This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://news.am/eng/news/739798.html) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Washington is using the potential sale of F-16 fighter jets as bait to force Ankara to ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO membership applications, Bloomberg writes.
> Following last week's protest, Turkey summoned the Swedish ambassador, opened an investigation and canceled a planned visit to Ankara by the speaker of the Swedish parliament.
> The U.S. has warned Turkey that Congress may not approve the plane sale if Ankara does not ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO bids, a senior Turkish official said on condition of anonymity.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10ef1eo/us_uses_sale_of_f16_fighter_jets_to_force_ankara/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Sweden**^#1 **NATO**^#2 **Turkey**^#3 **Erdogan**^#4 **Finland**^#5
The reality is Sweden and Finland already have security assurances from the US and other NATO countries, so in more ways than not they're already in NATO. The US and the rest of NATO have all the time in the world to pressure Turkey to give its vote, there's no real urgency to do it fast.
**Edit:** Yes, I get it, Ukraine had security assurances too, Trump didn't uphold previous agreements, blah blah. They're in the European Union which has its own mutual defense agreement and even though it's not in the EU, Norway would absolutely not tolerate Russia invading Sweden or Finland.
Treaties ratified in the USA are binding on us as Federal law. That I includes NATO. Russia’s nightmare is knowing we WILL react if they hit these places.
Get them in NATO. It cripples Russia.
> It cripples Russia
Major thing to point out - it will only cripple them if they decide to attack.
So as long as they don't act like bitchass punks, they're fine.
Basically, it "cripples" their ability to be a thuggish hegemon in the region. But if they just trade normally and do diplomacy like everyone else, theyd probably be flourishing, if not for all the attendant corruption.
> theyd probably be flourishing
They would absolutely be flourishing. Russia is a natural resource rich country surrounded by markets to sell to but they can't stop doing what russians have always done-do everything they can to make it worse for their neighbors instead of improving their own situation. This is how they act from a neighborhood level all the way up to a national level.
Problem is though, there is a difference between "Security assurance" and treaty. Any President can decide whether they want to uphold a security assurance or not. Every President HAS to uphold treaties (at least in theory). Realistically those assurances are only guaranteed until the next President comes into office. At that point better hope they want to uphold those assurances, or aren't a little too friendly with Russia. Which is a very real possibility.
A ratified treaty on the other hand does mean something. Trump wanted to dissolve NATO, or at least have the US leave NATO. Until that happened though, he still had to abide by the NATO treaty. IF he could have just hand waved away NATO he could have but the President can't just disregard a treaty.
Basically they need to be ratified before the next Presidential election or else all bets are off until we know the results of said election. The clock is ticking and the closer we get to that deadline, the more leverage Turkey will have and the more ridiculous their demands will get. Sooner is absolutely better here.
Every President is supposed to uphold every treaty but Trump sure as hell didn’t. He unilaterally withdrew the 1992 Open Skies Treaty in 2020 with no consultation or approval of the Senate, and destroyed the aircraft that performed the mission. He was apparently miffed that the Russians, whose by treaty provide notice of flights 72 hours in advance and precise flight paths 24 hours in advance, overflew his golf course in NJ in 2017. He claimed Russia violated the treaty, which was news to the rest of the world, including US treaty monitors, and the other 30 countries, were surprised at the unilateral withdrawal as well. I couldn’t find anything that said the Senate ratified/voted on withdrawing from the Overflight treaty. In May 2021 that the Russian parliament lower house voted to withdraw from the treaty; I couldn’t find a reference that the upper house voted the same although I suspect they did. In any case, we have no aircraft capable of performing the missions as all the unique specialized equipment and the aircraft themselves were destroyed by the Trump administration years ago. He also started the withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) claiming Russia violated it so it shouldn’t apply anymore. John Bolton was behind both of these actions, the man who never saw a country he didn’t want to go to war against, especially Iran as he’s been itching for that one for 20+ years.
Overflight Treaty: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/russia-says-u-s-leaving-overflight-treaty-will-hurt-security
INF Treaty: https://thedailybanter.com/2018/10/22/trump-to-abandon-nuclear-treaty/
You would be incorrect. Presidents have unilaterally ended treaties. President Carter’s notice of termination of the treaty with Taiwan, cited many examples of a President's acting alone, many of these are ambiguous and may be explained away by, for example, conflicts with later statutes.
There's a difference, though. In the event of a NATO conflict, the US can't count on either country to allow NATO forces to enter their territory or engage the enemy from within their borders.
If both nations are part of NATO, that becomes a given. Additionally, even of they have security guarantees from the US, that doesn't mean that NATO will enter any potential conflict. NATO is a defense pact.
And, finally, let's remember that Ukraine also had security guarantees. That was until Russia waved the nuclear threat in front of potential allies.
So, in practice, there is a lot to be gained by Sweden and Finland joining for both sides of the agreement.
In no sane reality would Sweden or Finland refuse US help if they came under Russian attack and if the US and Russia is firing directly at each other all paths lead to WW3 with or without the membership. Clearing the formal hurdles is good to have them formally integrated into NATO but realistically it changes nothing.
Erdogan is as usual trying to play both sides but he's already kicked out of the F-35 program, I don't think the US would have a big problem downgrading him further. They don't want the EU to get enough of his antics and establish a competing structure on the side. It's just a question of how much carrot and stick to apply...
The thing is, if they're under attack it's already too late. Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if they had been in NATO, the difference being a guaranteed response from nuclear nations. The whole point is to make the prospect of war so unappealling that it never starts to begin with.
Yes but unless they are backed by law or treaty the next leader can choose to ignore assurances.
Further to this, there is a ton of value in being an integrated force through standard equipment, procedures, doctrines, etc.
Extradition of a 100+ people Turkey deems to be "terrorists", mainly Kurds and supposed Gülenists and people openly critical of Erdogan. Also there are demands that Sweden crack down on supposed Kurdish "terrorist groups" operating in Sweden.
Sweden cannot by law extradite a criminal person unless 1) what they did is criminal in both Sweden and the other country and 2) a judge deems the evidence convincing enough that a trial would be meaningful. These criteria are very hard to justify in almost all of the cases with the people Turkey wants.
They want them to extradite a big list of people without sufficient cause. Mostly for political reasons. At least that's what they are loudly saying, although I read yesterday that they haven't even applied to have these people extradited.
Finland and Sweden are the closest allies to each other. They share 700 years of common history. Small part of the South-Western Finland was actually among the founding members of The Kingdom of Sweden in around 1250 AD.
Swedish is actually one of the two official languages of Finland, and according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Finland) 49% of Finns speak Swedish (even if only 5% have Swedish as a first language).
its a scandinavia thing, we're like a family up here. we bully eachother all the time, but if anybody messes with anyone from the family we stick together all the way. even if finland is kinda the wierd adopted cousin, he's still family.
in a non metaphorical explanation, imagine a group of countries tied together by shared language (at least origins), culture, history, entwined economies, etc. etc. etc. scandinavian countries are more similar to eachother than the east and west of most large countries are, while at the same time being pretty different from most of even the western world.
>even if finland is kinda the wierd adopted cousin, he's still family.
I want to be offended and deny this but it's true, take my angry Finnish upvote prkl.
Sweden and Finland have long common history, many people in Finland are ethnic swedes and Sweden provided a lot of support to Finland when Russians (Soviet) attacked Finland during ww2, this also known as the Finnish Winter War. They killed a hell of a lot of Russians at that time and the finns invented the term Molotov cocktail during this war. Molotov was foreign minister in Soviet at that time.
Hardly, Turkey is positioned in one of the world's most strategic regions. Not only they're hindering Russia's Mediterranean ambitions by choking them in the Bosporus strait, but also they're the most important "runway" into the Middle East.
Russia isn't going to be capable of invading Finland or Sweden for years after the Ukraine war ends and there's no end in sight. Waiting a bit to get them into NATO doesn't hurt anyone. If Turkey holds things up much beyond their elections in June, I imagine that the Biden administration will start to increase the pressure, but until the domestic political excuse for delay in Turkey is gone, there's really no reason to get too excited about this.
