Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland

Old 18th May 2022, 21:29
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Uk
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by magyarflyer View Post
Erdogan refuses admission of Nordic countries into NATO he wonít budge no matter what there is the end of the proposal
i donít see see any way around it diplomatically or otherwise
wonder how much Putin influences Erdogan decision
I think NATO would rather lose turkey and gain Sweden and Finland. As there is no mechanism to remove a country from NATO, that also means there is no impediment to NATI just chucking them out.
Flyhighfirst is online now  
Old 18th May 2022, 22:53
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 72
Posts: 793
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst View Post
I think NATO would rather lose turkey and gain Sweden and Finland. As there is no mechanism to remove a country from NATO, that also means there is no impediment to NATI just chucking them out.
As much as Iíd like to agree, Iím afraid Turkey is a very strategic ally to have so adjacent to a very troubled and dangerous part of the world and having had them as an ally has had tremendous national security benefits. To have Turkey on the opposite side of key geopolitical matters would cost the US and other NATO countries terribly.

Iíd hope we can reach a diplomatic solution within NATO. But if that fails in the near term, perhaps explore the formation of a new treaty organization of Northern European countries including France, Germany, UK, USA, Canada, Scandinavia and former Warsaw Pact countries for the particular mutual security of its members. Granted it could be a bit awkward, but we cannot afford to leave Turkey out of NATO.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 19th May 2022, 07:58
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Eastern Cape, South Africa
Posts: 118
I dont think that Turkey is much interested in NATO as a defence organisation, just a lever to extract what it wants from the West. With inflation spiralling out of control, Turkey is using everything it can to extract help from the West.
With the purchase of the Russian Air Defence system, despite pleas from NATO not to, Turkey is moving away from an alliance with the West, more as a non aligned nation, if not moving towards closer ties with Russia.
I disagree that NATO needs Turkey any more, particularly as Turkey has shown little interest in being a constructive member, its only a matter of time before Turkey leaves of its own accord anyway
There must be some way that Finland and Sweden can be admitted to full de facto member ship of NATO, without troublesome Turkey's veto...
ATSA1 is online now  
Old 19th May 2022, 08:17
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 735
The fact remains, NATO has some very useful facilities in Turkey which right now I am sure it would rather keep.
Ninthace is offline  
Old 19th May 2022, 08:28
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 72
Posts: 1,723
I remember many yeas ago listening to the politicking about Turkey joining the EU. Concerns about such factors as the EU then bordering Iran.....
Haraka is offline  
Old 19th May 2022, 08:40
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
Erdogan sees a situation that he can turn to his advantage, so he's going to make the most of it.
^ this.
If he said that having Sweden and Finland in NATO was a fundamentally bad idea, we might have an intractable problem, but that's not the case at all. If he's saying "I won't support their membership unless XYZ" he's not fundamentally opposed, and it's therefore negotiable. Ditto Croatia.
pasta is online now  
Old 19th May 2022, 10:15
  #127 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 13,181
Ditto Croatia.
Croatia is just internal politics which won’t affect their vote.

The President says he is opposed, but he has no say in international affairs which are the responsibility of the government, who have said they support membership.
ORAC is online now  
Old 19th May 2022, 13:19
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 78
Posts: 461
I think that Ninthace is spot on.
Barksdale Boy is offline  
Old 20th May 2022, 19:39
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 1
Spent many many months in Inserlik. Jaguar years, Yes we need Turkey onside.
Jack the Russell is offline  
Old 20th May 2022, 22:02
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Uk
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by Ninthace View Post
The fact remains, NATO has some very useful facilities in Turkey which right now I am sure it would rather keep.
NATO doesnít have any facilities in turkey. The US does. Turkey in or out wonít change that. If you donít think the US are paying a prime price for those facilities then you are mistaken.

You have to remember that NATO isnít a physical entity. Countries do what they want with who they want. NATO is a fall back option.
Flyhighfirst is online now  
Old 20th May 2022, 22:05
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 735
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst View Post
NATO doesnít have any facilities in turkey. The US does. Turkey in or out wonít change that. If you donít think the US are paying a prime price for those facilities then you are mistaken.

