By - dilettantedebrah
Sending delegations instead of threatening. What a change of mood.
Following the rule of law, resorting to diplomacy? What a strange concept in this day of age?
How could Sweden threaten Turkey if they wanted to?
They could stop supporting their accession to the EU.
Breaking news: Turkey joins EU, also on the news: Hell froze, pigs fly and the USAF open Area 51 alien museum.
If Turkey suddenly joined the EU, I would be thoroughly convinced we live in a simulation. Even though I already think that the simulation theory is plausible.
EU door practically shut on Turkey 10 years ago. So EU accession doesn't have any leverage for Turkey's regional decisions anymore
Would their support really even matter? Erdogan's policies make Turkey's acceptance into the EU pretty much impossible anyway.
Sweden was/is supportive of them joining?
Lol, that carrot on the stick is already rotten and turned into dust. Doesn't work anymore bud. Get some new carrot.
It's an irrelevant question, but I'll reply. Sweden doesn't posses threats to Turkey. Let me however expand by reminding that there are decades and centuries old binding agreements, principle of reciprocaty, diplomacy to run relations between nations. Unless it is a failed government, generally citizens interests are sought after and aren't given away for free. Or the statesmen risk their freedoms for their negligent actions
Well sweden have a big high-tech armsindustry they can just send a shitload of more and advanced weapons to non terrorist kurdish organisations in syria etc.
*edit* but i think the real answer is that if sweden had threats they would likely still not use them, and to try diplomacy instead
Because they are not turks
“Sounds like a good plan” US policy makers
Yes sending more weapons for Turkey's objection to arm terrorists will smooth everything out.
Yo bro. don't tell them ypg,pkk don't represent the all kurds. You gonna break the illusion
Not to mention the fact that the non-terrorist regional Kurdish government has very strong ties with Turkey and is very reliant on them.
You do realise having Turkey is far more important to NATO than the two Nordic states?
I don’t know why you’re asking this. It’s clear that Turkey just wants to get something of this. No one is saying there’s sort of a conflict etc . Business as usual.
Sweden had supported groups which affected a lot of Turks, it's related to that and it's not about cash lol
Not Turkey per se, but the geographic area it occupies remains useful to the west.
Not west per se, but the geographic area it occu- damn that shit sounds stupid yo.
It's all just a game. Turkey threatens, Sweden comes over to talk to he child throwing a tantrum to find out what demands they have and they negotiate because Turkey is using thier NATO position as leverage, being obstructionist. Ya know, exactly like the American GOP.
Authoritarians everywhere have the same pattern of behavior. Its predictable but seemingly difficult to deal with. It's also why 2 year olds are such a miserable lot to deal with.
So what. Using every opportunity to prosper is not a sin. They’ve had a decade to make their mind. Suddenly when dictator went bunkers.
>Suddenly when dictator went bunkers.
Define Delegations: Money. They're sending money and concessions to get their support.
Other NATO countries support the YPG and non Turkish PKK, so I don’t know how Turkey is supposed to say existing members can, new members can’t. (?) Seems sticky.
>so I don’t know how Turkey is supposed to say existing members can, new members can’t.
Simple, Turkey doesn't have a say in what existing members do. But they can veto the entry of new members.
While it is certainly a double standard, as it stands Turkey has leverage over potential new NATO members, while they don't have that leverage over existing members. So they can do this whether or not it makes sense / is reasonable.
They’d be remiss not to, I suppose. Sounds like Finland isn’t concerned, while Sweden wants them to stuff it. We’ll see how this goes
At worst, Finland and Sweden will perpetually be in a forever long loop of applying to NATO while being secured with their guarantees by other countries during that process. So at the end of the day, it is like, “Hey, we are trying, but rest assured we have support and the countries that support protecting us during our application are the people we want to be with anyway.” So I am not concerned about this one bit.
Personally I'd be a bit surprised if they didn't work this out and both countries end up getting admitted at the NATO summit in June. The alliance is undoubtedly stronger with Sweden and Finland in it, and Erdogan only has so far he can push before other NATO countries start putting serious pressure on him. Then again, Erdogan is unpredictable. As you say, the worst case is still basically fine for Finland and Sweden, although it would make the rest of NATO look dysfunctional so hopefully it doesn't come to that.
They are likely to just give Erdogan what he wants as long as its reasonable. Its not worth fighting over it. If Turkey really does drag this out its going to cause some serious damage to their relationship with the west, whatever they hope to get is unlikely to be worth that to them.