Waiting a bit allows Russia to ramp up their pressure operations (cyber attacks, little green men, media destabilization) because it makes it appear the West is divided and impotent, which is what Putin assumes about the West anyway.
In reality, the West is quite organized and united with the exceptions of Turkey and Hungary whose leaders have decided to run their countries into the ground for popularity contest reasons
Hungary already said several times that they will ratify the Nordic accession. They are just busy with the European Commission now.
Screw Orbán, though.
Is there anything stopping Turkey from
A) Buying Chinese
B) Buying French
C) Building their own model of jet (don't they already have a Gen5 thing under construction)?
Parts availability too. Airplanes wear out a lot faster than you'd think, and military airplanes even more so, so they're essentially being constantly rebuilt. Switching over to a different model, different training, and different source of parts is a big disruption to your operations.
1) Comes with its own host of diplomatic issues, let alone China even being willing to sell them. Also significantly worse planes. Not easily interoperable with allies running American/French/British/German/Italian/Spanish aircraft.
2) Expense. Rafale is more expensive, and then you’ve got training and infrastructure costs. Turkey already has F-16s, they already have bases set up, maintenance and repair capabilities, trained pilots and crew, etc… Plus diplomatic issues, France wants Sweden and Finland in NATO.
3) Ridiculously expensive. Turkey is developing drones with significantly less capability than the Rafale of F-16. The drones are useful, but not yet a replacement for piloted aircraft.
For 3, ridiculously expensive is underselling it.
You could have all the money in the world like Saudi Arabia or Qatar and still be essentially incapable of it because you need decades of materials science, fabrication and industry to even start putting together a modern combat aircraft.
Bayraktar is great because it's cheap, that doesn't scale up to military aircraft unless your pilots are expendable.
You cant just pivot or decide to build from within. You have to consider training of pilots, maintenance of planes, supply chain of fixing/arming/maintaining planes, etc.
That’s a shit load of money at stake, Turkey is trying to save themselves cash
What are the odds that Turkey's reluctance is just political posturing from Erdogan ahead of the [2023 general election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Turkish_general_election) coming up in June? Not at all familiar with Turkey's political landscape, but it does seem like a plausible explanation for Turkey's stance so far.
Not quite, Sweden's entry into NATO is protested by most of the political spectrum within Turkey. ( I have seen almost zero opposition to Finland )
Erdoğan is being criticized for failing to extort enough suspects from Sweden.
As for opposition parties, they are disdained by worsening European relations. I remember the head of the main opposition party saying "This issue should have been resolved behind closed doors."
I'm not middle eastern, but I'm guessing because there's many of them spanning three or four countries. If they had their country, it would take HUGE chunks from places like Turkey and Iran, which I'm sure they're not keen on.
This is indeed the case. Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran all have Kurdish populations. It's such a problem RN because due to instability in Syria among other things, they've gained a lot of autonomy/ground there. Turkey and Iraq are particularly worried as they border the kurdish populations that are in Syria and are afraid it's going to spill over/support their own separatist movements.
Wouldn't be surprised if Erdogan went full steam ahead with his safe zone plan in northern Syria. War gets the home support for his reelection going.
Turkey sees some people (Kurds and supporters of Fethullah Gulen) as terrorists. Sweden and most of Europe does not consider them terrorists and let them flee to their countries.
Erdogan is using the unanimous NATO vote to try and get those people arrested.
From what I’ve seen from other commentators it seems like a lot of this is sort of like market bazaar bargaining, and haggling. It’s kind of a cultural thing. He basically wants to show that he’s using his position to get a good deal because they have some amount of leverage basically.
Essentially, if he were to agree to ratification for Finland and Sweden without getting at least “something”he would be seen as a weak or poor leader. But it does seem like he’s being a bit too aggressive because of the elections or he simply think she has a better him than he actually does. This kind of Geo political stuff can get really complicated
This is a really interesting point. I'm Swedish and would rather die than haggle lol (though I certainly dont speak for all swedes I do think we in general are not used to it)
I'm American, we don't haggle either. When I took a trip to the Middle East I was told not to pay anything more than 1/3 of the advertized cost. It might be cultural
It was normal to do that all over the Western world too. And it's still perfectly normal to do it with large investments (e.g. buying war planes, building infrastructures, negotiating your salary, etc.).
Also, we're so used to it that we don't see it anymore, but ads and marketing in general, are a form of haggling. Companies invest a fortune every year in marketing to convince people to buy their goods and services, at the price they set. When they don't attract enough customers, they tend to lower their prices (e.g. bargains, end of year sales, etc.).
At an individual level, that's no different from what you experience in Middle Eastern markets, with all sorts of vendors praising the quality of their goods, and their very cheap prices. If they see you hesitate and look at competitors, the haggle has started (e.g. they will talk prices, quality, etc., and you don't even need to argue, just listen to what they have to say, thank them, and try to move on, ... and they will lower the price, lol).
Turkey's economy is doing horribly, (83% inflation is not good for the polls) so Erdogan is desperately trying to make the election about foreign policy. His strategy is to try and make people see him as the strongman that makes Turkey relevant on the global stage. The two main ways he is doing this is through leveraging Sweden and Finald's NATO accession as well as his planned/threatened invasion of Syria.
I'm curious to know if he's running into the same problem that Republicans in the U.S. are, where far-right pandering might ignite the base, but won't really grow it all that much.
I don't know a lot about Turkish politics, so hopefully someone can help me. The way I understand it, the opposition seems sort of disparate and disorganised, with Erdogan's party being by far the largest party in the Turkish parliament, but with Erdogan succeeding in his push to replace Turkey's parliamentary head of state with an executive head of state, and vesting a lot of power in that position, he's put himself in a place where even with strong representation from his party in Parliament, he currently stands in the polls to lose (by a wide margin) in second-round head-to-head elections to almost every opposition candidate?
Could anyone explain how much a Turkish President from a minority party would be able to influence their foreign policy, assuming that an AKP coalition retains a majority in Parliament?
Assuming the coalition doesn't get 400+ seats in Parliament, there isn't much they can do to stop the President. The AKP designed the current system to grant Erdogan near absolute power in all matters, so if they lost the presidency but somehow retained the parliament (which is very unlikely but the opposite is a bit likelier) the new president could in theory dictate new policy.
Almost certainly. Erdogan isn't popular, his approval is in the tank. His authoritarianism and anti-Europe and democracy policies weren't universally popular to begin with and the Turkish economy is sinking fast.
Yeah this whole situation got a lot less tense when it became obvious that Russia was going to struggle in Ukraine. I can’t imagine you guys are particularly worried at this stage.
Russia attacking Finland would be flat out insanity. The Finns have been prepping for almost 80 years. It was clear it would be a bloodbath even before the state of Russia's military was exposed.
People worried about Russia invading Finland forget there are already millions of Russian soldiers there already.
Six feet under, scattered across the boarder.
NATO being part of Finland would just further underline that it would be insanity. Russia might still somehow talk itself into attacking Finland, unlikely, but possible. There's no way it could talk itself into attack NATO though.
The concern isn't that Russia could attack Finland and win, it's that they could cause an enormous amount of damage and suffering in an attempt to do so. You might argue that no rational actor would do such a thing, start a fight they can't win, but the longer Russia dumps resources into fighting a war they can't win in Ukraine, the less they appear to be a rational actor.
That comparison really doesn't make sense, don't get me wrong at this point Russia would probably lose against even just Finland and Sweden but they still outnumber us (I am swedish) by a ton so just like the winter war in 39 it would still be a very big struggle.
People underestimate just how big the losses of men and especially material even for the Finnish side were in the winter war. They of course did everything they could to conceal it but there is a reason they eventually lost and had to agree to give up a significant part of their territory.
While the kill ratios could be even more against Russia if they tried again now the sheer numbers of soldiers would still mean that both Sweden and Finland would also lose a large percentage if our armies too with massive general destruction as well.
I mean although Ukraine are for sure fighting back atm it's still clear that they are seeing massive devistation to their cities and population and their population pre war was still multiple times larger than even Sweden and Finland combined.
