Erdogan says Turkey not supportive of Finland, Sweden joining NATO

What he really likes is being able to play the U.S./Russia tug-of-war to his advantage. Turkey is just a slightly more trustworthy Pakistan.

They hold full power over this.

Turkey is asking someone to make it worth Turkey's while to play in this game.

be definitely wanting something. While he's an asshole dicktater, I wouldn't say he's a complete pooty ass kisser. Afterall, his drones are sending pooty's tanks to explosive new heights. But then again Turkey and Ruzzia continue joint patrols in the north of Syria. He definitely knows how to play both sides of the fence to get what he wants. I'd be more concerned about Tucker Orban and any shifts in Romania's stance after the CPAC gangsters meet there.

Here to forth whenever an entity pulls shit like this lets call it a Manchin.

One unreliable 'ally' lost.

Two reliable allies (Finland & Sweden) gained.

Win-Win

The area that includes Turkey has been a crossroad for armies moving into or out of Asia, the Middle East and Europe.

Erdogan knows that so Turkey needs to be part of NATO as much as NATO wants Turkey to be part of NATO.

connections to different continents and geographic regions. They control passage between them. Egypt is one. Afghanistan another.

one of the most important early messages was the importance of geography.

Rivers, oceans, mountains, lakes and other physical geographic features impact the movement and spread of peoples, invaders, defenders, goods, money and the like.

The light goes on when I got a student to join me at a physical map of the Mediterranean, ancient Middle East and western Asia and asked them what would the easiest places to go.

They drew on my smartboard map, stopping where they found things that might be impassible and going where the going was easy.

Then I drew Alexander's march from Macedonia to India (with his side trips).

The 2 are almost identical.

Pity the people living at the crossroads. Sometimes the money poured in from wealthy travelers, and sometimes an empire tore a path right through your country, intent on building an empire.

Article 5 demands that any existing NATO country be willing to send thousands of its citizens to die to defend another.

Would you be willing to be Biden and face down 10k mothers upset that he sent their kids to die for a country that most Americans didn't want to support?

A lot of American mothers barely tolerate the idea of their sons dying for a cause the US government endorses. Now, imagine that Al-Qaida had struck Romania, and we had 20k dead to defend Romania.

Oh, wait--Romania's NATO.

That's the (R) position--and India's, China's, most of South America's and Africa's--"Ukraine? Genocide? Butchery? Too bad, so sad. Why should we destroy *our* economy and have *our* kids get killed for them?"

Notice, even ignoring the countries where Russia's dug its claws in deep because Putlin *will* back governments even the US won't touch when it supports RAGA, that's over 1/2 the world's pop. And for the most part it's really the part where the Enlightenment hasn't sunk in deep. (The Enlightenment hasn't sunk in deeply to some sections of the US population. It's a gulf between me and an increasing percentage of my students as my home campus shifts SES. Where once we had maybe 1 fight every 6 weeks, now we have 2 fights a week. I find that the sociological research I've seen is dead on in many respects.)

economic, cultural, and political issues.

"Should the conditions for the existence of a material breach be satisfied, NATO’s member states would be entitled, by unanimous agreement, to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either in their relations with the defaulting state or among them all (Article 60(2) of the Vienna Convention). For these purposes, a unanimous decision of the North Atlantic Council, excluding the defaulting state, would suffice."
https://www.justsecurity.org/66574/can-turkey-be-expelled-from-nato/

1 dictatorship gone.

2 reliable allies (Finland & Sweden) gained.

Win-win.

Having lived in Finland, I am excited by the prospect of them joining NATO. I am also fond of Sweden, a country I have spent time in, and would like to see them onboard.

But trading them for Turkey is problematic from both military and diplomatic points of view.

Turkey’s location is almost essential for launching and supporting operations in the Middle East, North Africa, the easter Med, and Southwest Asia.

There is also the political appearance of the Western Alliance kicking out a long-time Muslim ally in favor of two new white countries. Not a great look.

I don’t support Erdogan’s political tactics or philosophy. But ousting Turkey might cause more trouble than it is worth.

At what point does their continued partnership destroy the efficacy of NATO from the inside?

Some kind of concessions I think. He has to appear strongly anti-Kurdish-separatists to his base, I think when he refers to terrorist organizations he means PKK and the Kurdish separatist movements in Europe, in this case in Scandinavia. Maybe there are some particular individuals he wants extradited or something, so that he can claim a win with his base.

Or: he doesn't want to damage his relationship with Putin. Especially wrt gas and oil pipelines. they have gotten somewhat cozy the last few years.

But while there are large Kurdish populations in Sweden, it's a leap to say that they're PKK.

It's like assuming that all Irish-Americans are IRA. Or Russians in the US support Putlin.

Classic ethnic "5th column" polemic, at least in appearance.


Personally, it's a ruse. A NATO-acceptable kludge to show Putlin that he's a fence straddler. Turkey joined NATO out of concern for the USSR, not because of any pro-European-defense motives.

Oh. I was not suggesting Kurds in Scandinavia are PKK, just that Erdogan may use that as a ruse. And yes, Turkey's membership in NATO has precious little to do with pro-European defense motives, I fully agree. They straddle the Western and Russian spheres of influence, have tried to split the difference, and as a result are a questionable ally.

All of the guides we met told us that they can't stand Erdogan and they think he will lose reelection. It will be interesting to see what happens. If he has his little fingers in the ballot boxes, then he may get 97% of the vote. But the Turkish people are not fond of him.

Beautiful country BTW.

Like the US, their scumbags mostly reside in rural areas - you know where “real Turks” live.

My reasoning is that allowing them in might make some countries afraid it would start WWIII. For the same reason, many countries didn't want to send troops to Ukraine. Putin isn't the only one in Russia's government that hates NATO for expanding eastward.

... to help secure Turkey's border against threats from Syria.
https://www.rferl.org/a/turkey-syria-nato/24625900.html

Odd reason to block membership. I guess Erdogan is going to hold out for a bribe - or he just wants to score some Brownie points from Putler.

Make a different defense treaty w all the members of NATO, minus Turkey.

Where was our opposition?

And often work with NATO.

But Erdogan does owe Putin a major favor. Was blunted about joining the EU, etc. He's going to need a huge bribe.

fuck off already