Then again, this is Erdogan who thinks he knows more about interest rates and economics than all the global experts do, so I wouldn't put it past him.
That’s why erdogan said “ Turkey won’t make that mistake again”
Erdogan is the real mistake there tbh.
not really, erdogan being a bad leader doesn't mean he always act " bad". especially when he is losing votes and have to gain votes in order to win next election, which seem truly hard for him.
This is not about akp or erdogan, PKK is a terrorist organization, everybody knows that. USA forced them to build a new organization and de-facto country within Syria, YPG.
Today, western countries are literally building a country for these people. As a citizen I can understand that Syrian Kurds have to protect themselves and get along well with West.
But you can't just use terrorists within something new like that. They have innocent Turk's blood on their hands. This is not a dictator telling the world everybody I don't like is terrorist, these people were terrorists for west for decades.
Suddenly, west started to act like they are not, but Turks feel like deceived.
PKK = Terrorist organization.
YPG = self-determinating Kurds within a civil war.
Pkk militants join YPG and lead on high positions and all western countries support it,
How should Turks feel about it? Isn't it normal that we are PMS'ing about that?
I get it. And from the reaction from Finland, they don’t seem too worried this is an insurmountable issue
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's butcher is another man's war hero. I wouldn't be surprised if Russians at some point had propaganda demonizing Simo Häyhä, to use example from my own country.
By your logic Turkey should oust plenty of people from power because of all the innocent kurds they've killed. *But that is different* you say? Not to the Kurds I'd imagine.
I'm not saying these things are easy, of course. It never is when you start killing people and they return in kind, regardless of who was the one who started it. It has a bad tendency to spiral into long, drawn-out unnecessary bloodshedding.
A more cynical way to look at things is that YPG doesn't matter jackshit either. They aren't a real threat to Erdogan himself, but very useful tool for gaining votes. This whole theatre is bound to win some votes, regardless of how it turns out in the end.
>One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
In an alliance, one man's terrorists is also anothet man's terrorist. That's the entire point.
You also aren't supposed to have lying pieces of shit in alliances, but yet we have Erdogan, who assured Turkey would support our membership and then did 180 as soon as we were committed.
I have exceedingly little sympathy for Turkey's claims after they decided it was a good idea to be playing with our national security.
You don't have Erdogan as you're not in the alliance. Finland got the misfortune of being grouped together with Sweden but Turkish foreign minister was more positive about Finland compared to Sweden. Erdogan sometimes says brazen things and his ministers are forced to clean his mess.
Oh get off your high horse. What sympathy do you think Turkish people have towards a country who is openly supporting another group which is killing Turkish people every few months?
It’s so dramatic when it’s your feelings being hurt yet no consideration for other countries. Which policy or support has Turkey given which has caused hardship or taken the lives of Finish and Swedish people around the globe? Go on?
>You also aren't supposed to have lying pieces of shit in alliances
>Erdogan, who assured Turkey would support our membership
Read this again I hope you will be able to spot it.
YPG and PKK are threats to civilians of Turkey. Please realize that PKK or PYD have media outlets that push their own propaganda.
Rather than looking at news headlines, research the issue as whole from different sources. Turks killing Kurds might not exactly what is thought after this.
Middle east is fucked up and every time innocents die.
What makes you think Turkey is ok with existing members supporting YPG? That's one of the big topics why the relations between Turkey and USA are so sour.
Well, I didn’t mean to imply Turkey is OK with it, I guess I see Turkey using an opportunity to secure its interests. The Kurds, sadly, are also a persecuted minority, whether or not they have a terrorist arm. It’s too bad that so many of us, meaning countries, have tough compromises like this, various conflicts internally or not. It sad so me, but what can I do. It is what it is
Three possible outcomes:
Sweden gets shafted.
Turkey gets shafted.
Kurds get shafted.
One of these is far more likely than the others and has been a frequent historical outcome.
Easy, the Kurds will get shafted. We didn’t make the UK resolve Northern Ireland before coming to its aid, ever, unless it was an easy no
All EU countries banned weapon exports to Turkey because Turkey went to Syria. That includes Turkey's NATO allies.
> Italy, the top arms exporter to Turkey last year, said it would join a ban on selling weapons and ammunition to Ankara after a weekend decision by France and Germany to suspend sales, and Spain signaled it was ready to do so.
> EU ministers issued a statement condemning Turkey’s offensive, which aims to neutralize the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, a former U.S. ally seen by Ankara as a terrorist group aligned with Kurdish insurgents in Turkey.