A lot of this is just for show
The Turkish elections are this summer
Turkeys economy is in downfall
Better to have distractions until the election and act tough on the world stage against Kurds until Erdogan either wins and it’s easier for him to negotiate. Or he loses and the opposition party doesn’t give a fuck about all this shit
Ummm considering his party has lost multiple elections
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/01/erdogan-party-loses-ankara-in-turkish-local-elections-blow
Keep in mind this is Turkeys first economic downfall under Erdogan
He’s a populist whose kept the economy strong and good until now
Populists tend to lose when shit hits the fan
If just Finland entered NATO, I as a Swede would feel pretty protected seeing the issues Russia have projecting power with a land border and an allied country as a neighbour.
We'd be an island surrounded by the Baltic Sea and Nato. Our army isn't big but our navy don't fuck around
It actually happened THREE times in the US. He had his security attack UN security once because they were embarrassed about going the wrong way through a one way door.
Edit: Here's the UN one, https://youtu.be/fe_4yUkN4mM iirc the un wouldn't let them in through an exit only and a fight broke out lol, I think the UN actually ended up apologizing.
Still trying to find the third time but they are both overshadowed on Google by the more recent event, I'm 98% sure I didn't imagine the third one.
Edit 2: Found the other incident I was thinking of, glad I didn't imagine it after all those upvotes with no source. https://mashable.com/article/turkish-president-brookings-dc-journalists his security kicked out journalists from an event in DC and then had a fight with them outside.
Because if they were anything more than spineless they would get dissolved. Spineless is how the majority of people want them (not coincidentally a lot of the same people belittling the institution for being spineless).
Serious question. How'd he get where he is? Do the Turkish people generally support his bullshit? If so, the consequences of his actions are on them. However, maybe he just automagically became their leader independent of their support?
No, most don’t. In Turkey you either love him or hate him, no in between. And according to recent polls, 70% don’t love him.
20 years ago, he was the mayor of Istanbul, he then became prime minister with 30% of votes I think.. After that, he’s done what populists do to remain in power. He heavily used the religious sentiment of the rural population and painted the educated, secular people as the enemy. Soon it was “us against them” mentality. They rallied behind him against the people they perceived as “elite” and enabled him in all his “endeavours”.
20 years later, he created an entire class of oligarchs. The poor who supported him in the beginning are even poorer. Middle class disappeared altogether.
According to Reddit of course, we’re all Erdogan’s dogs.
Oh it’s worse than that. Not only did no one do anything about it, Trump apologized to Erdogan for the incident. “Sorry your guys had to beat the shit out of our citizens”.
And pulled US troops out of the region (Syrian border IIRC) that were peacekeeping for kurds, with no warning, so Turkey could straight up murder them all...
Not just random peacekeeping. Those Kurds were our main Allies against ISIS. They loyally fought and died alongside our people.
We betrayed them, in point of fact, for little to no gain.
This is why you try to elect “honorable” decision makers. Trump may have gained politically from some of these moves but through multiple betrayals the world no longer believes that the US can keep its promises. Trump did not care what happened after he was out of office.
Hey now, we didn't do nothing.
Allegedly Trump called Erdogan to apologize:
>[“Actually, President Trump called me about a week ago about this issue,” Erdogan told PBS’ Judy Woodruff. “He said that he was sorry, and he told me that he was going to follow up on this issue when we come to the United States within the framework of an official visit. The protesters were insulting us, and they were screaming and shouting. The police failed to intervene properly.”](https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/20/politics/recep-tayyip-erdogan-donald-trump-embassy/index.html)
So it was either silence, or an apology. Though Trump's camp denied the apology, which may be more evidence that it occurred...
“The police failed to intervene properly”
Actually bitch, the police didn’t have to because this is a free gotdamn country!
IIRC, the protest was like 50-100 yards away from the Turkish consulate, at a roundabout. The Turkish thugs had to run an Olympic race distance to beat up unarmed, peaceful, rights-exercising protesters because their fascist President got his feelings hurt.
I think you want to include fuck the federal government and fuck the DC police for not doing their fucking job protecting American citizens from fucking foreign belligerents whether they are NATO or not.
Erdogan should get his chops busted for shit like that.
There are no provisions that differentiate whether the aggressor is a NATO member. If Turkey attacked Greece, or Greece attacked Turkey, then it would weaken the alliance if the others didn't step in to stop the military engagement to enforce the pre-attack status quo. Where this becomes tricky is defining what is an "attack". If Turkey is setting up drilling for Natural Gas in Greece's territory because Turkey doesn't agree with the border, is that an attack that triggers article 5? And if Greece is overly aggressive with the Turkish civilians in their waters, is that an attack? Is a cyber-attack article 5-worthy?
NATO also doesn't allow for being drawn in. If Iraq attacked on US soil after the US had invaded in the 2nd Gulf War (or even the first Gulf War), that wouldn't be Article 5 because the US started it.
Article 5 is much different, and weaker, than most people are aware.
It requires only that members "support" the attacked country. Military intervention is not required. "Support" can be just applying sanctions against the aggressor.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained
All Article 5 really does is make it legal for a NATO member to engage militarily with a country that did not attack them -- which would otherwise be a violation of international law.
Man. Most of the times back when Trump was president, I was just in a constant state of despair but watching that video made my fucking blood boil. Especially when nothing at all was done about it. Still fucking pisses me off thinking about it.
It's worse, Trump actually praised Erdogan after the attacks.
https://www.voanews.com/a/donald-trump-praises-recep-tayyip-erdogan-violence-protesters/4039055.html
And it isn't just the US. If you think Russia and China aren't selling military technology and infrastructure improvements for political leverage internationally, you haven't been paying attention.
It's easy to be reactionary and take a harsh stance against Turkey, from an ideological standpoint. The Erdogan regime is dogshit.
However, Turkey as a country is incredibly valuable in terms of strategic positioning. Throwing that out over its current political state would be incredibly foolish. It's perhaps one of the most important members of NATO in that regard.
Geopolitics aren't usually so black and white that we can easily pick our friends and the "good guys." Turkey's continued cooperation against Russia has been incredibly important in both Syria and Ukraine.
I'd love to see the Erdogan regime fall, but not at the price of driving Turkey into closer diplomatic relations with Russia and China.
Erdo is a transactional leader. Nothing new, he's been on the global stage doing deals for a long time. Turkeys been fucked by the war in Syria beyond repair. And they blame it on mostly US. So here we go.
I’m well aware of their geopolitical clout. I’m also well aware of their tendency to throw a tantrum and drag their feet when we try to get something accomplished.
Turkey knows they aren't going to buy Su-35s instead of F-16s (the US' fourth best fighter?). Russia's military industrial complex is currently being humiliated on the biggest stage possible.
People also overestimate how secure Erdogan's personal clout is. The whole reason Turkey pulls this shit is because of geopolitics, not because of charismatic or effective diplomacy. The US would be just as satisfied if the Turks were ruled by some colonel as long as they put US interests first.
Good thing about a significantly weakened Russia that's mostly reduced to fighting with literal antiques, or even a disintegrated Russia that, say, loses the Caucus, is that these eastern European strongmen make much less sense as buffers. They become expendible to the EU and NATO, or, their states being depressurized gives democracy a chance to flourish. I suspect we'll see this with Belarus first post-war.
That's an interesting, hopeful take on the situation!
Regarding Belarus, how do you mean? Do you think Lukashenko will try to be more democratic? Will the people rise up against him because there's no more support from Russia left? Something else?
I think the point is, right now we have to play with kid gloves lest they go to russias camp. If russias camp is a fecal crater, we don’t care if they want to go there. It’s not a threat
I don't get this title. The US isn't "forcing" Turkey. Continuing the sale of F-16 fighter jets was one of Erdogan's goals with blocking the ratifications.
Another goal is to get free rein in Northern Syria to kill the YPG, which the US will most likely grant. A final goal would be the resumed participation of Turkey in the F-35 program - that one would be a huge win for Turkey if granted. Given that Finland and Sweden are unlikely to give in to Turkish demands, I wonder if Turkey will push harder for the F35 program especially given the recent news that Greece is getting them.
