>

Seems like his appetite will grow if he receives those planes...
I don't think fighter jets will be enough for Erdogan to give nods to Finland and Sweden's bid to join NATO. >

Well he should not be sold the jets either, but human rights for sure are not tradable so Sweden / Finland can wait as long as it takes or find alternative. >

While I would normally be against it, I don't see a problem selling them F-16s for both Finland/Sweden approval, as well as the sale of F-35s to Greece, which we all know Turkey has an antagonistic relationship with. They've already been punted from the F-35 program, so I'm not overly concerned about them having F-16s, even more enhanced onces, considering they're still a NATO member and a bulwark. Not to mention the control of the Bosphorous and the need to keep them more or less neutral or aligned with Ukraine's needs over Russia's. Those F-16s are not going to be the catalyst for change within Turkey, especially as it relates to human rights. Yet it also will stop the pressure Finland and Sweden are facing with respect to extradition of people who will and are persecuted in Turkey by Erdogan and his party. Unless something can be concretely proven tying them to terrorism, I wouldn't trust a word out of Erdogan's mouth regarding who is/is not a terrorist at this point. It's all about maintaining and collecting power with him. So, to neutralize this issue, get more powerful weaponry to Greece while maintaining somewhat important relations with a member of NATO in a group where unanimity is key at times, I think it's worth the trade. >

Finland / Sweden would not compromise human rights for Nato membership, at least in Finland that would be a political suicide. Obviously it's up to US whether they sell them, but the fundamental issue is that it would be rewarding the extortion establishing a dangerous precedence. >

You are right about that, but politics, especially at that level, definitely operates on a "you give me, I give you" mode, especially in countries where bartering is normal, which it very much is there. It may seem anathema to some, and I really detest this part of politics, but it may be necessary in other areas. I just read a report that they're trying to punt it until after the elections in May, because "they don't have the political support" for bringing it to Parliament. Unless there's a way to see Erdogan leave power and not create a vacuum to give the people of Turkey a choice, after having lived under him for well over a decade and a half in one form or the other, I don't see much of an alternative but to play ball a little with him. However, if Finland/Sweden can somehow have de facto NATO status, which I believe they currently do, then time is unlimited to see what Turkey decides next in moving the goalposts. >

Not this time, Sweden supreme court blocked extradition of a journalist charged with "insulting Erdogan" and running a school in Afghanistan, the school was affiliated with whomever Erdogan blames the coup on. Neither was considered a crime by the supreme court and therefore blocked.
Swedish politicians said that rule of law is of course the law, and there will be no extradition. >

I don’t think they should give turkey anything, this is literally extortion. 
Russia is not gonna invade anyone else after their pathetic performance in Ukraine. 
We can wait >

We can wait, but they also might not be getting much I care about and getting Sweden/Finland in NATO and just having it done finally would be worth some jets. 
Once Finland/Sweden are in NATO they probably won't leave so its like compound interest for a quickie jet deal, probably worth it. >

Turkey in NATO was a mistake >

Turkey is hugely strategically important. Having them in NATO was a huge benefit, not a mistake. The mistake was to make NATO accession require unanimity.
Also, Turkey was not controlled by a religious idiot when they were admitted. >

How could you have a defense pact where new members can be added without everyone agreeing? Why would a country come to the aid of a country they do not want in the alliance? >

Could work like this: New members are required to be accepted by all but one current NATO member. The dissenting member has the option to pledge support despite voting against, or leaving NATO. >

Seems like a fair deal