Furthermore, it's official policy for neutral countries to not export weapons to a country that's in a war because that would mean taking a side in the war. And then that country obviously would no longer be neutral.
Sweden remained neutral throughout WWII but they still took in child refugees from Finland and helped Jews escape Nazi Germany.
NATO bid is effectively ending their long standing neutral status.
Both Finland and Sweden made an exception to their policy of not sending weapons to an open conflict by sending weapons to Ukraine.
They banned, then silently lifted the bans.
> Furthermore, it's official policy for neutral countries to not export weapons to a country that's in a war because that would mean taking a side in the war. And then that country obviously would no longer be neutral.
by that logic EU countries shouldn't also send weapons to Ukraine.
Have EU countries claimed to be neutral in the Ukraine conflict?
EU countries are on Ukraine's side. Proxy war vs Russia.
We gladly take sides in this war. Why “shouldn’t” ? doesn’t imply shouldn’t, it was Turkey’s position, but not a popular one with EU or NATO, unlike this one
So you execute rules depending on your sympathies instead of rules. That's exactly what i was saying, just hypocrites who love to virtue signal and talk about values when it suits you, and when it doesn't values are not important :)
Greece literally blocked macedonia for years since they didnt like their name. Macedonia had to change their name to north macedonia to enter NATO.
> Sweden remained neutral throughout WWII but they still took in child refugees from Finland and helped Jews escape Nazi Germany.
They also kept selling iron ore to the country you mentioned
Sweden made concessions to Germany to avoid being invaded, while actively helping the Allies in secret (and sometimes not so secret);
- Gave Britain large discounts on trade, despite this being a clear violation of neutrality.
- Sold the V-2 rocket that crashed in Bäckebo to the British.
- Leased 8000 seamen from the merchant fleet to Britain.
- Took in tens of thousands of refugees, including almost all Danish Jews (something which would not be possible if they had been occupied).
- Used Swedish diplomats and businessmen both to spy on the Axis and to facilitate communication between the Allies and Axis when needed. Raoul Wallenberg, Folke Bernadotte, Valdemar Langlet, etc helped save possibly tens of thousands of people.
- Some Swedish businessmen acted as couriers between the Polish resistance and exile government, smuggling information and messages (including the first information about extermination camps to reach the Allied countries).
- Allowed Germany to use Swedish telegraph lines after they had occupied Norway, and intercepted and decyphered the messages sent between Oslo and Berlin, passing the intel on to the Allied forces.
- Trained Norwegian and Danish resistance fighters. Were prepared to help in the liberation of Denmark and Norway, though this was ultimately not needed.
- Helped coordinate US relief efforts at the end of the war. Allowed the US to use Swedish air bases during the liberation of Norway.
On top of that, Germany was essentially the only country that *could* be traded with. The Baltic was cut off after Denmark/Norway were occupied. Finland was being invaded by Soviet. The Baltics were first occupied by Soviet, then Germany, then Soviet again. So it was either that, or the population starves and freezes to death (and Sweden is invaded, rendering it unable to do any of the things mentioned above).
So yeah, "remained neutral" is not quite correct. Sweden *officially* remained neutral, and was forced into giving concessions to remain that way, but repeatedly violated that neutrality in ways that favored the Allied forces.
Good summary. It’s too bad you had to write it, but we need to continually produce the record so we don’t forget
Yes contrary to popular belief being neutral doesn't mean cutting yourself off from the world, it means dealing with both sides.
Nobody ever said or implied that
Then why does selling iron ore to Germany get brought up as an argument against Sweden's neutrality every time?
"Being neutral means you deal with both sides"
Parent comment: describes how Sweden helped refugees
My comment: describes how Sweden sold iron ore to Nazi Germany
I'm literally supporting your point here
>Sweden is saying “hey Turkey fight for us, but we won’t sell you any weapons so you can fight for us with someone else’s weapons.” Is that logical?
Turkey's own NATO allies aren't selling them weapons. It's kind of petty to single out the neutral country in the bunch because they wouldn't sell weapons to any country that's in an open conflict. That is their policy and principle.
Furthermore, Article 5 has only been invoked once and that was after 9/11. It's highly unlikely that it'll be invoked again because NATO itself is a deterrent.
Btw. Both Sweden and Finland send troops to Afghanistan for support roles - even though they didn't need to.
>Turkey's own NATO allies aren't selling them weapons. It's kind of petty to single out the neutral country in the bunch because they wouldn't sell weapons to any country that's in an open conflict. That is their policy and principle.
Bad take. If those countries were joining nato it would be turkeys interest to make the same demands.