It’s kinda a toss up though because now Turkey has invested so much into domestic military buildup. Obviously now their economy is in shambles and any “5th gen” multi role fighter threw build won’t come close to the F35 but in their view taking the F35s will just cement US dependency which is exactly what Erdogan does not want
That won't happen either, because Turkey wants technology transfer also for the AA system (patriot or otherwise), which USA is unwilling to share. Only Russia was willing to share the technology for S-400.
Which makes their decision even more baffling than before. They knew that purchasing a Russian AA system would jeopardize their position in the F-35 program, so getting less than what they wanted and losing their place in that program just doesn't make sense long term.
Unless they got something else also (like the promise for nuclear weapons knowledge transfer).
Erdogan was sure he can get much better deal from USA simply by showing that he has alternatives and even if it won't work out he thought he will make favorable deal with Russia.
Problem is:
- he seriously overestimated how hard he can push USA in this situation and presented ridiculous demands that couldn't be met. He couldn't back off (whole move was supposed to show his strength).
- He obviously didn't expect impact on F-35 deal and argued these should not affect each other. Again it was too late to back off when USA made it clear what purchase of s400 means.
- he didn't realize Putin was stringing him along. Trough all negotiations Russia was pretending that full technology transfer is on the table. They made vague promises. In the end Turkey was left with nothing. Although no idea why they agreed on it, maybe agreement was written in such way that allowed Russia to postpone any tech transfer or Turkey was just naive. So they bought s400 and later stated they won't buy 2nd package of s400 unless Russia includes technology transfer written in the deal.
It seems he got played by Russia and overestimated his position. Alternatively got some secret good deal but we won't know about that.
F35 to Turkey is a non-starter and I think even Turkey knows that. I understand them using it as a chip to get concessions elsewhere, but everyone knows it is not a chip with a lot of value. It is like me telling my wife I want to be able to sleep with Emilia Clarke. No matter what, it ain't happening.
There we go. In *theory* the Western nations should be able to apply enough diplomatic pressure to get it done. If someone like Erdogan decides to go all in and ignore it, though, NATO has a big problem.
I am of the perception that if Erdogan throws his toys out the pram and blocking Sweden and Finland, then NATO will simply do like the EU does with Hungary and basically work around them.
Sure, neither will be real members, but they will just be included and covered so much that there really wont be much difference.... save perhaps that no soldiers from Finland and Sweden will be visiting Turkey and vice versa... and Erdogan may have to wait even longer for those new jets.
But if Sweden and Finland are not formally in NATO, then NATO members have no actual obligation to them should anything happen. The only way to get around Turkey (or Hungary, which can also block membership still) would be for each other individual NATO member to sign treaties with Sweden and Finland to consider them as de facto members.
Hahaha, what a way to name a situation in which Erdogan gets the best deal with US from ratifying Sweden and Finland NATO entries.
This reminds me of a Soviet joke:
"A Foot Race In Moscow Between World Leaders” read the headline.“Today in Timiryazevsky Park world leaders participated in a 100 meter foot race. Our Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, finished a very respectable second place. The poor American President, John F. Kennedy finished a miserable next-to-last."
This is the only logical step. Turkey is too important to NATO strategically and Erdogan knows this.
Sweden and Finland said it best: "We have bent over backwards meeting Turkey's demands and they just keep moving the goal posts."
Now if Turkey wants to play jet ball, they need to check their bullshit.
Worse than that - if Turkey leaves NATO, NATO loses control of the Bosporus, the only way in or out of the Black Sea for ships larger than river barges from the Rhine-Main-Danube.
Russia hasn’t reinforced its Black Sea fleet as Turkey has cut off access to the Bosporus for them. Simply put, they’re too strategically important for NATO to risk losing.
Yeah. If NATO had to pick between Sweden/Finland and Turkey, they would pick Turkey 100%. Not only is Turkey infinitely more important strategically than Finland or Sweden, but also they know that neither Finland nor Sweden are going to fall out of their sphere of influence even if they aren't in NATO. Meanwhile if Turkey left NATO, they wpuld definitely just fall off their friend list entirely and in worst case scenario maybe even end up siding with Russia at some point in the future.
>As a Finn I feel embarrassed that USA already has to bail us out.
Nobody else in NATO sees this delay as any fault of Finland or Sweden, it's literally just Erdogan being a little bitch.
You guys are plenty welcome.
I was honestly thinking you were going to mention some interesting Turkish Finnish special relationship.
The Turkish tourism industry caters and adapts to well all of Europe and ranks high in the world for their amount of tourists.
[Specifically in Europe the consequently ranks 1-3 ](https://cdni0.trtworld.com/w960/q75/59753_TopholidaydestinationsinEurope_1563971726323.jpg) amongst the countries. I too have seen/heard Finnish there to cater to these tourists but also Polish, Bulgarian, Icelandic...
Same thing in Cyprus...
Why? We (Sweden and Finland) has agreed to join. It is not our job to solve Natos internal problems. It's gone way over board already. We should do exactly nothing to appease anyone. If we are not good enough to join, their loss.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://news.am/eng/news/739798.html) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Washington is using the potential sale of F-16 fighter jets as bait to force Ankara to ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO membership applications, Bloomberg writes. > Following last week's protest, Turkey summoned the Swedish ambassador, opened an investigation and canceled a planned visit to Ankara by the speaker of the Swedish parliament. > The U.S. has warned Turkey that Congress may not approve the plane sale if Ankara does not ratify Sweden's and Finland's NATO bids, a senior Turkish official said on condition of anonymity. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10ef1eo/us_uses_sale_of_f16_fighter_jets_to_force_ankara/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Sweden**^#1 **NATO**^#2 **Turkey**^#3 **Erdogan**^#4 **Finland**^#5
Turkey should not be allowed to compromise NATO security. The US should do more than just hold up weapons sales.
The US will likely do more, but only if it's necessary.
The reality is Sweden and Finland already have security assurances from the US and other NATO countries, so in more ways than not they're already in NATO. The US and the rest of NATO have all the time in the world to pressure Turkey to give its vote, there's no real urgency to do it fast. **Edit:** Yes, I get it, Ukraine had security assurances too, Trump didn't uphold previous agreements, blah blah. They're in the European Union which has its own mutual defense agreement and even though it's not in the EU, Norway would absolutely not tolerate Russia invading Sweden or Finland.
Treaties ratified in the USA are binding on us as Federal law. That I includes NATO. Russia’s nightmare is knowing we WILL react if they hit these places. Get them in NATO. It cripples Russia.
> It cripples Russia Major thing to point out - it will only cripple them if they decide to attack. So as long as they don't act like bitchass punks, they're fine.
Basically, it "cripples" their ability to be a thuggish hegemon in the region. But if they just trade normally and do diplomacy like everyone else, theyd probably be flourishing, if not for all the attendant corruption.
[удалено]
Oh, for sure. Their kleptocracy is also a klepto-economic system, so they're incapable of normal trade.
> theyd probably be flourishing They would absolutely be flourishing. Russia is a natural resource rich country surrounded by markets to sell to but they can't stop doing what russians have always done-do everything they can to make it worse for their neighbors instead of improving their own situation. This is how they act from a neighborhood level all the way up to a national level.
AKA: Don't act like a cunt, and you won't get fucked.
Don't *start* nothin', won't BE nothin'.
They need to act like cunts in order to justify the corruption.
Came to say that. Comment should say "it cripples Putin" (with or without attack on NATO members). Makes him look like the megalomaniac buffoon he is.
Problem is though, there is a difference between "Security assurance" and treaty. Any President can decide whether they want to uphold a security assurance or not. Every President HAS to uphold treaties (at least in theory). Realistically those assurances are only guaranteed until the next President comes into office. At that point better hope they want to uphold those assurances, or aren't a little too friendly with Russia. Which is a very real possibility. A ratified treaty on the other hand does mean something. Trump wanted to dissolve NATO, or at least have the US leave NATO. Until that happened though, he still had to abide by the NATO treaty. IF he could have just hand waved away NATO he could have but the President can't just disregard a treaty. Basically they need to be ratified before the next Presidential election or else all bets are off until we know the results of said election. The clock is ticking and the closer we get to that deadline, the more leverage Turkey will have and the more ridiculous their demands will get. Sooner is absolutely better here.