You have to remember that NATO isnít a physical entity. Countries do what they want with who they want. NATO is a fall back option.
That is not how the Turks see it. They think there are 24 bases there, or at least there were in 2013.
https://www.turkishnews.com/en/conte...ses-in-turkey/
Ninthace is offline  
Old 20th May 2022, 22:50
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Uk
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by Ninthace View Post
That is not how the Turks see it. They think there are 24 bases there, or at least there were in 2013.
https://www.turkishnews.com/en/conte...ses-in-turkey/
I can guarantee you that turkey could be kicked out of NATO tomorrow and nothing would change. The money, influence, perks that turkey gets for hosting these bases has nothing to do with NATO.
Flyhighfirst is online now  
Old 31st May 2022, 06:40
  #133 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 13,181
Politico:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has set out why he is opposed to Swedish and Finnish membership of NATO in an article for the Economist, writing that the two countries have failed to oppose terrorism.

He confirms Turkey will block the countries’ membership bids, and also finds time to criticize French President Emmanuel Macron for saying NATO was becoming “brain dead” back in 2019.
ORAC is online now  
Old 31st May 2022, 07:22
  #134 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 1,554
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst View Post
I think NATO would rather lose turkey and gain Sweden and Finland. As there is no mechanism to remove a country from NATO, that also means there is no impediment to NATI just chucking them out.
The 1949 NATO treaty has no mechanism within the 14 paragraphs to throw out a member state. Any state can leave, they can't be pushed as such. NATO change 7.1 can always happen, and everyone else leaves the building.... but Turkey is a significant country to have as an alliance member, they are not going to permit access to the Black sea if they are acted against. Turkey's issues with Sweden and Finland need a face-saving solution for all concerned, and preferably one that doesn't affect the human rights of the PKK members that Turkey classifies as terrorists. By the same token, Russia is a terrorist state, and it would be a nice touch to throw out all of its ambassadors and consulate officials, representatives, and delegates from.... USA, EU etc, specifically, out of 405 E 42nd St, New York, NY 10017, USA, USA, USA!. There is absolutely nothing in the US INS regs that requires the USA INS or CBP etc to permit any official related to a terrorist state to enter or remain on US soil. That would be a nice move, followed by a bit of a vote at the said address.

Getting Turkey out of sorts is a complication, and Russia seems to be able to do that all by themselves in recent days anyway.

Now, if I was a US citizen, I would be having a word with my representatives and senators and giving them a question on why the Democratic party is happy to have representatives of a terrorist state as announced by the white house sullying my USA turf and drinking lattes and eating pizza in the big apple instead of having them man some BTR's and T-72's in their own land, where they are not considered to be terrorists.

fdr is offline  
Old 31st May 2022, 16:29
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,125
Originally Posted by fdr View Post
The 1949 NATO treaty has no mechanism within the 14 paragraphs to throw out a member state. Any state can leave, they can't be pushed as such.
And they do need to give a one year notice of leaving.
Turkey's issues with Sweden and Finland need a face-saving solution for all concerned
Prediction: the Kurds will be hung out to dry, yet again.
Getting Turkey out of sorts is a complication, and Russia seems to be able to do that all by themselves in recent days anyway.
True enough.
There is absolutely nothing in the US INS regs that requires the USA INS or CBP etc to permit any official related to a terrorist state to enter or remain on US soil.
Now, if I was a US citizen, I would be having a word with my representatives and senators and giving them a question on why the Democratic party is happy to have representatives of a terrorist state as announced by the white house sullying my USA turf and drinking lattes and eating pizza in the big apple instead of having them man some BTR's and T-72's in their own land, where they are not considered to be terrorists.
While that got me chuckling, I am not sure if the political backbone to try that move is currently present. Check back in a month to see what has changed.

Now, if they do get the boot, make sure to fly them in a 737 Max (OK, ducking the incoming now!) to Alaska, and then across the Bering Straits to be delivered somewhere like Vladivostok. They can arrange bus fare home from there.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2022, 08:50
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: X marks the spot
Posts: 50
Prediction: the Kurds will be hung out to dry, yet again.
They are probably Swedish citizens as well now and there are no extradition treaty between Turkey and Sweden as i understand it. So bit of a headache for the SocDems to deal with... Sending some Kurds to Turkey to please Erdogan in exchange for a NATO membership (which many SocDems doesn't agree with regardless) is not going to go down well in the upcoming election... The arms embargo maybe easier to tweak...
Clop_Clop is online now  
Old 2nd Jun 2022, 21:21
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,162
Originally Posted by pasta View Post
It takes a certain amount of doublethink to call the Russian threat a hoax at the very same time they're attempting to invade Ukraine.