> It's kind of petty to single out the neutral country in the bunch because they wouldn't sell weapons to any country that's in an open conflict. That is their policy and principle.
I mean USA was at war but they still got many weapons from Sweden such as at-4 but it doesn't count they are axis of evil i assume?
[Or as long as they are profitable and far enough to not care](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/swedens-dirty-secret-they-arm-dictators-2014-5%3famp)
USA has a lot of nukes in Turkey so NATO will not kick them out for sure.
It's not logical - all allies in an alliance need to be...allies.
It's time for Turkey to shape up or ship out.
>it was a huge diplomatic blunder on Swedens part back then.
As a Swede I find that laugable at best.
They're probably trying some diplomatic before big daddy US tells Erdogan and Turkey to sit down. They'll get some discount planes or something and suck up that boot.
Turkey being so butthurt about not being able to by Swedish weapons is hilarous, while they complain that we harbour "terrorists". Absolutely shitface hilarious.
You do realise EUROPOL publishes an annual Terrorism report literally highlighting that the PKK is highly active gathering finances through criminal activity in 2 specific countries. Sweden and Germany. This is an annual EUROPOL report. Not a Turkish one. And unlike Germany, who reports arrests and actions to halt PKK activity. All Sweden has ever done is report that it is actively happening. No arrests. No actions.
The report is filled by each respective countries officials. So Swedish officials themselves literally state in an Official EU Terrorism report that they are aware of PKK conducting operations and criminal activities within Sweden while doing nothing about it.
Turkey is not wrong here. Sweden has been and does actively allow a full blown PKK base of operations within Its soil conducting criminal activity and illegally gathering funds to finance a campaign of armed attacks on a country they want to enter into a mutual military defence alliance with.
turkey "remembers" they PKK whenever they want something in return or are looking to imprison politicians/journalists
Erdogan is butthurt that Sweden again and again calls out Turkeys genocide of Kurds.
He doesn't want to defend them against Russia
But, the Bayraktar song!
Sweden doesn't even support YPG, that's fake news/propaganda.
###[Here's a detailed table of Sweden's proposed foreign aid to Syria for 2022](https://i.imgur.com/ISOi65Y.png).
7.9 Billion people on this planet. The decisions of less than 10 people fucked up the entire world.
Imagine Sweden and Finland not getting in because of manchild erdogan. This would pretty much guarantee potential members of NATO in the future would not apply since even with guarantees (both Sweden and Finland had them) they cant be certain. Unreliable leaders in putins mold have actively lied to gain small advantages at the cost of NATOs strategic ones. With friends like these…
Thats the price you pay for joining a bloc where everyone is required to fight for each other. The bigger the bloc the more the internal frictions. Finland/Sweden and any other country should just sign a mutual defence pact with the US. Problem solved.
Solved until Trump is back in office and wants something from Sweden
he is just bargaining his chips. Nothing extraordinary
Which Nato country would want to accept a country into their alliance that supports their enemies?
What country stays in an alliance where every other member supports their supposed enemies?
An opportunistic one pretending to actually care about the issue in order to squeeze some concessions out.
>What country stays in an alliance where every other member supports their supposed enemies?
If they had the power they would also stop them but they dont.
>An opportunistic one pretending to actually care about the issue
True but which country is not opportunistic and pretentious when given the chance? The answer is none.
that has nothing to do with erdogan, anyone in his place would follow the same narrative.
sweden is a hot bed of KCK offshoots, and nato is a defense alliance. Turkey will not suffer any country that harbors and fosters those they deem an existential threat to themselves.
reddit is full of ignorant people that twist the narrative into an anti-erdogan sentiment, this has nothing to do with him, this is about turkey.
So why do they remain in NATO? US forces literally rolled in Syria with Kurds. Seems you're a tad ignorant yourself.
Because it brings no benefit to Turkey, it’s more beneficial to work from the inside to make changes than ragequitting. Proving this, Turkey holds and uses leverage towards new applicants to curb support to YPG. It’s proof that staying in NATO can help infinitely more to address the problem.
We stay in NATO to protect ourselves from NATO. We don't want to suffer the same fate that happened to Iraq. It's a toxic relationship.
you are literally proving my point,"whotbot usa and kords" whataboudist bullshit. i am from turkey, everyone in turkey seconds his stand in this predicament. Turkey does not want terrorist harbors in nato, pass a law that forbids them or there is no nato for you.
don't cry to me, cry to your government about their shitty decisions that are aggressive against a key nato member.