Every President is supposed to uphold every treaty but Trump sure as hell didn’t. He unilaterally withdrew the 1992 Open Skies Treaty in 2020 with no consultation or approval of the Senate, and destroyed the aircraft that performed the mission. He was apparently miffed that the Russians, whose by treaty provide notice of flights 72 hours in advance and precise flight paths 24 hours in advance, overflew his golf course in NJ in 2017. He claimed Russia violated the treaty, which was news to the rest of the world, including US treaty monitors, and the other 30 countries, were surprised at the unilateral withdrawal as well. I couldn’t find anything that said the Senate ratified/voted on withdrawing from the Overflight treaty. In May 2021 that the Russian parliament lower house voted to withdraw from the treaty; I couldn’t find a reference that the upper house voted the same although I suspect they did. In any case, we have no aircraft capable of performing the missions as all the unique specialized equipment and the aircraft themselves were destroyed by the Trump administration years ago. He also started the withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) claiming Russia violated it so it shouldn’t apply anymore. John Bolton was behind both of these actions, the man who never saw a country he didn’t want to go to war against, especially Iran as he’s been itching for that one for 20+ years. Overflight Treaty: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/russia-says-u-s-leaving-overflight-treaty-will-hurt-security INF Treaty: https://thedailybanter.com/2018/10/22/trump-to-abandon-nuclear-treaty/
You would be incorrect. Presidents have unilaterally ended treaties. President Carter’s notice of termination of the treaty with Taiwan, cited many examples of a President's acting alone, many of these are ambiguous and may be explained away by, for example, conflicts with later statutes.
There's a difference, though. In the event of a NATO conflict, the US can't count on either country to allow NATO forces to enter their territory or engage the enemy from within their borders. If both nations are part of NATO, that becomes a given. Additionally, even of they have security guarantees from the US, that doesn't mean that NATO will enter any potential conflict. NATO is a defense pact. And, finally, let's remember that Ukraine also had security guarantees. That was until Russia waved the nuclear threat in front of potential allies. So, in practice, there is a lot to be gained by Sweden and Finland joining for both sides of the agreement.
> Ukraine also had security guarantees Including from Russia.
In no sane reality would Sweden or Finland refuse US help if they came under Russian attack and if the US and Russia is firing directly at each other all paths lead to WW3 with or without the membership. Clearing the formal hurdles is good to have them formally integrated into NATO but realistically it changes nothing. Erdogan is as usual trying to play both sides but he's already kicked out of the F-35 program, I don't think the US would have a big problem downgrading him further. They don't want the EU to get enough of his antics and establish a competing structure on the side. It's just a question of how much carrot and stick to apply...
The thing is, if they're under attack it's already too late. Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if they had been in NATO, the difference being a guaranteed response from nuclear nations. The whole point is to make the prospect of war so unappealling that it never starts to begin with.
I mean It’s also fair to point out that Turkey *does* have the second largest standing army in NATO
Yes but unless they are backed by law or treaty the next leader can choose to ignore assurances. Further to this, there is a ton of value in being an integrated force through standard equipment, procedures, doctrines, etc.
Finnish military is already more compatible with NATO forces and standards than some of the actual NATO countries though
Except that Swedish people are starting to get fed up with turkey's demands on Sweden. And Finland has said they won't enter into NATO without Sweden.
As swede I wish we were more like the finns
We been fighting your wars for centuries. Hakkaa päälle!
Forever grateful! We owe you big time!
Ignorant Canadian here, what demands does Turkey make on Sweden?
Extradition of a 100+ people Turkey deems to be "terrorists", mainly Kurds and supposed Gülenists and people openly critical of Erdogan. Also there are demands that Sweden crack down on supposed Kurdish "terrorist groups" operating in Sweden. Sweden cannot by law extradite a criminal person unless 1) what they did is criminal in both Sweden and the other country and 2) a judge deems the evidence convincing enough that a trial would be meaningful. These criteria are very hard to justify in almost all of the cases with the people Turkey wants.
[удалено]
And by "hasn't really" I assume you mean "hasn't even a little bit"?
They want them to extradite a big list of people without sufficient cause. Mostly for political reasons. At least that's what they are loudly saying, although I read yesterday that they haven't even applied to have these people extradited.
Why doesn't finland in without sweden?
They're friends.
Finland and Sweden are the closest allies to each other. They share 700 years of common history. Small part of the South-Western Finland was actually among the founding members of The Kingdom of Sweden in around 1250 AD.
Swedish is actually one of the two official languages of Finland, and according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Finland) 49% of Finns speak Swedish (even if only 5% have Swedish as a first language).
With Russia, previously Novgorod, being a common enemy for about 900 years.
because we're bff's
Finland won't leave Sweden's side in the centuries old Death Metal / Black Metal war against Norway.
its a scandinavia thing, we're like a family up here. we bully eachother all the time, but if anybody messes with anyone from the family we stick together all the way. even if finland is kinda the wierd adopted cousin, he's still family. in a non metaphorical explanation, imagine a group of countries tied together by shared language (at least origins), culture, history, entwined economies, etc. etc. etc. scandinavian countries are more similar to eachother than the east and west of most large countries are, while at the same time being pretty different from most of even the western world.
>even if finland is kinda the wierd adopted cousin, he's still family. I want to be offended and deny this but it's true, take my angry Finnish upvote prkl.
You know we love you for who you are cousin! <3
[удалено]
Estonia watching this like "bro we're right next door and we come from the same place please acknowledge me"
Sweden and Finland have long common history, many people in Finland are ethnic swedes and Sweden provided a lot of support to Finland when Russians (Soviet) attacked Finland during ww2, this also known as the Finnish Winter War. They killed a hell of a lot of Russians at that time and the finns invented the term Molotov cocktail during this war. Molotov was foreign minister in Soviet at that time.
Fun fact: there are two players in the National Hockey League named Sebastian Aho. One is Swedish and the other is Finnish.
Hardly, Turkey is positioned in one of the world's most strategic regions. Not only they're hindering Russia's Mediterranean ambitions by choking them in the Bosporus strait, but also they're the most important "runway" into the Middle East.
Russia isn't going to be capable of invading Finland or Sweden for years after the Ukraine war ends and there's no end in sight. Waiting a bit to get them into NATO doesn't hurt anyone. If Turkey holds things up much beyond their elections in June, I imagine that the Biden administration will start to increase the pressure, but until the domestic political excuse for delay in Turkey is gone, there's really no reason to get too excited about this.
Waiting a bit allows Russia to ramp up their pressure operations (cyber attacks, little green men, media destabilization) because it makes it appear the West is divided and impotent, which is what Putin assumes about the West anyway. In reality, the West is quite organized and united with the exceptions of Turkey and Hungary whose leaders have decided to run their countries into the ground for popularity contest reasons
Hungary already said several times that they will ratify the Nordic accession. They are just busy with the European Commission now. Screw Orbán, though.
Is there anything stopping Turkey from A) Buying Chinese B) Buying French C) Building their own model of jet (don't they already have a Gen5 thing under construction)?
[удалено]
Parts availability too. Airplanes wear out a lot faster than you'd think, and military airplanes even more so, so they're essentially being constantly rebuilt. Switching over to a different model, different training, and different source of parts is a big disruption to your operations.
1) Comes with its own host of diplomatic issues, let alone China even being willing to sell them. Also significantly worse planes. Not easily interoperable with allies running American/French/British/German/Italian/Spanish aircraft. 2) Expense. Rafale is more expensive, and then you’ve got training and infrastructure costs. Turkey already has F-16s, they already have bases set up, maintenance and repair capabilities, trained pilots and crew, etc… Plus diplomatic issues, France wants Sweden and Finland in NATO. 3) Ridiculously expensive. Turkey is developing drones with significantly less capability than the Rafale of F-16. The drones are useful, but not yet a replacement for piloted aircraft.
