Originally Posted by magyarflyer
(Post 11232046)
Erdogan refuses admission of Nordic countries into NATO he won’t budge no matter what there is the end of the proposal
i don’t see see any way around it diplomatically or otherwise wonder how much Putin influences Erdogan decision |
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst
(Post 11232155)
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.
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... |
The fact remains, NATO has some very useful facilities in Turkey which right now I am sure it would rather keep.
|
I remember many yeas ago listening to the politicking about Turkey joining the EU. Concerns about such factors as the EU then bordering Iran.....
|
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
(Post 11232074)
Erdogan sees a situation that he can turn to his advantage, so he's going to make the most of it.
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. |
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. |
I think that Ninthace is spot on.
|
Spent many many months in Inserlik. Jaguar years, Yes we need Turkey onside.
|
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11232295)
The fact remains, NATO has some very useful facilities in Turkey which right now I am sure it would rather keep.
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. |
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst
(Post 11232981)
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. https://www.turkishnews.com/en/conte...ses-in-turkey/ |
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11232983)
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/ |
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. |
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst
(Post 11232155)
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.
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. :} |
Originally Posted by fdr
(Post 11238176)
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.
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 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. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gifhttps://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif |
Originally Posted by pasta
(Post 11229238)
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. "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. |
Originally Posted by fdr
(Post 11238176)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by Clop_Clop
(Post 11239424)
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. |
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst
(Post 11239843)
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.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.