If turkey was so adamant, why did they lie in the first place? Of course this might have something to do with it:
lmao, you are clearly not the sharpest in the shed.
Obviously I cant compete with conspiracy laden turks playing putinesque 7d chess…
says the guy who literally pulled up a conspiracy up his ass one message ago.
Are you saying the economic crisis and crash of your currency is a conspiracy?
are you saying sweden does not harbor terrorists? and doesn't supply them?
Well we extradite them:
Something you dont do in return:
Im sure you has no idea about this, but when you read the map in the link below you get why:
you are full of whataboutism, it's boring.
get rid off the terrorists join the nato, no one asking the impossible.
Sucks for them but Turkey has incredible strategic leverage. Hopefully the concessions aren’t too bad until Erdogan goes out
I don’t understand why people think this is erdogan’s policy. Currently ALL political parties in Turkey currently oppose Sweden’s accession to NATO. So it wouldn’t matter if a new person from a secular political party becomes president
And I don't understand why on earth Erdogan opposes Finland's Nato-membership, if Turkey has some problems with Sweden.
I was caught off guard by that too but it actually makes sense and no it’s not about Finland’s actions imo. If Finland joins, Sweden would naturally be surrounded by NATO and thus protected whether they join or not. So, the moment Finland joins, Turkey loses her leverage over Sweden.
Newsflash: In a country ruled by a dictator all other parties agree with their president.
They vehemently disagree with Erdogan on a lot of issues, but not on this one.
Newsflash: you have no idea how politics work in Turkey. Erdogan is an authoritarian with dictatorship risk, but he was an elected president and the opposition is pretty active in Turkey. I have never voted for him in my life i will never do it but opposition parties CAN speak their mind here. There's even a kurdish party with PKK ties. And far-left party that recognizes armenian g word openly.
Reddit political analyst has spoken, everyone pack up
well I mean the last one was a bit of a sham. and the referendum. but other than that yeah oyure right.
>... Erdogan was elected in fair and free elections for the last 20 years.
Freedomhouse rates Turkish democracy 32/100 i.e. not free.
For turkish elections they write:
>Election observers with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) criticized the 2018 poll, reporting that electoral regulators often deferred to the ruling AKP and that state-run media favored the party in its coverage. The OSCE also noted that Erdoğan repeatedly accused his opponents of supporting terrorism during the campaign.
So free and fair turkish elections over the last 20 years is a questionable statement.
Because everybody in Turkey knows Finland and Sweden are harboring terrorists. This is not a newsflash it's Been going on for at least 30 years.
It's weird how nobody in Finland seems to know this. If you have some intel about terrorists in our country, I suggest you give that intel to us so we can do something about it.
I think I read it was some list of extradition requests by Erdogan's cabinet given to our foreign ministry on a state visit some years back. I don't think they've all been processed in courts yet even. And considering it's from Erdogan, a lot of the names were probably highly questionable with little evidence.
Finland and Sweden won't extradite people who have either migrated or have been granted an asylum just because Turkey says they're terrorists.
Turkey has to prove their claims.
Did you see the photos that sweden made weapons used by pkk in Turkey ? Ofc it's propaganda and the weapons was lego
Yep indeed. Just branding people as terrorist does not make them that. There has to be a proof to validate an extradition.
They must know this, of course. This is probably just a fascade to cut some great deals with everybody it upsets + possibly getting ahead in the political scene. (And possibly also get extraditions).
I believe a few extraditions have actually happened at least in Sweden, where evidence has been damning. Though I haven't looked into it much.
That said I don't imagine Sweden will ever consider questionable extraditions in some kind of political exchange, neither will Finland. It would end political careers.
Sweden won't extradite people who risk torture or execution. That's not likely to change.
Yea takes one to know one right? Let me think you got the Armenian genocide that Turkey did, take over Cyprus. Dictator moves like throwing opposition members in to prisons under the quote that it are terrorists
Sorry but feck off lol. The Kurds want independence and totally deserve it. They get huge support across Europe, the same as many small nations fighting for independent like Taiwan, Palestine, Hong Kong, etc.
All the research says that the Kurds in Turkey do not want independence .
Unfortunately with spiraling authoritarian nations like Turkey it's hard to figure out when they are looking for legitimate criminals and when they are just doing political purges.
These are national interests, even if Erdogan goes out or not, the demands Turkey has made will still stand.
Look for my opinion is if Turkey blocks Sweden and Finland in Nato. Then we also may just block Turkey for ever joining the EU. And that is a goal that they really want.
Lol, that carrot on the stick has rotten and turned to dust many years ago. Get a new carrot buddy.