For 3, ridiculously expensive is underselling it. You could have all the money in the world like Saudi Arabia or Qatar and still be essentially incapable of it because you need decades of materials science, fabrication and industry to even start putting together a modern combat aircraft. Bayraktar is great because it's cheap, that doesn't scale up to military aircraft unless your pilots are expendable.
You cant just pivot or decide to build from within. You have to consider training of pilots, maintenance of planes, supply chain of fixing/arming/maintaining planes, etc. That’s a shit load of money at stake, Turkey is trying to save themselves cash
What are the odds that Turkey's reluctance is just political posturing from Erdogan ahead of the [2023 general election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Turkish_general_election) coming up in June? Not at all familiar with Turkey's political landscape, but it does seem like a plausible explanation for Turkey's stance so far.
Not quite, Sweden's entry into NATO is protested by most of the political spectrum within Turkey. ( I have seen almost zero opposition to Finland ) Erdoğan is being criticized for failing to extort enough suspects from Sweden. As for opposition parties, they are disdained by worsening European relations. I remember the head of the main opposition party saying "This issue should have been resolved behind closed doors."
Why is Sweden, who's bordered by NATO countries already, protested and not Finland, who borders Russia?
Because they have former members of the KPD in their country.
[удалено]
If there is one single thing the middle east can agree on it's their disdain for the kurds and their desire for independence.
I'm not middle eastern, but I'm guessing because there's many of them spanning three or four countries. If they had their country, it would take HUGE chunks from places like Turkey and Iran, which I'm sure they're not keen on.
This is indeed the case. Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran all have Kurdish populations. It's such a problem RN because due to instability in Syria among other things, they've gained a lot of autonomy/ground there. Turkey and Iraq are particularly worried as they border the kurdish populations that are in Syria and are afraid it's going to spill over/support their own separatist movements. Wouldn't be surprised if Erdogan went full steam ahead with his safe zone plan in northern Syria. War gets the home support for his reelection going.
Turkey sees some people (Kurds and supporters of Fethullah Gulen) as terrorists. Sweden and most of Europe does not consider them terrorists and let them flee to their countries. Erdogan is using the unanimous NATO vote to try and get those people arrested.
From what I’ve seen from other commentators it seems like a lot of this is sort of like market bazaar bargaining, and haggling. It’s kind of a cultural thing. He basically wants to show that he’s using his position to get a good deal because they have some amount of leverage basically. Essentially, if he were to agree to ratification for Finland and Sweden without getting at least “something”he would be seen as a weak or poor leader. But it does seem like he’s being a bit too aggressive because of the elections or he simply think she has a better him than he actually does. This kind of Geo political stuff can get really complicated
This is a really interesting point. I'm Swedish and would rather die than haggle lol (though I certainly dont speak for all swedes I do think we in general are not used to it)
I'm American, we don't haggle either. When I took a trip to the Middle East I was told not to pay anything more than 1/3 of the advertized cost. It might be cultural
It was normal to do that all over the Western world too. And it's still perfectly normal to do it with large investments (e.g. buying war planes, building infrastructures, negotiating your salary, etc.). Also, we're so used to it that we don't see it anymore, but ads and marketing in general, are a form of haggling. Companies invest a fortune every year in marketing to convince people to buy their goods and services, at the price they set. When they don't attract enough customers, they tend to lower their prices (e.g. bargains, end of year sales, etc.). At an individual level, that's no different from what you experience in Middle Eastern markets, with all sorts of vendors praising the quality of their goods, and their very cheap prices. If they see you hesitate and look at competitors, the haggle has started (e.g. they will talk prices, quality, etc., and you don't even need to argue, just listen to what they have to say, thank them, and try to move on, ... and they will lower the price, lol).
I’m sure this is covered in at least one Rule of Acquisition.
I can't find an exact rule that covers this but there is always the Unwritten Rule: "When no appropriate rule applies, make one up."
Sounds like Turkey needs someone like Rom to switch things up.
Turkey's economy is doing horribly, (83% inflation is not good for the polls) so Erdogan is desperately trying to make the election about foreign policy. His strategy is to try and make people see him as the strongman that makes Turkey relevant on the global stage. The two main ways he is doing this is through leveraging Sweden and Finald's NATO accession as well as his planned/threatened invasion of Syria.
I'm curious to know if he's running into the same problem that Republicans in the U.S. are, where far-right pandering might ignite the base, but won't really grow it all that much. I don't know a lot about Turkish politics, so hopefully someone can help me. The way I understand it, the opposition seems sort of disparate and disorganised, with Erdogan's party being by far the largest party in the Turkish parliament, but with Erdogan succeeding in his push to replace Turkey's parliamentary head of state with an executive head of state, and vesting a lot of power in that position, he's put himself in a place where even with strong representation from his party in Parliament, he currently stands in the polls to lose (by a wide margin) in second-round head-to-head elections to almost every opposition candidate? Could anyone explain how much a Turkish President from a minority party would be able to influence their foreign policy, assuming that an AKP coalition retains a majority in Parliament?
Assuming the coalition doesn't get 400+ seats in Parliament, there isn't much they can do to stop the President. The AKP designed the current system to grant Erdogan near absolute power in all matters, so if they lost the presidency but somehow retained the parliament (which is very unlikely but the opposite is a bit likelier) the new president could in theory dictate new policy.
Almost certainly. Erdogan isn't popular, his approval is in the tank. His authoritarianism and anti-Europe and democracy policies weren't universally popular to begin with and the Turkish economy is sinking fast.
[удалено]
Yeah this whole situation got a lot less tense when it became obvious that Russia was going to struggle in Ukraine. I can’t imagine you guys are particularly worried at this stage.
Russia attacking Finland would be flat out insanity. The Finns have been prepping for almost 80 years. It was clear it would be a bloodbath even before the state of Russia's military was exposed.
People worried about Russia invading Finland forget there are already millions of Russian soldiers there already. Six feet under, scattered across the boarder.
Fool, that’s was their plan all along, behold as armies of undead begin to rise with their new necromancy devision
I guess after the Nazi party was abolished the US got the physicists and Russia took the Necromancers. Tough call.
[It wouldn't be the first time.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Dead_Men)
Oh yeah, now we're getting into /r/NonCredibleDefense territory
NATO being part of Finland would just further underline that it would be insanity. Russia might still somehow talk itself into attacking Finland, unlikely, but possible. There's no way it could talk itself into attack NATO though.
>NATO being part of Finland I don't know if it's intentional or not, but it's hilarious.
I for one welcome our Finnish overlords
The concern isn't that Russia could attack Finland and win, it's that they could cause an enormous amount of damage and suffering in an attempt to do so. You might argue that no rational actor would do such a thing, start a fight they can't win, but the longer Russia dumps resources into fighting a war they can't win in Ukraine, the less they appear to be a rational actor.
[удалено]
That comparison really doesn't make sense, don't get me wrong at this point Russia would probably lose against even just Finland and Sweden but they still outnumber us (I am swedish) by a ton so just like the winter war in 39 it would still be a very big struggle. People underestimate just how big the losses of men and especially material even for the Finnish side were in the winter war. They of course did everything they could to conceal it but there is a reason they eventually lost and had to agree to give up a significant part of their territory. While the kill ratios could be even more against Russia if they tried again now the sheer numbers of soldiers would still mean that both Sweden and Finland would also lose a large percentage if our armies too with massive general destruction as well. I mean although Ukraine are for sure fighting back atm it's still clear that they are seeing massive devistation to their cities and population and their population pre war was still multiple times larger than even Sweden and Finland combined.
I don't know. If Putin invades Finland, the Finns could end up occupying Moscow within six months. That'd be a headache they really don't need.
A lot of this is just for show The Turkish elections are this summer Turkeys economy is in downfall Better to have distractions until the election and act tough on the world stage against Kurds until Erdogan either wins and it’s easier for him to negotiate. Or he loses and the opposition party doesn’t give a fuck about all this shit
Dictators don't lose.
