>

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.
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?