I’m sure this is just rhetoric, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for NATO and I’ll be damned the US is well aware of it. Maybe the Kurdish support stays in the Nordics in exchange of juicy military contracts with the US or lifting some barrier or other
In Finland we dont even have significant kurdish support. Turkey mentioned we have 2 daycares lmao
Daycares shut down. That will really make a good headline for Turkey. lol lol. The toddler threat!
I’m amazed how some of the comments here suggesting to kick Turkey out…
Read about NATO and its agreements before you provide your uneducated opinion. Turkey cannot be kicked out of NATO.
And although I consider myself to be the opposition of Erdogan, I support him with his veto of Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
For 50 years, USA tried to get Sweden into NATO and all of a sudden, just because Russia’s attacks, now Sweden is trying to get in. My gf is from Sweden, I love Swedes. But you must understand that this is a defense pact and a strategically crucial member, Turkey, will not allow a country which supports the terrorist groups against Turkey.
You may say existing members also give support, hence one of the reasons for the tension with many European countries and the US. Turkey cannot use NATO cards on existing members but will definitely use it to countries who want to become a NATO member.
NATO is not a kid’s playground and just because you want to get in, doesn’t mean you will get in.
If you must become a NATO member, you must compromise and decide whether your government should support the terrorist groups or get better ties with a legit country and build your path to NATO.
Ps.I need more research on Finland and its ties with Turkey before I can suggest the same for Finland.
Edit: People saying the US and other members will pressure Turkey due to the veto which may be true. However, none of those countries can or have the luxury to lose the Turkish relations over Sweden’s NATO application. The war in Ukraine once again showed how important Turkey is for NATO, and how NATO is important to Turkey.
If Finland joins NATO Sweden will be covered with Nato which will protect them.So Finland is all about its position
Just to give support for this but going against Finland and Sweden is not just an Erdogan thing. All the political parties in Turkey support the notion of vetoing Finland and Sweden ie it is in their national interest.
Seems like empty threats by swedish foreign minister woman didn't work on Turks. No surprise there.
Realize that NATO is relying on this extortionist to watch their back if things go down. It's not exactly something that projects the warm fuzzies
At this point can we even trust Erdogan to honor treaty obligations?
>this point can we even trust Erdogan to honor treaty obligations?
What clause did he breach?
What is this? Mob racketeering and extortion? Since when do countries have to go kiss the ring of the man in the middle?
Kinda since forever….? Lmao
I know you’re right. Opportunists will always opportunists. I just read that it’s more about holding NATO hostage diplomatically, than having much to do with Sweden or Finland. Erdogan wants a seat at the big kids table in return.
Endogan already has that. He’s just flexing because he can.
What? Does Eurdy need a diamond handle for his gold toilet?
Why is Turkey bent out of shape with Sweden?
"Turkey accuses the two Nordic nations of harbouring members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a group it views as a terrorist organisation, and followers of Fethullah Gulen, who Ankara accuses of orchestrating a 2016 coup attempt."
Worth mentioning Turkey labeles any Kurd they dislike as a PKK member.
Which is why interpol denied 800 extraditions from Turkey last year lmao.
This comment misrepresents what happened a bit, and ends up repeating a right wing conspiracy.
This sitting Swedish MP is not a "terrorist".
The kurdish organizations that Sweden aids in their fight against IS in Syria, are also supported by other western countries, including the US, and not something that Sweden does just because of one specific MP.
The Swedish cooperation with the Kurds predates the events described in the comment.
What actually happened was that the MP, that is of Kurdish origin, wanted Sweden to *increase* that already existing cooperation with Kurdish organizations, and this pissed off some in the far right.
Also, an MP is not supposed to leave parliament when they leave their political party, so they're not "refusing" to leave, and anybody that's actually democratically elected should definitely not resign because a foreign dictator demands it.
Nice write up. Thank you
>(PYD) is just PKK rebranded
It really all depends on that assumption.
Practically all of NATO seems to disagree, and has long labeled PKK as a terrorist organisation, but at the same time supported PYD and many others in their fight against IS in Syria.
If people in Turkey really believe that PYD is PKK, then I can see why Erdogan would act this way, but he would still be jeopardizing the cooperation within NATO, weakening the unity that has formed to support Ukraine, and increasing the risk of the war spreading to the rest of Europe, for the sake of national politics back in Turkey.
If Sweden stops supporting the Kurds against IS, which is very unlikely because the swedish parliament won't accept demands or threats and the government can't do it without the parliament, then the US and other NATO countries would still continue their support which is much bigger than the swedish part.