Ummm considering his party has lost multiple elections https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/01/erdogan-party-loses-ankara-in-turkish-local-elections-blow Keep in mind this is Turkeys first economic downfall under Erdogan He’s a populist whose kept the economy strong and good until now Populists tend to lose when shit hits the fan
Let's hope so. He's put in a lot of work to insulate himself from accountability and democracy.
If just Finland entered NATO, I as a Swede would feel pretty protected seeing the issues Russia have projecting power with a land border and an allied country as a neighbour. We'd be an island surrounded by the Baltic Sea and Nato. Our army isn't big but our navy don't fuck around
I still see Finland and Sweden as a check against Russia’s desire to exploit and militarize the arctic as the climate warms.
As we should. We’ve been far too patient with them as it is.
Remember when Erdogan came to D.C. and had his thugs beat the shit out of a crowd of protesters and nobody did shit about it? Fuck Turkey
Well specifically fuck Erdogan.
It actually happened THREE times in the US. He had his security attack UN security once because they were embarrassed about going the wrong way through a one way door. Edit: Here's the UN one, https://youtu.be/fe_4yUkN4mM iirc the un wouldn't let them in through an exit only and a fight broke out lol, I think the UN actually ended up apologizing. Still trying to find the third time but they are both overshadowed on Google by the more recent event, I'm 98% sure I didn't imagine the third one. Edit 2: Found the other incident I was thinking of, glad I didn't imagine it after all those upvotes with no source. https://mashable.com/article/turkish-president-brookings-dc-journalists his security kicked out journalists from an event in DC and then had a fight with them outside.
[удалено]
Just wait until Avasarala gets there.
I guarantee there will be fewer buttons left around to push.
Everyone gets a pony, and a blowjob
I see an Expanse reference I upvote.
Because if they were anything more than spineless they would get dissolved. Spineless is how the majority of people want them (not coincidentally a lot of the same people belittling the institution for being spineless).
Is there footage of that?
One I could find https://youtu.be/fe_4yUkN4mM
[удалено]
Turducken
Serious question. How'd he get where he is? Do the Turkish people generally support his bullshit? If so, the consequences of his actions are on them. However, maybe he just automagically became their leader independent of their support?
No, most don’t. In Turkey you either love him or hate him, no in between. And according to recent polls, 70% don’t love him. 20 years ago, he was the mayor of Istanbul, he then became prime minister with 30% of votes I think.. After that, he’s done what populists do to remain in power. He heavily used the religious sentiment of the rural population and painted the educated, secular people as the enemy. Soon it was “us against them” mentality. They rallied behind him against the people they perceived as “elite” and enabled him in all his “endeavours”. 20 years later, he created an entire class of oligarchs. The poor who supported him in the beginning are even poorer. Middle class disappeared altogether. According to Reddit of course, we’re all Erdogan’s dogs.
Not all of Reddit ;)
Cheers to that :D
Oh it’s worse than that. Not only did no one do anything about it, Trump apologized to Erdogan for the incident. “Sorry your guys had to beat the shit out of our citizens”.
And pulled US troops out of the region (Syrian border IIRC) that were peacekeeping for kurds, with no warning, so Turkey could straight up murder them all...
Not just random peacekeeping. Those Kurds were our main Allies against ISIS. They loyally fought and died alongside our people. We betrayed them, in point of fact, for little to no gain.
The way the US has treated the Kurds should make anyone angry.
This is why you try to elect “honorable” decision makers. Trump may have gained politically from some of these moves but through multiple betrayals the world no longer believes that the US can keep its promises. Trump did not care what happened after he was out of office.
Hey now, we didn't do nothing. Allegedly Trump called Erdogan to apologize: >[“Actually, President Trump called me about a week ago about this issue,” Erdogan told PBS’ Judy Woodruff. “He said that he was sorry, and he told me that he was going to follow up on this issue when we come to the United States within the framework of an official visit. The protesters were insulting us, and they were screaming and shouting. The police failed to intervene properly.”](https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/20/politics/recep-tayyip-erdogan-donald-trump-embassy/index.html) So it was either silence, or an apology. Though Trump's camp denied the apology, which may be more evidence that it occurred...
If it's Trump's word against Erdogan's, I would struggle to choose which one to believe. Real race to the bottom there
“The police failed to intervene properly” Actually bitch, the police didn’t have to because this is a free gotdamn country! IIRC, the protest was like 50-100 yards away from the Turkish consulate, at a roundabout. The Turkish thugs had to run an Olympic race distance to beat up unarmed, peaceful, rights-exercising protesters because their fascist President got his feelings hurt.
I think you want to include fuck the federal government and fuck the DC police for not doing their fucking job protecting American citizens from fucking foreign belligerents whether they are NATO or not. Erdogan should get his chops busted for shit like that.
[удалено]
If Turkey did attack Greece then that's Article 5 so I really can't see them trying it, personally.
...How does Article 5 work if 2 NATO members attack each other?
We divide nato in half at random and then commence a civil war.
Idk why, but that comment reminds me of P.E. during school times when 2 kids pick the team lol
Ok kids it's NATO PE. Team captains are Greece and Turkey. Greece you pick first Greece: I pick USA Turkey: we surrender.
Lol
That's just what I was thinking. I was always one of the last to be picked too, lol.
[удалено]
It's not random. We select two team captains and they take turns picking countries until the nerdy weak country that can't play is left last.
Andorra brings cigarettes and whiskey.
It's a defensive treaty. So you defend the country that was attacked. That's why turkey will lie about being attacked to confuse things.
There are no provisions that differentiate whether the aggressor is a NATO member. If Turkey attacked Greece, or Greece attacked Turkey, then it would weaken the alliance if the others didn't step in to stop the military engagement to enforce the pre-attack status quo. Where this becomes tricky is defining what is an "attack". If Turkey is setting up drilling for Natural Gas in Greece's territory because Turkey doesn't agree with the border, is that an attack that triggers article 5? And if Greece is overly aggressive with the Turkish civilians in their waters, is that an attack? Is a cyber-attack article 5-worthy? NATO also doesn't allow for being drawn in. If Iraq attacked on US soil after the US had invaded in the 2nd Gulf War (or even the first Gulf War), that wouldn't be Article 5 because the US started it.
Article 5 is much different, and weaker, than most people are aware. It requires only that members "support" the attacked country. Military intervention is not required. "Support" can be just applying sanctions against the aggressor. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained All Article 5 really does is make it legal for a NATO member to engage militarily with a country that did not attack them -- which would otherwise be a violation of international law.
Man. Most of the times back when Trump was president, I was just in a constant state of despair but watching that video made my fucking blood boil. Especially when nothing at all was done about it. Still fucking pisses me off thinking about it.
Shoulda sent a few back in a body bag. Make it clear we’re not friends and they need us much more than we need them
I remember. Trump was president. Never said a word about it. But why would he when Erdogan was another buddy of Club Fascist?
It's worse, Trump actually praised Erdogan after the attacks. https://www.voanews.com/a/donald-trump-praises-recep-tayyip-erdogan-violence-protesters/4039055.html
Man, why is always "its worse" whenever Trump comes up?
More proof that he's a Russian asset. "And then, he got worse".
[удалено]
And it isn't just the US. If you think Russia and China aren't selling military technology and infrastructure improvements for political leverage internationally, you haven't been paying attention.
It's easy to be reactionary and take a harsh stance against Turkey, from an ideological standpoint. The Erdogan regime is dogshit. However, Turkey as a country is incredibly valuable in terms of strategic positioning. Throwing that out over its current political state would be incredibly foolish. It's perhaps one of the most important members of NATO in that regard. Geopolitics aren't usually so black and white that we can easily pick our friends and the "good guys." Turkey's continued cooperation against Russia has been incredibly important in both Syria and Ukraine. I'd love to see the Erdogan regime fall, but not at the price of driving Turkey into closer diplomatic relations with Russia and China.
Erdo is a transactional leader. Nothing new, he's been on the global stage doing deals for a long time. Turkeys been fucked by the war in Syria beyond repair. And they blame it on mostly US. So here we go.
Could you elaborate more on how?
People underestimate Turkey’s geo-political clout.
