Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland
I’d 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.
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...
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...
The fact remains, NATO has some very useful facilities in Turkey which right now I am sure it would rather keep.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ditto Croatia.
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.
You have to remember that NATO isn’t a physical entity. Countries do what they want with who they want. NATO is a fall back option.
NATO doesn’t have any facilities in turkey. The US does. Turkey in or out won’t change that. If you don’t think the US are paying a prime price for those facilities then you are mistaken.
You have to remember that NATO isn’t a physical entity. Countries do what they want with who they want. NATO is a fall back option.
You have to remember that NATO isn’t a physical entity. Countries do what they want with who they want. NATO is a fall back option.
https://www.turkishnews.com/en/conte...ses-in-turkey/
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/
https://www.turkishnews.com/en/conte...ses-in-turkey/
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.
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.
Turkey's issues with Sweden and Finland need a face-saving solution for all concerned
Getting Turkey out of sorts is a complication, and Russia seems to be able to do that all by themselves in recent days anyway.
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.
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.
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.
Prediction: the Kurds will be hung out to dry, yet again.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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. Let’s face it, turkey has never been, nor never will be a member in the true spirit of the treaty. You couldn’t 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 “power brokers” 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.
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...
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.
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.