It's not strange for a Kurdish political organization to want an independent Kurdish state, especially considering the way Iraq and now ISIS and Assad have been treating them.
Then they also become nationalists per definition, since they want a nation state.
None of those four points make you a terrorist organization, or identical to other organizations that have overlapping goals.
That's really just "gut feeling", and not something to base what people are terrorists and what countries should be part of NATO.
From Sweden's, the EU's and the US's perspective, Turkey has unfortunately been sliding towards authoritarianism and Erdogan is out after his political opponents in an undemocratic way.
The people he wants extraditet are not proven terrorists, but his political opponents, and a country like sweden can never send them to Turkey.
Either way, the swedish government does not have that power. Only a court can do something like that, and the courts are completely independent from the government, so even if Sweden wanted to, they simply can't send them.
It reminds me of the time Erdogan wanted western democratic governments to stop newspapers from insulting him, completely misunderstanding how a free democratic country works.
It seems like it all boils down to labeling YPG a terrorist organization, or not doing it.
Sweden is a free country and the government can't stop people from cooperating with YPG, unless they officially become a recognized terrorist organisation.
To do that though, you need some kind of definite evidence.
Having common causes and goals is not enough, because it is the methods you use that decide if you're a terrorist, not your goals.
I don't think Sweden can be expected to label YPG a terrorist organization. It would effectively make the US and most of Europe countries that directly support a terrorist organisation and Sweden does not take these labels lightly.
The world is full of organisations with extremely similar goals and motivations but with one being considered terrorists but the other not, because one resorts to terrorism to achieve those goals while the other doesn't.
That distinction is important.
She's a political" vilde", she has no obligation to leave here position. Calling her a terrorist is also hilariously laughable.
Both Finland and sweden are actively housing and protecting terrorists under the guise of "human rights" for decades. The thing is, these people carried out terror acts in Turkey, then applied for visa to finland and sweden saying they are "oprressed" by the Turkish gouvernment and will be prosecuted for "expressing their culture". Which both Finland and sweden complied almost instantly. Denmark also does this.
Lmao we are NOT by purpose hiding terrorists xD. And definetly not due goverment supporting PPK.
Finland is hell bend to follow finnish and international human rights laws and that makes it hard to deport refugees even what we want to deport
In case of "PPK terrorist" there was case of 2 kurds, theyr refugee status was declined, but court denied their deportation because based of evidence given, they were only doing legimate political activities and facing potential unfair trial, which means Finnish goverment couldnt deport them even if want to
We have maybe 10 claimed PPK "terrorists" here for similar reasons (and otherwise small turkish and kurd minority). Turkey complained we had 2 kurd day cares. Sounds such a huge existential threat to Turkey? I say sounds like bullshit
Erdogan sought the illegal extradition of a Muslim cleric from the U.S. and for a moment, Trump, Retired Gen Flynn and that mercenary, Erik Prince seriously considered allowing and facilitating it. When this plan was exposed, it just added to the terror we felt here in the states about the looming election of our own would-be dictator. Imagine, a secret rendition of an American asylee on American soil by our own people. It was blatantly illegal and the plan stopped. These authoritarians are a thorn in all our sides, though granting that Turkey has an existing longstanding issue with the Kurdish minority, of course, these things get stretched and strained under authoritarians
He’s as much of a dictator as Putin. Birds of a feather
Hopefully all they have to do is propose a plan that will deal with them accused groups I'm sure the deligation will come to a compromise.
It is probably not a coincidence that the Mariupol fighters are being evacuated right now (with Turkey's help). Everything is a negotiation tactic.
Finland/Sweden already have close NATO ties and almost every EU country, plus UK and US would step up to help regardless, so NATO membership is more symbolic just now.
> Mariupol fighters are being evacuated right now (with Turkey's help
The issue is timing, NATO troops are positioned to rapidly respond in various areas, while it would take a couple days for countries to arrange help for Finland. And you can do significant damage in a couple of days.
> I think it should be majority vote like in democracy.
Not a good idea.
Nato's is military alliance which all members should defend any other member attacked by another country.
You cannot force a country to send soldiers to died for another country if they didn't even wanted to be in the same alliance in the first place.
So every country agreeing is a must in Nato.
That wouldnt really work, because If article 5 steps Into action every nato-member is obligated to go to war for each and every member. And that would cause major differences when one country refuses because they didnt agree to defend another country in the first place.
Let the Pleads Swede.