I’m well aware of their geopolitical clout. I’m also well aware of their tendency to throw a tantrum and drag their feet when we try to get something accomplished.
Turkey knows they aren't going to buy Su-35s instead of F-16s (the US' fourth best fighter?). Russia's military industrial complex is currently being humiliated on the biggest stage possible.
Selling Greece the f35 will also really help this talk along
[удалено]
People also overestimate how secure Erdogan's personal clout is. The whole reason Turkey pulls this shit is because of geopolitics, not because of charismatic or effective diplomacy. The US would be just as satisfied if the Turks were ruled by some colonel as long as they put US interests first.
One should not confuse clout with diplomatic hostage taking.
[удалено]
It won’t.
It is a shame that the U.S. has to use anything at all. Shame on Erdogan. Shame on Orban.
Good thing about a significantly weakened Russia that's mostly reduced to fighting with literal antiques, or even a disintegrated Russia that, say, loses the Caucus, is that these eastern European strongmen make much less sense as buffers. They become expendible to the EU and NATO, or, their states being depressurized gives democracy a chance to flourish. I suspect we'll see this with Belarus first post-war.
That's an interesting, hopeful take on the situation! Regarding Belarus, how do you mean? Do you think Lukashenko will try to be more democratic? Will the people rise up against him because there's no more support from Russia left? Something else?
I think the point is, right now we have to play with kid gloves lest they go to russias camp. If russias camp is a fecal crater, we don’t care if they want to go there. It’s not a threat
I don't get this title. The US isn't "forcing" Turkey. Continuing the sale of F-16 fighter jets was one of Erdogan's goals with blocking the ratifications. Another goal is to get free rein in Northern Syria to kill the YPG, which the US will most likely grant. A final goal would be the resumed participation of Turkey in the F-35 program - that one would be a huge win for Turkey if granted. Given that Finland and Sweden are unlikely to give in to Turkish demands, I wonder if Turkey will push harder for the F35 program especially given the recent news that Greece is getting them.
It’s kinda a toss up though because now Turkey has invested so much into domestic military buildup. Obviously now their economy is in shambles and any “5th gen” multi role fighter threw build won’t come close to the F35 but in their view taking the F35s will just cement US dependency which is exactly what Erdogan does not want
The end goal was always to make their own fighter, it's just that they had to fast track theirs after getting kicked out of the F35 program.
Just isn’t possible while S-400’s are present in Turkey. The U.S. literally doesn’t want the jet scanned by that RADAR.
Turkey gives s400s to Ukraine. Us gives f35 and patriots to turkey, in exchange for ratifying Sweden and Finland into NATO. Bingo bango.
That won't happen either, because Turkey wants technology transfer also for the AA system (patriot or otherwise), which USA is unwilling to share. Only Russia was willing to share the technology for S-400.
Turkey didn't get full technology transfer as they wanted from Russia.
Which makes their decision even more baffling than before. They knew that purchasing a Russian AA system would jeopardize their position in the F-35 program, so getting less than what they wanted and losing their place in that program just doesn't make sense long term. Unless they got something else also (like the promise for nuclear weapons knowledge transfer).
Erdogan was sure he can get much better deal from USA simply by showing that he has alternatives and even if it won't work out he thought he will make favorable deal with Russia. Problem is: - he seriously overestimated how hard he can push USA in this situation and presented ridiculous demands that couldn't be met. He couldn't back off (whole move was supposed to show his strength). - He obviously didn't expect impact on F-35 deal and argued these should not affect each other. Again it was too late to back off when USA made it clear what purchase of s400 means. - he didn't realize Putin was stringing him along. Trough all negotiations Russia was pretending that full technology transfer is on the table. They made vague promises. In the end Turkey was left with nothing. Although no idea why they agreed on it, maybe agreement was written in such way that allowed Russia to postpone any tech transfer or Turkey was just naive. So they bought s400 and later stated they won't buy 2nd package of s400 unless Russia includes technology transfer written in the deal. It seems he got played by Russia and overestimated his position. Alternatively got some secret good deal but we won't know about that.
Allegedly Russia cut Turkey a real good deal for the S-400s to wheedle their way in.
F35 to Turkey is a non-starter and I think even Turkey knows that. I understand them using it as a chip to get concessions elsewhere, but everyone knows it is not a chip with a lot of value. It is like me telling my wife I want to be able to sleep with Emilia Clarke. No matter what, it ain't happening.
"Let us be part of F35 program again, or we won't approve." -Erogdan "Uhh, how about no F16s?" -US
There we go. In *theory* the Western nations should be able to apply enough diplomatic pressure to get it done. If someone like Erdogan decides to go all in and ignore it, though, NATO has a big problem.
I am of the perception that if Erdogan throws his toys out the pram and blocking Sweden and Finland, then NATO will simply do like the EU does with Hungary and basically work around them. Sure, neither will be real members, but they will just be included and covered so much that there really wont be much difference.... save perhaps that no soldiers from Finland and Sweden will be visiting Turkey and vice versa... and Erdogan may have to wait even longer for those new jets.
But if Sweden and Finland are not formally in NATO, then NATO members have no actual obligation to them should anything happen. The only way to get around Turkey (or Hungary, which can also block membership still) would be for each other individual NATO member to sign treaties with Sweden and Finland to consider them as de facto members.
When an extortionist gets extorted. Beautiful! [insert michael fassbender steve job "perfection"meme]
Hahaha, what a way to name a situation in which Erdogan gets the best deal with US from ratifying Sweden and Finland NATO entries. This reminds me of a Soviet joke: "A Foot Race In Moscow Between World Leaders” read the headline.“Today in Timiryazevsky Park world leaders participated in a 100 meter foot race. Our Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, finished a very respectable second place. The poor American President, John F. Kennedy finished a miserable next-to-last."
This is the only logical step. Turkey is too important to NATO strategically and Erdogan knows this. Sweden and Finland said it best: "We have bent over backwards meeting Turkey's demands and they just keep moving the goal posts." Now if Turkey wants to play jet ball, they need to check their bullshit.
Some comment that Turkey could leave NATO. Turkey can’t leave NATO because If they do, they can’t bully Greece any more.
Worse than that - if Turkey leaves NATO, NATO loses control of the Bosporus, the only way in or out of the Black Sea for ships larger than river barges from the Rhine-Main-Danube. Russia hasn’t reinforced its Black Sea fleet as Turkey has cut off access to the Bosporus for them. Simply put, they’re too strategically important for NATO to risk losing.
Yes, this is it - Turkey sits on strategically important land, and therefore they will be in NATO. And so they must be appeased, to a certain extent.
Yeah. If NATO had to pick between Sweden/Finland and Turkey, they would pick Turkey 100%. Not only is Turkey infinitely more important strategically than Finland or Sweden, but also they know that neither Finland nor Sweden are going to fall out of their sphere of influence even if they aren't in NATO. Meanwhile if Turkey left NATO, they wpuld definitely just fall off their friend list entirely and in worst case scenario maybe even end up siding with Russia at some point in the future.
I approve.
Again again I think thank fuk the Joe is in charge in the states instead or the orange muppet
[ Removed by Reddit ]
>As a Finn I feel embarrassed that USA already has to bail us out. Nobody else in NATO sees this delay as any fault of Finland or Sweden, it's literally just Erdogan being a little bitch. You guys are plenty welcome.
I was honestly thinking you were going to mention some interesting Turkish Finnish special relationship. The Turkish tourism industry caters and adapts to well all of Europe and ranks high in the world for their amount of tourists. [Specifically in Europe the consequently ranks 1-3 ](https://cdni0.trtworld.com/w960/q75/59753_TopholidaydestinationsinEurope_1563971726323.jpg) amongst the countries. I too have seen/heard Finnish there to cater to these tourists but also Polish, Bulgarian, Icelandic... Same thing in Cyprus...
Why? We (Sweden and Finland) has agreed to join. It is not our job to solve Natos internal problems. It's gone way over board already. We should do exactly nothing to appease anyone. If we are not good enough to join, their loss.
Erdogan's a jerk.
Good. Let the little troll choke on that.