The difference between Russian expansion and NATO expansion is that NATO expands when someone wants to join it (if the rest of NATO is happy to have them), whereas Russia expands by invading countries that don't want to join it.
Bang on!

"Shoving NATO's border right up to Russia's Western flank" is based on democratic sovereign nations feeling threatened by Russian nationalism, militarism and posturing and applying to NATO.

"Shoving Russia's border up to NATO's Eastern flank" is based on democratic sovereign nations being invaded after feeling threatened by Russian nationalism, militarism and posturing.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2022, 22:20
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Uk
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by fdr View Post
The 1949 NATO treaty has no mechanism within the 14 paragraphs to throw out a member state. Any state can leave, they can't be pushed as such. NATO change 7.1 can always happen, and everyone else leaves the building.... but Turkey is a significant country to have as an alliance member, they are not going to permit access to the Black sea if they are acted against. Turkey's issues with Sweden and Finland need a face-saving solution for all concerned, and preferably one that doesn't affect the human rights of the PKK members that Turkey classifies as terrorists. By the same token, Russia is a terrorist state, and it would be a nice touch to throw out all of its ambassadors and consulate officials, representatives, and delegates from.... USA, EU etc, specifically, out of 405 E 42nd St, New York, NY 10017, USA, USA, USA!. There is absolutely nothing in the US INS regs that requires the USA INS or CBP etc to permit any official related to a terrorist state to enter or remain on US soil. That would be a nice move, followed by a bit of a vote at the said address.

Getting Turkey out of sorts is a complication, and Russia seems to be able to do that all by themselves in recent days anyway.

Now, if I was a US citizen, I would be having a word with my representatives and senators and giving them a question on why the Democratic party is happy to have representatives of a terrorist state as announced by the white house sullying my USA turf and drinking lattes and eating pizza in the big apple instead of having them man some BTR's and T-72's in their own land, where they are not considered to be terrorists.

I think most would accept that having Sweden and Finland in NATO is a greater goal than keeping turkey, irregardless of rights to the Black Sea.

Although no provision under NATO for booting a member there is under article 60 - Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It would have to be a case that was made, but with all other members on board it should be successful. Letís face it, turkey has never been, nor never will be a member in the true spirit of the treaty. You couldnít count on them to fulfil their obligations, or indeed count on them not joining the other side if it suited them.

As with all other regional ďpower brokersĒ they see themselves in a regional sense and use all available means to increase their influence and power in their region. That includes membership of NATO.
Flyhighfirst is online now  
Old 3rd Jun 2022, 04:02
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,125
Originally Posted by Clop_Clop View Post
They are probably Swedish citizens as well now and there are no extradition treaty between Turkey and Sweden as i understand it. So bit of a headache for the SocDems to deal with... Sending some Kurds to Turkey to please Erdogan in exchange for a NATO membership (which many SocDems doesn't agree with regardless) is not going to go down well in the upcoming election... The arms embargo maybe easier to tweak...
After two reads of your post, looks like a sound analysis from here. Sadly. I'd love to have the Swedes (and Finns) join the club.

For Flyhighfirst: nice link, I'll have a look at it tomorrow over a coffee. I vaguely recall reading through that a quarter of a century ago as I was doing research on some UN and International Law of the Sea treaty stuff. Thanks.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2022, 13:54
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst View Post
Letís face it, turkey has never been, nor never will be a member in the true spirit of the treaty. You couldnít count on them to fulfil their obligations, or indeed count on them not joining the other side if it suited them.
I would possibly not be 100% as harsh as you but in a general direction I share your doubts. I would not consider them nearly as reliable as most other NATO members. Turkey has its own territorial/area of influence Agenda. And you can see this in several conflicts in Near/Middle East up to Armenia/Azerbaidschan. NATO has been a vehicle for them to aquire Top Notch Equipment and having its back covered while stirring the pot in the region.
henra is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.