Putin did say that if Sweden and Finland join Russia would become the threat everyone makes them out to be. so I think the Kremlin cares.
Putin said in the CSTO-meeting testerdaythat these countries are no threat or cause problems to Russia, therefore don't need any immediate action.
Maybe he knows something that we don't (a deal with Erdogan) or there never was any deal and the message is still the same. Neither seems impossible.
Just seems weird since the rhetoric was borderline threatening, they cut off electricity to Finland, and now it is all good. That just seems very odd, it was even said when they had told putin, he was calm about it. Which to me means there is something we are not aware of.
Maybe it has to do with it being said that if able to join, would not want to host anything nuclear weapons. So perhaps there was dialogue between them that resulted in putin changing his tone.
Good points. Maybe.
Finland wouldn't gain anything from nukes anyway. No reason to place them. Control of the Baltic Sea covers that part already.
I do think though, that the Finnish president has handled everything with dignity, something which the Russians can surely respect.
It’s not weird at all. It’s a massive strategic loss for Russia, and Putin especially, but now they need to domestically sell the idea that it somehow isn’t. The only way to do that is to downplay its strategic importance.
>Just seems weird since the rhetoric was borderline threatening, they cut off electricity to Finland, and now it is all good.
Cutting the electricity was over failed payments due to the sanctions, nothing to do with NATO.
Nazi grps in Swe and Fin?? There must be terrorist and extremists grps in Turkey too.
Erdogen is a fascist!!
Just kick Turkey out.
So, are you arguing with a child? What makes you?
You have to understand world politics doesn't revolve around emotions, every nation has their own interests and policies. I understand joining NATO is essential for the safety of Sweden and Finland, at the same time the extradiction and the cut of financial support for PKK terrorists which have been attacking both Turkish civilians and soldiers is essential for Turkiye's safety.
Turkey is more important than Sweden and Finland...
Probably Erdogan is paid by Putin to block this. Erdogans reasoning to do this feels pretty weak. I’ve never heard about his theory sbout Sweden or Finland before. The only thing I know is that all Turkish people that live in Europe are either supporter of his regime or too scared to call him out because of consequences for their families still living back in Turkey. Erdogan is as crazy dictator as Putin or Kim. He never said anything about Germany and there are many Turkish people living there so there must more opponents of his facist regime. But he’s too scared too take them on.
Yeah he is certainly paid by ether Putin or China. We shall see will US (and Sweden/Finland) pay in secret the double Putin pays
In Finland we have not supported PPK in any signifigant extend, we have claimed PPK members like 10? I remember atleast 2 who came as refugees, their refugee status was declined but court denied deportation because it saw the 2 men were just doing normal political activities and there would be danger of not fair trial. So not a goverment support of PPK but human rights issue (same goes to other denied refugees if court sees they could be in danger when returning, not just kurds)
Finally Turkey said something about 2 kurds organized daycares for children... OH NO! SUCH A EXISTENTIAL THREAT FOR TURKEY
Turkey's geographical location in the black sea is 100 times more important to NATO than whatever Sweden brings to the table. Finland's position is debatable, as the Baltic sea is already pretty much covered.
From a military strategy standpoint, NATO should choose Turkey over Finland/Sweden every time.
Finland's position militarily is miles ahead of Turkey now that Ukraine isn't under the USSR. The Baltic Sea and Finland's already extremely fortified border is closer access to St. Petersburg and Moscow and Russia's Black Sea fleet basically no longer exists. NATO is far more important for Turkey's defense than Turkey is for NATO, and Turkey has just exposed itself as a severe defense liability politically (there were already doubts in many NATO countries).
Turkey's control of the Bhosporus is not NATO control of the Bhosporus, and never has been - NATO is already largely geared to send materiel through Europe, not the Black Sea. Finland and Sweden joining expand that capacity greatly.
> Russia's Black Sea fleet basically no longer exists.
Pretty sure that's in large part because of Turkey's membership of NATO.
I do agree that Finland can play a significant role in the Baltic, cutting off St. Petersburg's harbour. I'm not entirely sure how much of a naval force Russia keeps in Kaliningrad, but Poland/Germany/Denmark can play just as big a role there as Sweden, so they're not really needed in that regard.
Sweden's main use would be land-based movement of troops and gear to Finland, which doesn't seem like it's a super important factor.
He defo is not knowing where he stands. Couple of days ago he said he will not object.
Does this "delegation" include the Swedish Swim Team?
Maybe kick Turkey out of NATO...
Lol you just know so much about politics and NATO eh
it should be the other way around
Turkey is putins side bitch.