141–150 of 310 posts
If you have a neighbour that invades sovereign countries, it makes sense to seek strong allies. This is a direct result of Russia invading Ukraine, it doesn't matter how much Russia complains now.
Sweden doesn't neighbour with Russia. Only Finland and Norway!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I recall correctly, it requires unanimous vote of approval.
Everyone else leaves NATO and sets up NATO2 where Sweden and Finland are members but Turkey is not.
Turkey has NATO's second-largest army, for one thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a demand is pretty clearly impossible to accept as a peace condition as it would just expose Ukraine to more Russian coercion in the future. Russia also demanded a categorical end to NATO expansion including in Sweden and Finland.
Says who? Reports on the peace deal were that Ukraine had agreed to this point. Also “We might get invaded/bombed in the future” is a strictly better outcome than “we are being bombed right now”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortificat...
If you have a neighbour that invades sovereign countries, it makes sense to seek strong allies. This is a direct result of Russia invading Ukraine, it doesn't matter how much Russia complains now.
Sweden doesn't neighbour with Russia. Only Finland and Norway!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/WWII_in_...
So does everyone here speak Swedish except me, or are we all chatting about an article we can't read? Here's an English article saying the same, just to maintain the illusion. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/14/europe/sweden-finland-nato-ne...
https://www.deepl.com/translator works best for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But turks said no. No. If the Turks actually said "no," they wouldn't be making demands: https://www.dw.com/en/nato-turkey-outlines-demands-on-finlan... : > Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Sunday outlined demands for Finland and Sweden which seek membership in NATO in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. > Speaking with Turkish reporters after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin, he sai…
From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? I guess both Swedish and Finnish government would both need to swallow a few frogs to comply with these requirements. At least, they won't be able to maintain a moral high horse over Turkey any more after complying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But turks said no. No. If the Turks actually said "no," they wouldn't be making demands: https://www.dw.com/en/nato-turkey-outlines-demands-on-finlan... : > Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on Sunday outlined demands for Finland and Sweden which seek membership in NATO in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. > Speaking with Turkish reporters after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Berlin, he sai…
From the Turkish perspective, why would they allow someone who supports their enemies to join the alliance? I guess both Swedish and Finnish government would both need to swallow a few frogs to comply with these requirements. At least, they won't be able to maintain a moral high horse over Turkey any more after complying.
Because the accession process provides Turkey an opportunity to apply leverage against Sweden and Finland to change their behavior. Simply refusing to allow it would gain Turkey nothing and harm them indirectly by weakening (or failing to strengthen) an alliance that Turkey depends on for its own security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
NATO is not just about Russia. To me, suggesting that Sweden is somehow more strategically important than Turkey is foreign policy illiterate. Turkey brings a military ~30x the size of Sweden, they are actively involved in being a buffer for conflicts in the Middle East, and they have an advanced military manufacturing capability that they have used to supply Ukraine and others with military drones. They also have su…
Turkey is the 2nd most powerful military in NATO after USA. It has access to all modern weapons, manufacturing abilities and above all, centuries of experience in fighting, winning and losing WARS.
Turkey's location is very very important for all kind of military operations and trade via Black Sea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"...
If they aren't then what's the problem? On the other hand, if the PKK is able to fundraise in Sweden and Finland like the IRA used to be able to in the US, then it seems logical for Turkey to use whatever leverage they have to decrease that activity, similar to GB. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1987/03/22/i...
You probably it is not the same, but for many, many people it is.
Also, your example missed the point where the Good friday agreement was drafted with US backing and help. This actually did more for the peace than decreasing fundraisers. Maybe Turkey should learn from this example?
1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine;
2. Failed to capture Kyiv;
3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass;
4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership;
5. Suffered huge casulaties;
6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project);
7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the last 20 years when previous to this, there wasn't a lot as much fervour for NATO;
8. Prompted Finland and Sweden to join NATO when previously they were happy being neutral;
9. Russia is now subject to broad sanctions where previously Europe was looking to increase gas dependence on Russia (eg Nord Stream 2).
So Putin has quite literally achieved nothing. A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade.
The question now is what is Putin's state of mind? Is he aware of the true position (as in, is he getting accurate assessments and intelligence or just "yes men")? Does he still think he can "win"? What does "winning" even look like now? A rational person would be looking for a face-saving exit (think "mission accomplished"). I thought that might be occupying the Donbass and negotiating for some autonomy for the region but even that is starting to look out of reach.
My concern is that someone cornered like this after making such a huge gamble at terrible cost is capable of doing something even more awful.
