to much just kick them out.
Honestly with the BS Erdogan is pulling around Greece and Syria could he really still be considered an ally? >

Kick Turkey from NATO, then Turkey attacks Greece, Nato attacks Turkey. Istanbul goes to Greece as reparations. Access to Black sea secured without any problem with turkish sultans. >

least delusional redditor. You should have added "with Istanbul being part of Greece, Turks now form the majority within Greece, form their own party and vote on the entirety of Greece being annexed by Turkey proper." >

So now you need NATO to commit war crimes. >

Yes >

Always has been >

Diplomacy is often a bit like a ritual dance with a somewhat predictable choreography. This is another step in the dance, the next step might be increased pressure on Turkey from the US. >

They would be a better member than Turdkey. >

Go have a looksie at who has the biggest army in NATO after the US...
spoiler its Turkey! >

Because army size is the one and only factor...? >

Kick Turkey out! Jeezus, they're not really a democracy anyway >

Can’t they hold a strategic location and they know it >

Sweden and Finland arguably hold a more strategic location than Türkiye if a war with Russia would occur. The reason why we shouldn't entertain the idea of kicking Türkiye out is because we don't abandon our allies. >


we don't abandon our allies

Tell that to the Kurds... >

Turkey has the largest population of Kurds, what's your point? >

He is saying NATO (especially the US) abandoned the Kurds in Syria >

Kurds aren't a monolith. You have different people with different views.
NATO had no part in what you are specifying. Individual members did.
They didn't abandon the Kurds fighting agains ISIL, they just lessened their support. They still receive weapons and economical support to this day.
I think it's fair for Turkiye to question this support since they have been attacked through terrorist that are associated with these factions. >

Hungary said they would vote in early Feb.
Turkey is too dependent on ru and probably shouldn't even be in NATO, but then the alternative is for them to be deeper in ru's pocket, so here we are. >

Yes lets kick out the guys who have the second largest army in the organisation and who's country has huge strategic value... >

as a swede i dont think sweden should join nato. >

Turkey should push for changing name of sweden like a fellow neighbour of her did macedonia in order to join nato I  think this is the  way of west >

Erdogan, go F yourself >

Turkiye will never agree. Putin has padded Erdogans wallet to keep them out. The demands are just an excuse so he doesnt have to flat out say no.
Doubt it if you want but that is whats happened. Its why Putin isnt worried about it. >

I agree with everything you said except 

With all due respect, but it seems that NATO doesn't want Sweden in the coalition

All countries except Turkey and Hungary have ratified really quickly, so I wouldn't say that NATO as a whole doesn't want us in. As inefficient and prone to abuse the rule of veto is, NATO just can't just remove it like that. Same for the EU, I wish it were that simple, but unfortunately it isn't. >

NATO already invited Sweden to join. Saying that NATO doesn't want Sweden to join is complete horseshit. Whatever Turkey is playing now is their doing. Turkey is member of NATO, not NATO itself like you claim. When it comes to NATO, they are in the process of accepting Sweden into the alliance. >

It’ll stall until Sultan Erdogan the micropenis is kicked out of office in Turkey.
But knowing him, he’ll pull another fake “attempted coup” like he did last time. >

At some point NATO will have to evaluate if Turkey under Erdogan is a worthy member. Threatening Greece, another NATO country isn't helping. There is an election coming but since when do dictators lose?
Would be reasonable to cut them off until things change, let them pick a side once and for all. If they want to be buddies with Russia, then sanctions will crush an already disastrous economy. >

Greco-turkish conflict is older than NATO. It's delusional to think membership in some general alliance resolves that. >

The Greco-Turkish conflict is the whole reason NATO invited them both to join in the first place, combined with their location on the USSR's southwestern flank. TBH, It was probably a mistake, since it's barely even managed to keep the peace in Cyprus. >

They were invited in order for NATO to achieve control of the Mediterranean / Black Sea / Middle East, not to solve their historical conflict. >

Make it majority vote. >

I think that would work for something like the  EU but isn't going to work for a defensive pact. If a country is refusing to ratify the inclusion of another country, they're never going to put their soldiers in harm's way. It weakens the alliance.