21–30 of 310 posts
Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world stage, but anyone with a brain should know whose side they are on. In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world stage, but anyone with a brain should know whose side they are on. In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world stage, but anyone with a brain should know whose side they are on. In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world stage, but anyone with a brain should know whose side they are on. In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
> In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another. Wut? North Korea is the vassalist vassal that ever vassaled. Russia might be getting there.
But turks said no.
If they had to choose, NATO would probably rather have Sweden and Finland in and Turkey out. Here's an interesting thread on Finland's strategic importance: https://twitter.com/tomiahonen/status/1525959053490458624
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But NATO can't choose because getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance.
> getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance Not really. It does if one does this after they’re invaded, to evade mutual defence commitments. But acknowledging that there are no longer shared values and providing an off ramp is perfectly fine. Strengthening, even, as it shows heightened resolve to take the commitment seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you rather NATO drop Turkey, or Sweden drop the PKK? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-meet-turkey-critic... "The problem is that these two countries are openly supporting and engaging with PKK and YPG. These are terrorist organisations that have been attacking our troops every day," Mevlut Cavusoglu said as he arrived in Berlin for a meeting with his NATO counterparts. "Therefore it is unacceptable and…
But Sweden and Finland are NOT "openly supporting" the PKK and YPG. Just copying the Erdogan propaganda is at best lazy. Nor is it correct to label these organizations as entirely "terrorist". The reality is a lot more complicated, but Erdogan would very much like you to simplify "organized Kurds = Terrorists"...
Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world stage, but anyone with a brain should know whose side they are on. In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
Which country or countries is India a vassal of?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another. Wut? North Korea is the vassalist vassal that ever vassaled. Russia might be getting there.
No. They are the most indepedentest of the independent. They only serve one lunatic dictator and his family. And developed nuclear weapons against the wishes of US, china and russia. Can't get more independent than that. It's a country that literally starved itself to stay independent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> getting rid of a prior member of an alliance undermines the very idea and value of the alliance Not really. It does if one does this after they’re invaded, to evade mutual defence commitments. But acknowledging that there are no longer shared values and providing an off ramp is perfectly fine. Strengthening, even, as it shows heightened resolve to take the commitment seriously.
That's not how must treaties work and certainly not how the NATO treaty is written. Maybe you should read it first.
Most treaties have termination clauses. The North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 13 provides for voluntary exit [1]. (One could argue Ankara’s SS-4 purchase constitutes an Article 8 violation, though this would be petry.)
Treaties are about mutual understanding. If Americans and Czechs would find it unseemly to fight for Turkey’s defence in case of invasion, it does more harm to pretend they’re under collective defence than to amend the treaty to make it extremely clear whom one can invade without getting nuked and whom one cannot.
All this said, I think Turkey should remain a NATO member. They have shown themselves by arming Ukraine and denouncing Putin. They are a founding member. And their position remains strategically critical.
[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...